The National Planning Policy Framework

House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee

Eighth Report of Session 2010–12

Volume II Additional written evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 15 December 2011

Published on 21 December 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

The Communities and Local Government Committee

The Communities and Local Government Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Current membership Mr Clive Betts MP (Labour, Sheffield South-East) (Chair) Heidi Alexander MP (Labour, Lewisham East) Bob Blackman MP (Conservative, Harrow East) Simon Danczuk MP Rochdale (Labour, Rochdale) Bill Esterson MP (Labour, Sefton Central) Stephen Gilbert MP (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) George Hollingbery MP (Conservative, Meon Valley) James Morris MP (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis) Mark Pawsey MP (Conservative, Rugby) Heather Wheeler MP, (Conservative, South Derbyshire)

Steve Rotheram MP (Labour, Liverpool Walton) was also a member of the Committee during this inquiry.

Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/parliament.uk/clg. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.

The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume.

Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Glenn McKee (Clerk), Judith Boyce (Second Clerk), Josephine Willows (Inquiry Manager), Kevin Maddison (Committee Specialist), Emily Gregory (Senior Committee Assistant), Mandy Sullivan (Committee Assistant), Stewart McIlvenna, (Committee Support Assistant) and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Communities and Local Government Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 1234; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

List of additional written evidence

(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/treascom)

Page Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) Ev w261 Anglian Water Ev w218 Paul Appleby CEng FCIBSE FRSA Ev w69 ARUP Ev w126 Association of Convenience Stores Ev w33 Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport Ev w260 John Baker Ev w190 Professor Kate Barker Ev w351 Professor Michael Ball Ev w348 Banbury Civic Society Ev w121 Barrett Developments PLC Ev w48 Neil Blackshaw Ev w131 BRE Global Ev w6, w9 British Aggregates Association Ev w201 British Ceramic Confederation Ev w89 British Council of Shopping Centres Ev w329 Buckinghamshire County Council Ev w316 Business in Sport and Leisure Ev w142 Alan Butland, Theatre Researcher Ev w118 CBI Minerals Group Ev w56 Cemex UK Ev w207 Chartered Institute of Housing Ev w276 Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM) Ev w258 City of London Corporation Ev w352 Commission for Rural Communities Ev w202 Community and Regional Planning Services Ev w27 Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Ev w344 Confederation of UK Coal Producers (CoalPro) Ev w133 Paule Constable Ev w69 Country Land and Business Association Ev w232 County Councils Network Ev w158 CTC, the National Cyclists’ Organisation Ev w290 Cutting Edge Planning and Design Ev w10 Design Council Ev w292 East Midlands Council (EMC) Ev w342 EDF Energy Ev w 21 English Heritage Ev w177 English National Parks Authorities Association Ev w338 Environmental Services Association Ev w298 E.ON UK Ev w53

Federation of Master Builders Ev w187 Fields in Trust Ev w173 Rick Fisher Ev w280 Professor David Fisk CB FRAEng FCIBSE FRIBA (Hons) Ev w31 Freight on Rail Ev w184 Friends of the Earth Ev w240 Professor Vincent Goodstadt Ev w306 GreenSpace Ev w215 Greener Journeys Ev w140 Hampshire County Council Ev w42 Heritage Alliance Ev w320 Highbury Group on Housing Delivery Ev w82 Highgate Society Ev w229 Historic Houses Association Ev w86 Michael Holden Ev w145 David Holmes Ev w1 Home Builders Association and the Planning and Development Association Ev w77 IMERYS Minerals Ltd Ev w175 Inland Waterways Association’s Restoration and Navigation Committees Ev w208 Institute for Archaeologists Ev w65 Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) Ev w258 Institution of Civil Engineers Ev w211 ixia Ev w115 Colin Johns Ev w220 Kent County Council Ev w325 Kings Theatre Trust Ltd Ev w96 Landscape Institute Ev w180 Leicestershire County Council Ev w303 Dr Tim Leunig Ev w341 Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants Ev w225 Little Theatre Guild of Great Britain Ev w81 Liverpool and Merseyside Theatres Trust Ev w221 Living Streets Ev w100 London Councils Ev w295 London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies (London Forum) Ev w269 London Sustainable Development Commission (LSDC) Ev w159 McCarthy and Stone Ev w3 Mineral Products Association Ev w58 North West Transport Roundtable Ev w97 National Federation of Artists’ Studio Providers Ev w157 National Grid Ev w313 National Housing Federation Ev w247 Nicholas Ducker & Co Ev w353 North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Ev w265 Oxford City Council Ev w104

Oxylane Group Ev w165 Partnership for Urban South Hampshire, Quality Place Delivery Panel Ev w102 Places for People Ev w281 Rail Freight Group Ev w95 Renewable Energy Association Ev w130 RenewableUK Ev w252 Residential Landlords Association Ev w108 Dr Gavin Rider Ev w25 Robson Planning Consultancy Ev w70 Rochford District Council Ev w112 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Ev w199 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Ev w285 South Bucks District Council Ev w205 South East Strategic Leaders Ev w325 Tom Spaul, Chief Operating Officer, Veolia Environmental Services Ev w196 Sport and Recreation Alliance Ev w113 Sport England Ev w134 Staffordshire County Council Ev w124 Surrey County Council Ev w323 Sustrans Ev w37 Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd Ev w67 UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy (UKBCSE) Ev w332 UK Environmental Law Association (UKELA) Ev w152 Urban Design Group Ev w245 Voluntary Arts Ev w94 West Berkshire Council Ev w91 West Midlands Planning and Transportation Sub Committee Ev w146 The Wildlife Trusts Ev w235 Woodland Trust Ev w61

List of unprinted written evidence

The following memoranda have been reported to the House, but to save printing costs they have not been printed and copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library, where they may be inspected by Members. Other copies are in the Parliamentary Archives, and are available to the public for inspection. Requests for inspection should be addressed to The Parliamentary Archives, Houses of Parliament, London SW1A 0PW (tel. 020 7219 3074). Opening hours are from 9.30 am to 5.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays.

NPPF 137 Camden Association of Street Properties

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Written evidence

Written submission from David Holmes

Executive Summary — The draft NPPF is a concise and practical document. It may need a light touch to amplify or supplement points during implementation but it is a clear and balanced approach to plan making and development management. — The authors request that it is read in the round (Paragraphs 8 and 12). If done so the key principles are very clear and provide for a planning balance to be achieved in line with the economic, social and environmental factors put forward. — It generally provides sufficient guidance to the parties identified in question one on general principles. There are few areas for supplementary guidance to be developed (calculating housing requirements, viability and strategic environmental assessment). These are detailed in the main text. As a principle however these should be kept to a minimum and only considered where necessary to provide consistency of approach. — With regard to “sustainable development” provided the document is read as a whole and all of the references to “sustainable development” are picked up it provides a comprehensive and workable framework. — The core planning principles are clear, concise and relevant. — The relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning related policies is clear. Effective management of the framework is key. — There remains a residual concern that the Duty to Co-operate can be viewed as a statement of faith rather than a statement of fact. The matter presumably will be dealt with through the test of soundness in the examination of local plans. — The need for the provision of up to date evidence including market trends is given sufficient weight in the document. Supplemental guidance on technical matters may be necessary. These points are referenced in our main text.

Answer

The guidance on general principles is ﬁt for purpose. There are three matters which perhaps should be considered in more detail as matters for supplementary material. These relate to: — Calculating housing requirements The drafting of Paragraphs 107 to 111 is relevant and supported. Paragraphs 109 and 111 (in part) refer to the need for housing to be based on current and future demographic trends/market trends. There should be consistency of approach in the preparation of this evidence and an ongoing role for SHMA’s and SHLAA’s. In this context further guidance on the methodology for the calculation of housing requirements would be welcome and have the beneﬁt of avoiding duplication of effort and debate at Local Plan examination and Inquiry if necessary. — Viability The recognition of viability as a material factor within the NPPF is fully supported. Although a matter frequently debated it would be helpful if the NPPF could be supported by a clear statement of CLG policy on the appropriate parameters to be consistently applied in verifying viability. This would assist local plan inspectors in determining soundness of the plan, the community infrastructure levy (CIL) if a charging schedule is proposed and to inform local authorities and PINS if necessary when considering viability in the context of determining planning obligations. — Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Although there is general reference to compliance with EU environmental law it may be helpful to give a timely reminder to local planning authorities of the need to subject Development Plan Documents to an SEA. This would help remove potential for future judicial review with all of its attendant risks of costs and delay. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w2 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Q2. Is the definition of sustainable development contained in the document appropriate, and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? Answer The Brundtland definition has the benefit of simplicity and familiarity. It works in the context of the NPPF because of all the criteria which could be applied to evaluating sustainability are referenced within the main text of the framework. It may be helpful to bring all of these references together in one appendix. The Brundtland definition without these references would have little value at a planning Inquiry, for example.

Q3. Are the core planning principles clearly and appropriately expressed? Answer A short but considered response is yes. The principles are balanced, clear and appropriate.

Q4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning related policy clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? Answer The positioning and relationship of NPPF to other policy areas is clear. If applied consistently and with equal weight between departments it should facilitate effective corporate working.

Q5. Does the NPPF together with the “duty to co-operate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger—than—local strategic planning? Answer Provided the parties establish early strong and effective methods of co-operation then perhaps the duty of co-operation can be effective at a regional and sub regional level. The point is perhaps unproven at the moment. The matter presumably will be dealt with through the test of soundness in the examination of local plans with the default position based on the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the absence of an approved local plan.

Q6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence based? Answer There is an appropriate and welcome recognition of the need for up to date evidence to be applied in plan making.

Fitness for Purpose — As a starting point the draft NPPF is fit for purpose. It provides a clear and balanced approach to a plan lead system which fully recognises the basic principles and interaction of economic, social and environmental considerations with a strengthening of local choice and determination. The authors of the document call for it to be read in the round (Paragraphs eight and 12). If done so, it demonstrates a considered and comprehensive approach to plan making. — The principle of planning for prosperity (the economic driver) is self evident within the document. The draft NPPF, does not, as some parties suggest dilute environmental protection. There is simply a rebalancing of priorities and a requirement for plan making to be approached with vigour, responsibility and timeliness. The impetus which this could bring should be welcomed. — The need for supplemental guidance in a few areas is noted particularly with regard to Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMA) and will be dealt with more fully in formal responses to DCLG by 17 October 2011. — As a final point there is a need for consistency in plan making and for the plan making cycle to complete itself. One of the factors behind low housing delivery in the recent past has been the plethora of planning reforms introduced since the turn of the century which seem to have frustrated rather than enabled effective plan making. The introduction of the NPPF provides a very clear statement of intent, incentive and sanction to encourage effective and up to date plans to be produced. There will undoubtedly be tensions in implementing this framework, if it is confirmed in this form, but that is inherent in the nature of planning where judgment is exercised to achieve an appropriate planning balance. The strength of the document is the clarity it brings to the “core principles” of planning which are themselves balanced and contribute to “sustainable development.” 11 August 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w3

Written evidence from McCarthy and Stone A. Summary — There is much to welcome in the draft NPPF and we support the Government’s work through the document to promote economic growth and address the country’s chronic housing shortage. — While we welcome its overall direction, it is our view that the Framework requires more focus on policies that support the delivery of housing for older people. Three reports in 2011, including one by the APPG on Housing and Care for Older People in July,1 called on the NPPF to reference the housing needs of those in later life across all tenures. Such measures will ensure that local councils plan properly for housing the elderly and address many of the policy challenges caused by an ageing population. — While the draft NPPF does highlight the need for local authorities to plan for demographic change, these measures are not suitably clear and are unlikely to be powerfully enforced in their current form. Current planning policy requires authorities to plan for housing for older people, yet few councils do this adequately.2 As a result, around 65% of planning applications for this form of housing are met with refusal first time round by councils. With the national roll back of guidance, there is concern that few councils will act as intended unless the NPPF is more robust. — Our key recommendations for the Framework are: — Include the need to plan for demographic change as part of the definition of the Presumption of Sustainable Development and as one of the core planning principles of the whole document. — Include a clearer requirement that local authorities plan for housing for older people across all tenures including for private ownership as part of their SHMAs. Historically, these have focused on the social rented sector. — The Government is hoping industry will produce its own guidance to fill the gap left by the rollback of national policy. Local authorities should be advised in the NPPF to “proactively seek” such guidance to ensure it is considered. — Publish CLG’s proposed new SHMA guidance before the final NPPF is agreed and for it to be adopted as part of the Framework. — Make a greater acknowledgement of the link between health and social benefits and specialist housing. — Recommend that local authorities supply the results of their SHMAs to neighbourhood forums so local residents use the correct evidence base.

B. General Overview 1. McCarthy & Stone welcomes the draft NPPF and the attempt to create a simpler planning system, promote economic growth and address the country’s chronic housing shortage. It is a step in the right direction with some very positive measures. 2. We welcome the attempt to stimulate housing delivery, which has been stymied in part by an unresponsive planning system. We support two policies in particular. Clause 19 states that planning should proactively drive and support the development needs of the country and that every step should be taken to meet the housing and business needs of an area. Clause 39 states that council planners should not subject proposals to a scale of obligations and policy burdens that would make developments unviable. It also states that councils should assess the cumulative impacts of their plans and policies and ensure their impact does not put development at risk. This is welcome and is a step towards a recommendation made in a recent report by the University of Reading that specialist housing for older people should treated as equal to affordable housing.3 Both measures would be of real assistance in boosting housing and economic growth and this approach is pleasing at a time of economic uncertainty. 3. However, the challenges facing the retirement accommodation sector are severe, and as a result, the NPPF needs to go further to address the housing needs of older people. The demographic imperative to act is clear. The number of people aged over 65 will grow from 10 million to 16.7 million by 2035,4 but the UK has built just 105,000 specialist retirement homes for owner occupation, significantly less than other developed countries. As half of new household growth by 2026 will be by those aged over 65, it is essential that demographic change is recognised and given weight in the NPPF. 4. How the country manages the challenges created by a rapidly ageing population is one of the biggest policy issues of modern times, impacting across Government departments. Specialist housing for older people is a key determining factor in the well-being of the elderly and to unlocking a range of public benefits. As well as being relatively affordable, it: provides a higher quality of life for older people; increases energy efficiency 1 Age of Opportunity, Centre for Social Justice, June 2011. Living well at Home Inquiry, All Party Parliamentary Group for Housing and Care for Older People, July 2011. Housing markets and independence in old age: expanding the opportunities, University of Reading, May 2011. 2 Breaking the Mould, National Housing Federation, P39, 2011 3 Ibid, P40 4 All Party Parliamentary Group on Housing and Care for Older People. Living Well at Home Inquiry, P7, July 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w4 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

in the home; boosts local communities; reduces the impact of the elderly on public services; allows for equity release; and supports local housing markets by releasing much-needed family homes back onto local housing markets. It is a highly sustainable form of housing development. 5. Few specialist homes have been built as the sector in part due to an unresponsive planning system. As noted in more detail below, local authorities have failed to plan properly for housing for older people across all tenures (and particularly in the private sector) within their needs assessments and housing strategies. They have also failed to appreciate the health beneﬁts of such housing. 6. Specialist retirement housing is a risky market to succeed in. Developers must deliver a lifestyle, not just a building, so it is critical that schemes are suitably located and designed as well as fully built before any occupations can take place. Communal space within the building usually requires some 30% being “non- saleable” ﬂoor space. Management, care and support services must also be provided. It is not surprising that there are few developers in this sector. 7. It is therefore imperative that planning constraints and burdens are removed to encourage delivery. While the NPPF does much to achieve this, more needs to be done to make this sector sustainable for new operators. The current planning system is not designed to meet the challenges of housing our ageing population and is blocking the provision of new retirement housing. When public sector funding is limited for new housing, particularly for older people, restrictions on the delivery of new private retirement accommodation need to be removed. The following sections outline how the NPPF can address these problems.

C. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? 8. It is essential that the draft NPPF ensures that local authorities plan properly for the housing needs of older people across all tenures, particularly in their Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMAs). While the NPPF attempts to address this, it is our view that these measures must be considerably stronger. 9. Existing policy has failed to deliver the right mix of housing for millions of older people with differing needs. This historic shortfall is largely due to lack of clarity in national planning guidance and lack of strategic, expert guidance for local authorities on how to properly assess the housing needs of their older communities. Where councils have looked at the housing needs of older people, they have been limited in scope, failing to plan for all types of housing,5 and focused on public, rather than private provision when around 70% of people live in owner-occupied homes. As a result, around 65% of planning applications for new retirement housing schemes are met with refusal first time round because of a lack of understanding and appreciation of the need and merits of this form of housing.6 10. Previous planning policy (via PPS 3, para 20 and the RSSs) required authorities to plan for housing for older people and to have regard to demographic trends, yet few councils did this adequately.7 Unless this requirement is suitably clear and powerfully enforced in the NPPF, concern remains that few councils will act as intended. Failure to do so could result in a more challenging planning system with more applications going to appeal. 11. Clauses 28 and 111 in the draft NPPF make reference to the need for local authorities to plan for new homes and prepare SHMAs. It is pleasing to see Clause 28 make specific reference to the need for councils to identify the housing needs of older people across the range of tenures. Clause 111 also states that they should identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required, including for the elderly. It is essential that these clauses remain in the NPPF. 12. However, the Framework needs to go further given the lack of action to date. It is important to strengthen and clarify the requirements on local authorities to undertake robust assessments in order to ensure the delivery of more specialist housing for older people. One recommended change is in Clause 28, line 11, where “across all tenures” should be added after “community”. This should help ensure that local authorities plan for private housing provision for older people, as opposed to just social provision, which most focus on at present. 13. In light of the roll back of national guidance, the Government intends for the development sector to prepare its own best practice guidance to help inform local councils. It would be helpful if the NPPF was to encourage authorities to proactively seek such guidance and, where it exists, to have due regard to its advice. 14. While the NPPF places weight on the SHMA to ensure that local authorities have the correct evidence base to inform their housing and planning strategies, there is nothing within the NPPF regarding how the SHMA should be compiled. SHMAs vary greatly from authority to authority and in our experience they are often deficient. Many look at the housing needs of younger people, families and those in the social rented sector, but few plan for the housing provision for older people in the private sector. In 2007, CLG produced best practice guidance on how SHMAs should be produced and we understand this document will be updated in late 2011. Given the weight the NPPF places on the SHMA, CLG’s updated SHMA guidance should be published before the final NPPF is available. The SHMA guidance document should also be adopted as part of the Framework to ensure that local authorities give sufficient weight to its advice and recommendations. 5 Breaking the Mould, National Housing Federation, P39, 2011 6 Housing markets and independence in old age: expanding the opportunities, University of Reading, P6, May 2011 7 Breaking the Mould, National Housing Federation, P39, 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w5

15. It is also important that the NPPF makes sufficient acknowledgement of the link between health and housing. While the inclusion of a (single) paragraph on the importance of health and well being factors in planning (Clause 38), is welcomed, it is our view that this needs to be strengthened given the wealth of evidence that notes the role of specialist housing in improving the health of older people. The impact of an ageing society is being felt across Government, particularly in relation to health, social care, economic growth and welfare. Specialist housing for older people delivers substantial health benefits and the Dilnot Commission noted that better housing for older people can help remove the pressures on social care provision by delaying the need to move into care. For instance, providing suitable housing conditions that delays the move to residential care by one year saves on average £28,080 per person.8 By addressing this in the NPPF, councils will be required to view future applications for retirement homes positively. To achieve this, the following additional sentence is suggested to be included in Clause 38: Local authorities should view positively those planning applications that deliver social and health benefits to local residents, particularly for families, the elderly and the disabled.

16. Also, local authorities should be required to supply the results of the SHMAs to neighbourhood forums to ensure neighbourhood plans are produced using the correct evidence base. The increased role by local people in neighbourhood planning means it is essential that they are provided with sufﬁcient information to make the best decisions. A requirement on the local authority to circulate the results of the SHMA to participants in local and neighbourhood plan formation could help address this.

17. Finally, Clause 109 states that local authorities should not plan to meet their housing supply based on windfall sites. As most sites that come forward for retirement accommodation are normally classiﬁed as windfall developments (suitable sites can be old large detached properties, redundant garages or old breweries) they do not feature as allocated sites in local plans. Therefore it does not make sense to exclude these sites from the housing numbers when they can and should form part of an authority’s housing supply. Again this puts retirement housing at a disadvantage compared to traditional house building.

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

18. The Presumption offers a real opportunity to set the broad parameters for encouraging good, high quality housing while delivering economic growth. It should also spur councils into ensuring that they have up-to-date plans in place, which in turn will add clarity to the development process.

19. Given the positive economic role that housing for older people plays (particularly via the construction process and in freeing up the housing chain, which eventually assists ﬁrst time buyers), we welcome the statement in the Presumption that “signiﬁcant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system”.

20. However, given the impact of our ageing population, we feel that the need to plan for demographic change should be included as a core part of the deﬁnition of what is “sustainable development”. It is difﬁcult to contemplate a more sustainable form of development than that of well designed and located housing for older people and which helps to address many of the impacts of our ageing population. The need to plan for demographic change should therefore be included as part of the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development, and a fourth bullet to Clause 14 is suggested: View positively housing applications that seek to address the changing nature of the UK’s demographic, such as specialist homes for older people across all tenures, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

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

21. Given the importance of the changing nature of the population, the increasing numbers of older people and the positive personal and public beneﬁts of specialist housing for older people, the need to plan for demographic change should be included as one of the strategic planning principles of the whole NPPF, particularly as it impacts across Government. The following additional principle is recommended for Clause 19:

Planning policies should take into account the impact of demographic changes to society, particularly the needs and aspirations of older people and the need to plan for more suitable homes for the elderly across all tenures, including specialist retirement housing.

22. While it may be viewed that specific reference to the housing needs of older people is inappropriate in a document that attempts to be succinct, the NPPF already contains reference to other forms of development, such as new rail freight infrastructure and ports (both Clause 85) and bird habitats (Clause 15). It is our view that the demographic imperative of planning properly for our ageing population is important enough to be given significant weight and specifically referenced in the NPPF. 8 Housing LIN figures, 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w6 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

F. Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others, including investors and developers, while at the same time giving local communities sufficient power over planning decisions? 23. In our view the balance between the role of the developer, local authority and the community is about right. However, we have two particular concerns. 24. First, as the role of local residents in the planning process is crucial, it is important that their powers are clarified. Clauses 50 and 51 note the role of neighbourhood plans in the context of their relation to local plans. Clause 50 notes that neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with local plans, suggesting that local plans take precedence if the two are in conflict on “strategic decisions”. However, Clause 51 then states “When a neighbourhood plan is made, its policies take precedence over existing policies in the local plan for that neighbourhood”. The two clauses therefore seem to be in contradiction. Further clarity is needed, particularly on what is deemed a “strategic” decision. It is our view that local plans must take precedence and the two should never conflict with other. Otherwise, there will be considerable scope for confusion. 25. Second, as stated earlier, local authorities should also be required to supply the results of the SHMAs to neighbourhood forums to ensure their neighbourhood plans are produced using the correct evidence base.

G. About McCarthy & Stone 26. McCarthy & Stone provides around 70% of all private retirement and Extra Care housing for older homeowners in the UK. To date, we have built approximately 50,000 dwellings across 1,000 different schemes. Our retirement housing customers are on average 78 years old and our Extra Care customers 83 years old. All of our developments are built for private ownership at an affordable price—usually 10% to 15% below the average house price in a particular area. Our two main development types are Retirement Living (similar to traditional “Category 2” type sheltered housing) and Extra Care (Assisted Living). More recently we have launched a new form of specialist housing—Tailored Care Living, as an alternative to traditional care homes, retaining home ownership with built-in personal and domestic care facilities. 15 August 2011

Written evidence from BRE Global Summary — We welcome the aim of the draft NPPF to provide a relatively short, clear statement of Government policy, while recognising the complexity of applying the principles of sustainable development in practice. — Sustainable construction is of major signiﬁcance to the UK economy as well as to the Government’s aspiration to be “the greenest government ever”. — Schemes such as the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM (BRE Environmental Assessment Method) provide a way of addressing sustainable development issues holistically. Reference to a national framework for the setting and evaluation of sustainability standards would provide consistency for the construction industry and avoid confusion, while allowing local planning authorities discretion in how to apply such standards in their areas. — BRE Global would be happy to help with drafting good practice guidance on the implementation of sustainable construction policies and practice in the planning system.

Introduction 1. BRE Global manages the implementation of the Code for Sustainable Homes under contract to the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is also responsible for the BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) family of schemes. BREEAM is the longest established and most widely used methodology in the world for assessing the environmental performance of buildings. 2. BRE Global is one of the BRE Trust group of companies with a history stretching back over ninety years. It was formed following the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment which had been part of government. 3. The constituent companies within the group gift aid their proﬁts to the BRE Trust (a registered charity) to undertake research and education for the beneﬁt of the built environment. 4. As an example of the value of sustainable construction to the UK, BRE Ltd has recently signed a contract to develop an innovation park in China which is worth up to £100 million to UK industry. It has also recently signed an accord with the Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology to collaborate on Brasilia Innovation Park. 5. Many leading organisations in both the public and private sectors require BREEAM assessment of their buildings as a matter of policy because it provides a comprehensive and cost-effective way of improving both cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w7

environmental and economic performance. The Government includes a requirement9 for all buildings in its estate to undergo assessment as an integral part of its drive to reduce carbon emissions and improve sustainability. 6. BRE Global thus occupies a unique position, as part of the de facto centre of excellence for the built environment and in terms of its track record and expertise in promoting sustainability. In particular, the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM have achieved national and international recognition as the leading assessment methodologies in their ﬁeld. 7. Our evidence relates primarily to a) the importance of sustainable construction to both the UK economy as a whole and to the Government’s policies on sustainable development, climate change and carbon emissions and b) the role that policies on sustainable construction can play in the planning system. Where appropriate we have tried to relate this evidence to the speciﬁc questions that the Committee has posed.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others, including investors and developers, while at the same time giving local communities sufficient power over planning decisions? 8. These three questions are closely inter-related. We have started by looking at the definition of sustainable development, as much else in the NPPF flows from this, along with the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”. We have then considered how the NPPF relates to other aspects of Government policy, before finally looking at the implications for local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate, developers, investors, and local communities. 9. We consider that the draft NPPF’s use of the Brundtland definition of sustainable development is a good starting point. As the Stern Report and others have made clear, two of the key features of sustainable development are a proper consideration of externalities (such as global warming or the depletion of non- renewable resources), and the need to consider long-term time horizons. 10. We consider that the draft NPPF could usefully refer to the economic importance of a low carbon economy in the economic section, as well as reflecting its environmental importance towards the end of the document. This could help it to align more clearly with Government policy elsewhere, for example in the Coalition Agreement, where the Prime Minister and Deputy PM state “we both want to build a new economy from the rubble of the old. We will support sustainable growth and enterprise, balanced across all regions and all industries, and promote the green industries that are so essential for our future”. 11. The Business Secretary added his weight to the economic importance of green businesses on 4 August: “The transition to a green economy presents significant growth opportunities both in the UK and abroad. The UK has the sixth largest low carbon economic goods and services market in the world.” [Department for Business Innovation and Skills press release, 4 August, 2011]. 12. On 5 August 2011 the Government published “Encouraging the transition to a green economy: Government and Businesses working together”, (http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/greeneconomy) which sets out further details of this agenda. Publishing the document, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “Moving to a green economy presents huge opportunities for British businesses not only to reduce their environmental impact, but also to transform products and services, develop cleaner technologies, and capture new international markets.” 13. This is particularly important in relation to sustainable construction. Assessment methodologies such as BREEAM play a very significant role in enabling UK businesses to generate export opportunities. The UK is viewed internationally as a beacon of best practice in securing a low carbon, highly sustainable built environment through good science. BREEAM, as the most widely used assessment methodology in the world, plays an important role in this, and has recently been described by the chief executive of the British Property Federation as a “British success story” [Delta T Magazine, January 2011]. Indeed, such are the skills of UK designers that their output is the second largest “invisible” export after financial services. The UK Low Carbon Environmental Goods and Services Market is the sixth largest in the world and grew by 4.3% in 2009. It is now worth £112 billion, employing over 900,000 people. The UK leads on sustainable construction, with UK architecture and engineering firms creating and designing for sustainable cities across Asia and the Middle East. [UKTI]. UK businesses and investors have made substantial commitments to sustainable construction, and it is important that the NPPF does everything possible to ensure continuing confidence in this vital sector. 9 Common Minimum Standards, Office for Government Commerce. These set out mandatory minimum standards for construction procurement in central government and related areas. Having consulted a variety of interests, including construction industry representatives, the standards were found to be comprehensive, practical, achievable and cost-effective. They require an assessment methodology “such as BREEAM or an equivalent”, and “where BREEAM is used, all new projects are to achieve an “excellent” rating and all refurbishment are to achieve at least “very good””. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w8 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

14. The Government’s Carbon Plan published in March this year states at para 3.12: “The Government wants to support and enable communities in their wish to adopt higher environmental standards for new homes including through: ensuring that there are robust sustainability standards for local authorities to use if they want to set higher standards than those in the national regulations in their local plans. For example, the Code for Sustainable Homes provides standards for the sustainable design and construction of new homes (including water efﬁciency) that meet or exceed those set out in The Building Regulations 2010; and supporting eco- towns and ecodevelopments where there is local support and a wish to adopt higher standards of sustainability and design.” As the planning system is the route by which this would be achieved it would be helpful for this to be made explicit in the NPPF.

15. The Code for Sustainable Homes is one of the key tools in the Government’s armoury for driving up standards in the housing sector, and thereby driving innovation and change within the construction industry. This in turn helps to create the new jobs and opportunities that are key to the success of the “green industries” integral to the Government’s vision of the future. BREEAM plays a similar role in the non-domestic sector. Both the Code and BREEAM are voluntary schemes, which a large number of local planning authorities have chosen to incorporate within their local plans/local development frameworks.

16. The sustainable construction industry is thus hugely important to the UK economy, and BREEAM and the Code for Sustainable Homes play a leading role in driving change and innovation within it. One of the main ways of supporting this work is through the planning system. We consider it would thus be helpful for the NPPF to give a clear indication of the Government’s commitment to the use of assessment methodologies such as BREEAM and the Code within the planning system.

17. Assessment methodologies such as BREEAM and the Code are designed to address a raft of environmental and sustainability issues in a holistic way, including all of those set out in the section on “Planning for places”. The Code for Sustainable Homes, for example, covers the following: energy and carbon dioxide emissions, water, materials, surface water run-off, waste, pollution, health and well-being, management, and ecology.

18. They can be powerful aids to achieving improved outcomes in the built environment. However, it is important that a) they are seen as integral to the development process and b) that they are incorporated at the earliest possible stage. In this context, it might be helpful for the statement (para 58) that “Consents relating to how a development is built or operated can be dealt with at a later stage” to be amended so as maximise the opportunity to incorporate improvements at an early stage where it is both easiest operationally and likely to involve minimal or no additional cost.

19. In order to ensure that the NPPF is well aligned with the Carbon Plan and to provide clarity for users of the system, it might be helpful for the NPPF to make clear that in principle it supports the incorporation of measures such as the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM within local plan policies as an important component of local choice. In order to adopt such policies, local planning authorities should be required to provide evidence in preparing their local plans a) that the policies were locally appropriate and b) would not, of themselves, unreasonably affect viability (recognising that there will be occasions, such as during ﬁnancial crises, when no amount of amendment of the planning system will affect the viability of development).

20. Once sustainable construction policies were established in an adopted local plan, the onus should then be on the developer to provide evidence in particular cases if they considered that the development would not be viable.

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

21. The core planning principles are set out in paragraph 19 of the draft NPPF.

22. Perhaps the most striking point about the core planning principles is that the last seven of the ten are explicitly addressed by BREEAM and six by the Code for Sustainable Homes (the Code differs from BREEAM in not including transport as one of its issues). The impact assessment accompanying the NPPF recognises the importance of many of these issues, stating, at p 68, “There are however opportunities through the planning system to ensure that the new housing incorporates sustainable design and renewable energy, for example through rain water harvesting, maximising solar gain and use of photovoltaics, and ground source heating.”

23. The NPPF could therefore provide a powerful message of support for these core principles by speciﬁcally endorsing assessment methodologies such as BREEAM and the Code. It would then be up to local planning authorities, in line with the spirit of localism, to adopt these and indicate the level of performance they seek as appropriate to their local circumstances. Building on the already widespread use and acceptance of these methodologies, this would provide developers with a well understood framework which will allow them to demonstrate sustainability without extended confusion and debate.

24. Should the Government consider that there was a need for further informal good practice advice on the appropriate use of such policies and standards, BRE Global would be happy to assist in this. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w9

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 25. It will be important for the NPPF to provide the guidance needed to secure the most sustainable outcome in circumstances where larger-than-local issues are involved eg where the renewable energy source to serve a new development would be best located in a neighbouring local planning authority.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? 26. It would be helpful to provide evidence on the importance of sustainable construction to the UK economy. For example, the Low Carbon Construction Innovation and Growth Team final report highlighted both the wider green economy benefits and the fact that transforming the built environment to low carbon could provide the industry with a 40 year programme of work and act as a springboard to growth for more than 200,000 small businesses in the sector. This is relevant to the Government’s objective of achieving a sustainable built environment through the planning system. As we have set out above, setting challenging standards for construction is good for the environment and good for the UK economy, as well as being entirely in line with the Government’s “intention to become “the greenest government ever”” (NPPF Consultation, para 32).

The ﬁtness for purpose of the draft Framework as a whole 27. The aim of the draft NPPF to reduce the length and complexity of existing planning policy documentation is to be welcomed. 28. There are some areas, particularly in relation to sustainable construction, where as indicated before amendments to the NPPF might usefully provide greater clarity. In addition, there may be value in some further good practice advice on this subject, which we would be happy to help to prepare. 19 August 2011

Further written evidence from BRE Global Introduction 1. BRE’s original submission to the Committee was made on 19 August 2011. 2. On 26 August 2011 CLG published “Cost of Building to the Code for Sustainable Homes—Updated cost review”. The report was prepared for CLG by Element Energy and Davis Langdon. 3. A press release accompanied the publication of the report. 4. This addendum highlights some points from the report that we consider relevant to the Committee’s consideration.

“Cost of Building to the Code for Sustainable Homes: Updated cost review” 5. The report shows that building homes to better standards is getting much cheaper. In the last three years the average extra costs of building to level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes has fallen by almost three quarters 6. In publishing the report, the Communities Minister said: “Building greener homes is vital if we are to meet our nation’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change—so today’s report is good news for the entire country. The progress that has been made does not only benefit developers building Code-standard homes, it also provides valuable lessons ahead of the transition to building new homes to zero carbon standards from 2016: “As a country we still have lot of work to do to reduce carbon emissions from new development, but what these figures show us is that as the construction industry continues to build more sustainable homes, there is further potential for the costs associated [with] building greener homes to continue falling”. 7. The report looks at the solutions that home builders typically adopt to achieve credits under the Code and the costs associated with these. It finds that in many areas builders are now able to achieve credits at no additional cost (section 5.1, pp 44–46). 8. This suggests that the Code is helping to drive change in the supply chain, and thus reduce costs (particularly in relation to renewable technologies). As we note in our main evidence, this is important not just for local environmental and economic reasons, but also in terms of the continuing development and prosperity of a key export sector of the UK’s economy. The Code for Sustainable Homes was derived from the BREEAM family of schemes. BREEAM is increasingly being adopted in other countries, with associated benefits for UK businesses involved in sustainable construction. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w10 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

9. The report considers that those elements of construction which affect carbon “will decrease in real terms over time as the industry ﬁnds more efﬁcient (ie low cost) ways to meet the low carbon challenge” (section 7.1, p 69). 10. It notes that, while much progress has already been made, there will be further learning required in order for housebuilders to build to Code level 6. To date, building to level 6 has not been common (section 7.2, p 72). 11. This suggests that the more widespread adoption of the Code through the planning system has an important role to play in enabling the dissemination of the learning required. 12. One of the key characteristics of BREEAM and the Code is that they provide a national framework for the setting and evaluation of sustainability standards. This helps to provide consistency for the construction industry and avoid confusion, while allowing local planning authorities discretion in how to apply such standards in their areas. 13. The report notes that the Code is increasingly being adopted by local authorities as a planning condition for new development (section 2.1, p 18). The incorporation within local plans of policies which promote the Code and BREEAM can be a powerful way of encouraging further improvement, and of supporting the Government in its aims of addressing its carbon targets and encouraging the prosperity of the sustainable construction industry. 14. The Code is owned and promoted by the Government, aligns closely with other Government policies and objectives, and is increasingly being embraced by local authorities through their planning function. In these circumstances, we consider that it would make sense for the NPPF to provide explicit endorsement for the use of the Code (and methodologies such as BREEAM from which the Code was derived) within the planning system. September 2011

Written evidence from Cutting Edge Planning and Design Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your inquiry into whether the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) forms an adequate, clear and comprehensive framework of national planning policy.

Background I am a planning consultant who for 20 years has been involved with the process of planning reform. I have advised governments in England, Jersey and Bahrain on planning reform, and have worked on all sides of the fence as well as in Scotland and Wales, and helping community groups through Planning Aid for London. In 2003 I wrote a paper at the request of the then ODPM proposing “core strategies” which became the basis, (though not in the form I had hoped) for the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act reforms. I am an expert on the UK planning system and its National Planning Policy and frequently advise clients of ﬁnding their way through it. I also run a widely read planning blog which has become the main resource for information and debate on the emerging NPPF. http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/ The NPPF has a complexity in terms of its implications that belied its brevity. For that reason I apologise for going a little over your word limit. However I think it is vital for the emerging NPPF to undergo full parliamentary scrutiny and to understand these implications.

Summary of Response — The document lacks a positive vision of planning, of place, of England. — It is not balanced, it represents landowner interests above all others, even above economic development and employment. — It effectively redeﬁnes sustainable development to equal property development—it will not promote sustainability, rather its converse. — It will only be usable by experts, many of its phrases have meanings in planning precedent dating back to previous ages of planning. It undoes much of the progress of the last 25 years. Its parts interact in complex ways which even the government may not have yet worked through, but which are already causing delay and confusion. — I do not go into a point by point examination of the document, however it is not possible to understand the ﬁtness for purpose of NPPF, and the impact it will have, without highlighting a small number of key policy changes which will have widespread impact. — It will lead to a free for all because almost all plans will be rendered out of date overnight. This will lead to appeal-led planning, with a risk of sprawl rather than properly designed and planned development. — As a nation we badly need more development, in the right place and well designed, but the NPPF will hinder this and the irony is it is already leading to a crude ant-development backlash. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w11

— There are ways of salvaging the situation. I suggest new clauses to the final stages of the Localism Bill, which combined with significantly rewritten parts of the NPPF would lead to a proper definition of sustainability, a workable presumption in favour of sustainable development, a proper transition period, plan-led rather than appeal-led planning and a simpler quicker system. I would be willing to expand on these suggestions in further work and in oral evidence.

Introduction I would recommend that the committee look into the speciﬁc policy changes of the NPPF in sessions running up to the end of 2011. This is important as it is the aim of the Secretary of State that the work of your committee the form in which parliamentary scrutiny of the document is undertaken.10 I would hope that the Committee approach adopted by the Committee is that adopted by Planning Inspectorates to Draft development plans, is it the best possible plan in the circumstances, is it justiﬁed by the evidence, will it be effective in meeting its goals? As the most important development in planning since 1947 it is important we as a nation get it right.

What is Planning For? Is planning the enemy? Many ministers from the Prime Minister down rarely miss an opportunity to knock planners. We are castigated, without evidence or justification as the “enemies of enterprise”,11 when in fact most spend half their working lives promoting local enterprise. Or even castigated by the Prime Minister as blocking measures to prevent looting, when in fact they have been implementing Home Office Advice to ensure our town centres are not grey, dark and graffiti ridden.12 As RTPI president Richard Summers has said “Planners in the public sector have broad shoulders and accept that they are often a convenient sitting target for ministers”.13 Yet Britain is out on a limb internationally. Given global problems, such as for the first time more than 50% of the world’s population living in cities from 2008,14 the need to house, provide infrastructure and transport for those people. Internationally town planning has never been considered so important. Emerging nations such as China, India and Brazil see good town planning as a mainspring of growth, not a hurdle. Gulf States which had a disastrous “let it rip” approach to development before the 2008 crash, are, like Abu-Dhabi15 transforming their approach to town planning to avoid seeing wasted billions on investment in empty properties, the financing and building of which helped cause the great financial crisis. For example the carbon-neutral new city of Masdar, designed by the UKs Fosters, outdoes the ambition of anything being done in the UK, as does many of the Eco-city Chinese New Towns and Urban extensions being developed by UK firms such as Arups, Atkins and Mott Mc Donald. Without good sustainable design, including good town planning, urbanisation and economic growth will consume our non-renewable resources and trigger off effects such as global warming. The world turns to the UK for town planning to help avoid this, but why is it so castigated and difficult here? Greg Clark in speech’s16 and articles has stated that planning should be “seen as a crucial service operating in the public interest. In the bluntest terms, as a force for good.” and that “the purpose of planning is to help make the way we live our lives better tomorrow than it is today. And not just tomorrow—but a million tomorrows, so that nothing our generation does compromises the ability—indeed the right—of future generations to improve their own lives.” But this uplifting wording, very different in the minister’s presentation of the draft NPPF from what it actually says, is nowhere to be found in the shallow, negative, dull and repetitive content of the NPPF itself which above all needs a positive statement of what role planning can and should play in modern society.

Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others, including investors and developers, while at the same time giving local communities sufficient power over planning decisions? The document is punchy. Reducing from 1,097 pages17 to 55. But punchiness does not mean that the document is clear or fit for purpose. Wales (Planning Policy Wales)18 shows that it is possible to reduce national policy considerably (in their case to around 200 pages) without losing its essence or clarity—following four iterations it has been widely praised and easy to use (as a planning practitioner). There are aspects of English national policy where the editing pen has gone too far—deleting crucial national policies. I shall turn to these in later evidence. 10 Press Release DCLG 25 July 2010 footnote. 11 Speech Sunday 6 March 2011. 12 Cameron blames Planners over riots, Decisions. Decisions, Decisions, Aug 2011. 13 Local Government Lawyer 7 March 2011. 14 The Associated Press (February 26, 2008). "UN says half the world‘s population will live in urban areas by end of 2008". International Herald Tribune. 15 Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council. 16 http://www.gregclark.org/articles~speeches/articles~speeches/a-new-settlement-for-planning-a-speech-to-the/38 17 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/just-how-many-pages-will-the-nppf-replace/ 18 http://wales.gov.uk/topics/planning/policy/ppw/;jsessionid= sLCTTKSbnypQtQGSwnJx4kWyMY41R1zbR7LBCjjjmvXhpV7N133d!-*****46?lang=en cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w12 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

There will be those who will rightly argue that England needs something like the Wales Spatial Plan or the Scottish National Planning Framework. These are Spatial policies stating how infrastructure will “join up” and the role of different areas in the nation. They are right. How can you judge, for example, HS2 without a national vision of transport and the connectivity of regional cities? How could a site for an additional hub airport, and the linking infrastructure for it, be chosen if the decision was made to develop one? But that is an argument for another day, as such a document would take over a year to develop and the government priority is to put in place simplified subject based national policy. I would hope that your committee urge the government to look again at this issue once the NPPF is complete; if only to ensure that billions of investment is well spent and the National Policy Statements on major infrastructure are linked up. Above all the document needs to be accessible to non-professionals. The document though is riddled with phrases that can only have meaning to planning consultants and lawyers because of the considerable “baggage” they hold in terms of past precedent. To give just one of many possible examples “obviously poor design” (para 121) which many lawyers have argued in public inquiries in the 1980s and 90s (it is a resurrection from circular 22/80) means that arguably and slightly poor design is acceptable. Also many parts of the document interlock in complex ways, you need to draw up flowcharts to understand its operation. Some aspects of policy are only comprehensible at all, notably policy on flooding, if you have the old policy being replaced alongside you. As this is supposed to be a comprehensive standalone document this shows it is not fit for purpose. A lever arch file of inspectors reports and recovered appeals (by the SoS) will be needed as precedents about what some underbaked parts actually mean. Before 2004 you often saw local plans and UDPs that ran to 500 pages or more. In climates where there was a strong presumption in favour of development there was a feeling you needed a policy for everything. In putting forward the concept of core strategies in 2003 the idea was to make local strategies shorter by removing the need to repeat national policy. But if too much national policy is stripped away, for example on adverts in the countryside, agricultural workers dwellings etc, then you could see, indeed you are seeing, local pressure to “fll in the gaps” that have been created and see plan balloon and take longer to complete. A better crafted document of 100–150 pages could have set the right balance between brevity and clarity. The fitness for purpose of the NPPF also depends on the tone it strikes. Inspectors will want clarity. Developers will want certainty on where and whether they will get consent. Environmentalists will want hooks to enable various impacts to be controlled or prevented. Planning professionals will want stability. Local politicians will either want the untrammelled ability to say no to unpopular development or an unequivocal order from a third party to plan for it—so they can blame that party. This means that planning will always be conflictual. But it does not mean that these stakeholders do not have shared objectives and that in many cases these cannot be partially reconciled. Above all good planning can help reconcile these objectives by ensuring that needed development goes in the right place and is well designed. It can also have a vision of the positive role of planning in ensuring this. This is where the NPPF falls down the most; its impoverished and negative view of planning—effectively says get out of the way of developers. The almost universal perception of the NPPF is its imbalanced nature. Even those of us who consider that the planning system had become too anti-development can see it for what it is, a developers charter. This means that the backlash from the shires and suburbs could be so great that it could actually mean that the can, of where new large scale development goes, is kicked down the road as it has been many times before. Too often we have seen ministers before, such as Patrick Jenkin and John Prescott, panic under opposition to changes to crudely loosen the taps of development and react by tightening them too much. The experience of the 1980s is that planning needs teeth to serve a purpose. The NPPF is a complete dental extraction. Without the threat of a no to a poorly designed and conceived scheme in the wrong place you will not get a good scheme in the right place. Planning Policy enables strong negotiating stances which add value to the final scheme. Planners now find them themselves without the tools necessary to negotiate. A default yes will only get you bad schemes, unless it is balanced with a default no to poor planning. Though English National Planning Policy there is nothing English about the document at all,19 about what our distinctive challenges and solutions as a nation are—very uninspiring. Indeed minsters have wrongly made statements that they are responsible for planning in Britain20—rather than England, whereas the British Isles has seven separate statutory Planning Regimes; the NPPF covering only the English part. Finally on the issue of usability the document is wearily repetitive,21 using one phrase four times and the word “presumption” 25 times.

Is the deﬁnition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate? Development plans are required to must be drawn up with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development by law (section 39 2004 Act). Oddly this function does not apply to development management decisions and all other decisions under the planning acts. 19 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/how-english-is-the-nppf/ 20 http://www.hufﬁngtonpost.co.uk/greg-clark/reforming-planning-for-fu_b_918391.html 21 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/mindless-repetition-in-the-nppf/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w13

Successive government have stated that defining it should be a matter of policy rather than law. The key issue is whether the definition is meaningful. Firstly the government has not been consistent in its definitions. The official definition is from the UK (not just English) Sustainable Development Strategy, Securing the Future,22 which remains in force, and at least merits a footnote in the NPPF. Neither mentioned is the coalition government’s statement “Mainstreaming Sustainable Development.”23 Again unless DCLG wants to plough a different furrow on Sustainable Development than DEFRA there should be at least a footnote mention. Finally there is the older definition from Brundtland used in the NPPF. What this means is that the government now has three different definitions of sustainable development—very confusing. The issue of the Brundtland definition is that by itself it is uncontentious; it is simply a requirement not to be unsustainable, but to be meaningful in policy terms you need to add flesh to the bones and have a policy framework which is positive about the sustainable actions required. The NPPF approach to sustainable development is weak and in effect seeks to define it out of existence so that property development = sustainable development. The definition in para 9 of the NPPF seeks to redefine the Brundtland definition by referring only to “basic” needs. This implies that widening inequality is acceptable if “basic needs” only are met. Wheras in fact the Brundtland Report refer to the key concept of “‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given”. All references to lessening social inequalities and ensuring “Social progress which recognizes the needs of everyone” (from the SDS) have been excised. Indeed by contrast the NPPF gives overwhelming priority to the wealthiest who are able to carry out the most property development. The NPPF definition goes on in para 10 to define what sustainable development means for planning—the so called 3Ps. If you break down the logic of this troika you find that it comes down to: — economic growth is sustainable; — growth meeting housing and social needs is sustainable; and

— except where it damages protected environments or producing too much CO2. Reading the NPPF as a whole, which you have to do, it is clear that protected land only makes up a very small part of England, and controls on car-orientated development in rural areas are weakened. So in effect property development=sustainable development, when neither on protected land nor producing too much CO2. This is an impoverished and narrow view which almost defines sustainable development out of existence. Para 11 refers to the need for three principles being pursued in an integrated way—but if the principles themselves are slanted so will the “integrated” approach. This is what Johnathan Porritt has called: “SD-abuse”: the deliberate misuse of the concept of sustainable development by Ministers and civil servants to obscure the real meaning of their words... I could not find one single reference to the notion of environmental limits. Not one. Lots of warm words about the importance of the environment, but nothing of real use in defining what appropriate or inappropriate development might mean in practice.”24 Whilst Tom Burke of the Green Alliance has stated: “What the Government actually means by “Sustainable Development” is the tired old Treasury mantra of “Sustained Growth”: that is, growth that goes on forever. It definitely does not mean growth that recognises environmental risks and constraints.”25 The definition could be greatly improved if it recognized environmental limits. Indeed examples elsewhere in the UK and the Commonwealth commonly do this. I would urge the Committee to examine definition and policy on the application of the principle of sustainable development used in Quebec, New Zealand and Wales. For example the New Zealand Resource Management Act includes the concept of environmental limits and this wording is reflected in the proposed definition put forward by Wildlife Link.26 The Quebec Sustainable Development Act builds on the Brundtland definition and includes the concepts “an ongoing process to improve the living conditions of the present generation that does not compromise the ability of future generations to do so and that ensures a harmonious integration of the environmental, social and economic dimensions of development”. 22 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/03/25/securing-the-future-pb10589/ 23 http://sd.defra.gov.uk/documents/mainstreaming-sustainable-development.pdf 24 http://www.jonathonporritt.com/blog/sustainable-development#comments 25 http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/grea1.aspx?id=5945 26 http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/2011/Link_Localism_Bill_amendment_HoC_Committee_Stage_Sustainable_Development_ 25Jan11.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w14 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

This is not rocket science and with it, it is possible to meld these well tested legal definitions together in a form of words that might be acceptable to both ministers and environmental stakeholders. I suggest combining the Brundtland, Canadian and New Zealand definitions as follows: “an ongoing process to improve the living conditions of the present generation that does not compromise the ability of future generations to do so, and that ensures, as far as possible, a harmonious integration of the environmental, social and economic dimensions of development within the limits set by the environment and technology.” What matters though is how this translates into planning decisions. I would advise the committee to take evidence from Clive Bates the Director General for Sustainable Futures of the Welsh Government. The Welsh approach27 is based on the concept of environmental well-being. This derives from UN/WHO28 work and considerable research. The principle is that the health and well-being of people will not be sustained if the wellbeing of ecosystems, natural capital, and social, human and economic capital. This concept is critical to the first UK National Ecosystems Assessment29 carried out by DEFRA. Yet the NPPF nowhere refers to this, the health of ecosystems, or the wellbeing of society. It is clearly a lack of joined up government. This is the single greatest weakness of the NPPF. A presumption in favour of sustainable development badly defined and poorly operationalised, as here, is simply a presumption in favour of development without limits— unsustainable development.

Is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? No, neither. The presumption—or PISD as it has become known—has a central logical ﬂaw. The fact that sustainable development cannot be achieved without certain kinds of growth doesn’t imply that all kinds of growth promote sustainable development. Strikingly there is no presumption against unsustainable development. It is unbalanced. A related ﬂaw is apparent if we look at para 14, which sets out 3 combinations, but is silent on the fourth logical one. Development Plan Adopted Development Plan either non adopted , not and Up to Date up to date, Silent or Indeterminate Scheme accords with Approve without delay Grant Permission Development Plan Scheme contrary to NPPF is silent Grant Permission Development Plan

Now the assumption is that, as in the top left box, section 36(1) of the Planning and Compensation Act (2004) applies:30 If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. But a reader from outside a planning background will not know this. The NPPF is a document that is supposed to be usable by non-experts, but which will in fact but unusable unless you know the legal principles on which the planning system is based and on which the NPPF is silent. It will not be usable by lay people— contrast it with, for example, the opening pages of Planning Policy Wales which sets these principles out clearly. The presumption in favour of development is quite old, dating back to the Circular accompanying the Chamberlain Housing Act of 1923:31 the presumption should always be in favour of the person seeking consent to interim development, and obstacles should not be placed in the way of such development, except in the case where it is clearly detrimental to local interests and needs. Over the years the wording of it, as a policy not statute law, has changed. It was given particular stress in circular 22/80. Following the passage of the Planning and Compensation Act 2001, which introduced the Presumption in Favour of the Development Plan national policy at the time (PPG1) was alteration to square with it—though there was a tension. In 2005 PPS1 abolished the Presumption in Favour of Development— Leaving only the Presumption in Favour of the Plan. This created a problem. It depended on up to date plans. The poor, and late, plan coverage has been a problem throughout the history of British Planning. Currently around 30% of UK planning authorities have adopted core strategies.32 If plans are slow to prepare and late, 27 http://www.cynnalcymru.com/sites/default/ﬁles/Clive%20Bates%20Viewpoint%20Aug%202011.pdf 28 http://www.who.int/globalchange/ecosystems/ecosys.pdf 29 http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/ 30 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/5/section/38 31 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/the-origin-of-the-presumption-in-favour-of-development-1923-nppf/ 32 It would be helpful if, as in Scotland and Wales, national lists and maps of plan-coverage were published quarterly. jointly with PINS (Planning Inspectorate). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w15

and plan making is the primary means to provide additional housing, then they will create a continuously growing shortage of housing and an ever greater amount of new housing that needs to be allocated to catch up. The national housing shortage is well documented.33 The number of households in England is projected to grow to 27.5 million in 2033, an increase of 5.8 million (27%) over 2008, or 232,000 households per year.34 This translates into a requirement for new dwellings of roughly 240,000 dwellings a year. In Q2 2011 housebuilding fell 4% in England from the previous quarter.35 In 2011 we look likely to build only around half the houses needed as a nation. When the Q1 housebuilding statistics were released the government claimed this was evidence that the policies of revoking regional plans and introducing the New Homes Bonus was working. In fact analysis of the data showed that the Q1 rise was due to a rise in London, the one region to have maintained regional housebuilding targets.36 In Q2 housebuildingfell year on year by 26%. Planning approvals for housing are also down dramatically. This has lead to a furious dispute between bodies such the the CPRE and the HBF on the significance for the NPPF.37 A detailed analysis I have conducted on the data is that both are wrong on this issue (or right depending on how you see it), houses aren’t being build because of lack of demand in a depressed market, but if demand recovered landbanks of housebuilders are dangerously low, only about a third of what they should be to meet household formation.38 This is storing up a problem as it will slow recovery from the great recession. The problem is not the number of applications being refused but the fall in the amount of land planned for housing since the abolition of regional spatial strategies. Though plan making progress has been unacceptably slow there was an upturn in housebuilding levels in the years following the 2004 Act, The Barker Review 2004 and the Housing Green Paper 2005 which set national housebuilding targets, progress sustained until the Great Recession. This progress has been undone, in part by the by the recession and in part by the dramatic lowering of housebuilding targets in development plans since May 2010 (this is not a political point simply a statement of fact). A reduction estimated by BNP Paribas in June as being on average 20.6% per authority.39 From Planning Inspectorate Data it is clear that in early 2010 around 2/3rds of English Planning Authorities were programmed to have examinations completed and adopted plans in place by the end of 2011. So clearly despite the slowness of plan making a big “bulge” of catching up was due to come forward. Finally by the end of 2010 was programmed national coverage of regional plan housing targets. So plans were coming forward, despite a desperate dragging of feet by a minority of Local Planning Authorities, with up to date numbers meeting housing need, otherwise they would not have been found “sound”. When these plans were adopted there was sure to be a bulge in housing starts. There always is when new plans, releasing new land, are adopted. All of this good work was undone by the unwise, and as it turned out unlawful,40 “revocation” of regional plans in June 2010. They still have not been revoked. The Localism Bill has not yet been granted Royal Assent. Even then the SoS has undertaken in April, not to enact Secondary Legislation until, as he is required to do under a European Directive, a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the effects of revocation,41 consulted on this and react to the results of consultation. This consultation has not yet even begun, but is required to by the EU directive, be at an “early stage” of the decision making process. One that the SoS needs to take with an “open mind”. Given ministers statements and caselaw it is likely that statements of predetermination will see a successful legal challenge. Please question the minister on the reason for the delay. Please also question the minister, in the light of his wholly inadequate response to your committees earlier report on the abolition of regional plans,42 that if the SA/SEA finds significant adverse social, environmental or economic impacts will they reconsider the “intention” to revoke? In any event it looks like that it will be at least a year more, more likely two, of regional plan targets before they are revoked. Since the June 2010 statement there has been a dramatic slowing of planning for housing, as your committee found. Plans about to be submitted have been delayed by a year or more. Even plans mid examination have been delayed, with one examination (South Wilts) that should have lasted at most a few weeks now lasting over a year as the authority rewrote it mid inquiry to reduce housebuilding. Even in one case a plan was withdrawn the day it the inspectors report was received (Coventry). Other plans have been withdrawn the even though they have been submitted (Aylesbury), and the SoS has allowed them to do so (the power to prevent this stalling is proposed to be removed by the Localism Bill). So for these and many other local planning authorities effectively starting again they are at least two years from adoption. 33 Good summaries of recent demographic, household formation and housing trends are The Good the Bad and the Ugly March 2011 IPPR, Mind the Gap, Housing Supply in a Cold Climate—TCPA, PWC, The Smith Institute 2009 and new and novel household projections for england with a 2008 base—summary and review TCPA/CCHP. 34 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/2033household1110 35 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/new-housing-bricked/ 36 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/lying-with-statistics-housebuilding-and-the-abolition-of-regional-spatial- strategies-nppf/ 37 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/cpre-and-hbf-in-nppf-cynical-property-barons-housing-pipeline-dispute/ 38 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/lessons-from-the-housing-pipeline-for-the-nppf/ 39 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/bnp-paribas-31000-homes-a-year-to-be-lost-by-abolition-of-rss/ 40 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/cala-ii-decision-in/ 41 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110405/wmstext/110405m0001.htm#11040558000004 42 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/government-response-to-the-clg-committee%E2%80%99s-report-abolition-of- rss-a-planning-vacuum/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w16 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

What we have seen is the largest and most important housing sites in England deleted. Growth areas around Milton Keynes, Aylesbury, Northampton, Bristol and many other towns have now gone, or have been frozen in ministerial induced uncertainty. The system of planning for housing has been thrown into chaos. Ministers have stated that eventually the New Homes Bonus will induce more housing to be allocated, one has to ask where? Can ministers name a signiﬁcant number local planning authorities that have decided to increase its housebuilding levels above regional plan levels?. Rather LPAs have overwhelmingly either kept to the same targets or signiﬁcantly reduced them. Seeing this dramatic scaling back one has to ask if Ministers are giving up on the plan-led route and are looking for a plan b? Frustration with slow progress on plan making has affected national policy several times before and I would suggest to your committee it is the key issue regarding the NPPF. Ensuring that plans were simpler and quicker to prepare were central to the Falconer reforms enacted in 2004, on which I advised the then ODPM . Unfortunately the implementation was poor. By creating new statutory plans rather than amending existing statutes there was the impression given that everything had to start again in new form. Wales, which instead had a one page reform of development plan law in the form I had recommended, now has 70% coverage as opposed to England’s 30%. Rather than making large “strategic” housing allocations part of strategies this was shifted back—an error not corrected until 2008. Some pre-development authorities have pressed forward, others awaited until controversial issues were resolved, a minority has dragged their heels, waiting for the election. Those recaltrants, urged on by then shadow ministers, felt they would have the ability to set what targets they liked. The now ministers have sensibly considered that this would result in a unacceptable slashing of housebuilding and plans should meet need, or ensure that it is met elsewhere. But those local authorities now feel betrayed.43 The problem was there was never enough carrot and stick to rapidly produce plans that local politicians saw as career destroying. The current government has rightly seen the need to have more of both. The issue is how it is done. The tactic has been set out by John Howells MP in “Open Source Planning” the consequences of which were laid out in a Speech he made to the HBF in February,—where a development plan was out of date it was then to be “assumed to have a completely permissive planning system” and a developer could then build “what they like, where they like and when they like”, provided they met new national planning guidance being worked up in tandem with the localism bill.” This is exactly what has been introduced in the NPPF. Your committee may well ask whether this is Town and Country Planning at all?

What will happen then where a planning application comes forward following adoption of the NPPF and relevant policies in the NPPF are not up to date? This is an issue that has been current since the Barker Review of Land Use Planning in 2006, it did not originate with the coalition government. From this came the suggested wording that there should be a presumption in favour of development where a plan was out-of-date, absent, silent, or indeterminate. This was proposed in the draft PPS4, applying only to economic development not housing, but following consultation feedback did not find its way into the final version. The wording of the NPPF in para 16 mean that in this case decisions makers should “grant permission...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”. (para 14) In addition where the application is for housing, and the plan cannot demonstrate a five year housing supply then para 110 baldly states that “planning permission should be granted”44 no if and no buts, effectively a “double presumption”. It unlikely that there will be a single development plan in the country that will be up to date in the manner that the NPPF requires when it is finalised.45 Even the 30% of adopted plans will not have the extra 20% of housing required by the NPPF in the first five years (para 109). So early next year where a council has not been meeting its five year supply, which very few will because of the recession and the NPPF raising targets, the presumption. as worded. means that the decision maker will be required to grant permission unless it is contrary to the NPPF. However with the default “yes” in the draft NPPF there are actually very few cases where it would be contrary and could be refused. There are obvious examples where policy similar to current applies, such as AONB, European protected sites, Green Belt, the new Local Greenspace designation (for small areas when plans are adopted). But these only apply to a minority of areas. What is notable is how the NPPF strips away 43 See the recent BDOR report for examples on concerns over the broken “promise” http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/ 04/cpre-report-is-neighbourhood-planning-any-improvement/ 44 There are two key ambiguities in this section. If there is a shortfall does the presumption apply up to the shortfall or to the whole application, even if it overshoots? Secondly do the qualifiers “of adverse impacts” of para 16 apply or not? 45 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/95-of-councils-vulnerable-to-speculative-nppf-applications-report/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w17

policy protecting most of England. I will go into the key problematic policy changes later but some are worth highlighting to illustrate just how much the NPPF has opened the taps to development in many areas: — Firstly the policy preference towards previously developed sites is removed. — The protection of the countryside for its own sake is removed, a policy that has stood for 60 years. — The protection for employment sites is removed, even where there is a strong demand for and local shortage of such sites. — There is no protection for attractive or sensitive landscapes,46 other than national designated areas or small areas of local green space. — The ability to set a strategy to prioritise some sites over others when there is a shortfall is removed.47 — There is no requirement that new housing is well designed, only that its design is not “unacceptably poor”. What this means is, in effect, in the large majority of cases such applications will have to be approved. Realising this a flood of speculative applications, which previously would have been refused, are now coming forward. What the draft NPPF does is in effect turn back planning much of planning policy 30 years to 1980. Noted planning lawyer Martin Goodall saw the change coming in March 2011: The general approach of the government, developed in the Conservative party’s final years in opposition, appeared to be rather anti-development, and brought joy to hearts of the NIMBYs. Now, we are getting pronouncements which sound much more like those of Thatcher and Heseltine post-1979, promoting the idea that development could and would be the engine of economic recovery...... Could we be about to see the end of the “plan-led” system and a return to planning by appeal? ...Perhaps Pickles and his merry men should make a start by dusting off Circulars 9/80, 22/80, 15/84 and 14/85 and re-publishing them in modern form.48 This is just what we have seen. These ancient and discredited circulars from the Nicholas Ridley era of planning by appeal have indeed been resurrected. Whole phrases and policies from these circulars have been reborn in and as the NPPF. As of August 2011 local planning authorities now have five to eight months to prepare new development plans before the maelstrom of the presumption is released when the NPPF is finalised. This is unrealistic, even the swiftest plan revision will take a year. Indeed many of the staff who would be preparing plans will be fighting appeals for speculative applications on unsuitable sites. What is worse the fundamental platform on which updated plans are prepared, knowing what the housing target should be, has been taken away with the planned revocation of regional plans. Decision makers are unclear on what to base future 5–15 year housing targets. In the West Midlands and South West,49 where regional strategies are out of date and reviews never finished, plans in some districts are over 10 years old. This has given the SoS considerable difficulties in a recent appeal50 deciding exactly what the five year target should be based on. Indeed in that same case the scheme was refused on “localist” anti-development grounds last year—and following judicial review with the reinstatement of regional plans—was approved under the post-budget “Planning for Growth” this year. This illustrates the u-turn in national planning policy away from localism. The Planning Minister has stated that it will be “very rare”51 that local planning authorities will plan for less housing than needed. This is a pamglossian attitude as experience has already shown that many if not most areas are seeking less. The majority of examinations ongoing since the publication of the NPPF have seen inspectors writing to the local authorities saying stop them they as havn’t provided enough housing and/ or that the expectations that other authorities will take the shortfall are not justified—examples Rochford, South Wiltshire, South Oxfordshire, Luton and South Beds, Castepoint & Harborough District. The Telegraph commented that the attitude of the minister that all areas would agree to meet their own housing need in full as “Pollyana-ish naivete” I have to agree. One saving grace of the NPPF is that sites still have to be suitable for housing. But local planning authorities will not be able to choose between the most suitable and less suitable. If a site meats the minimum thresholds of the NPPF, in terms of infrastructure, flood risk, having some potential access to public transport etc. then it will be acceptable at “five year supply” shortage appeals, even though the site might be the least suitable, least 46 I give some specific examples here http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/the-nppf-and-the-threat-to-the-landscape/ 47 This is set out in PPS3, para 69. These policy tests for new housing would all be removed. 48 http://planninglawblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/straws-in-wind.html 49 The situation is also chaotic in those areas where parts of regional plans were subject to judicial review (for not looking at alternative locations) and where the legal “repair” process has not been completed. This means in Herts, Oxon and Surrey there are large “floating” housing numbers not pinned down to any district but which will have to be considered in every major housing case. 50 The Binhamny Farm Appeal Bude http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/pickles-localism-u-turn-on-landmark- binhamny-farm-bude-appeal/ 51 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/greg-clark-pollyana-ish-naivete-over-nppf-telegraph/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w18 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

accessible and least preferred site around a settlement—previously “safe” areas are now under threat.52 Para 19 only allows choice of land of “lesser environmental value” at development plan, and not planning application stage. This completely undermines planning and plan making. The approach contrasts with the “plan, monitor, manage” approach of current policy in PPS353 paras 60–72 (and which certainly is too long and woolly) which requires “management action” when there is a shortfall— ie the local planning authority deciding which additional sites to bring forward, against its strategy. It is essential that where land releases take place it takes place against a strategy. Otherwise we could see chaotic appeal led planning of the sort we saw in the 1980s where housing is planned on a site by site basis, without due consideration, and without regard to the view of the local community about how their future should be shaped. In many cases, particularly for many of the “cause célèbre” housing sites,54 it is not an issue of whether but when sites are developed. At many appeals local groups may oppose a site in principle, but the arguments turn not on a site’s suitability, because alternative sites often turn out to be far less accessible and sustainable, but when. Does the area have a four year housing supply or seven, for example. This often comes as a surprise to local residents. But understanding this can take the heat out of many arguments about housing targets. A slightly higher or lower housing target will in most cases simply mean whether a site is pushed back or brought forward by a small number of years. The real priority is to ensure that all English local planning authorities have a “rank order” of development sites in a housing delivery plan. Such an approach is already partially in place with almost total coverage of England now with Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAAs). This shows that there is plenty of potentially suitable housing sites, England has a shortage of housing not housing sites, but whether or not they are acceptable depends on a strategy. Sites may be physically “suitable” but not “acceptable” according to a strategy which sets growth in one direction or another to ensure acceptable cumulative impact and to match development to infrastructure. I propose a reform which will ensure that there is continuous and steady delivery of new housing at a pace to meet our nations needs—the national government’s main concern—but in a way that is planned and occurs in a manner determined by local government and communities—local government’s main concern. Such an approach would have three components: (1) Set a strict, tough and binding statutory timetable for plan making. With a period of one year (till end of 2012) before the full force of the “presumption” applies to new housing to enable local planning authorities to get new plans in place. (2) All local planning authorities to publish a “housing site ranking” in advance of their final plans—with appeals determining whether sites in that ranking are brought forward or not. (3) Tough new structures over the duty to cooperate’ to resolve inter-authority squabbles which are holding up plan making. I deal with the third issue in a later section. All three parts are crucial to reforms that would work. The idea of a short delay before the “presumption” comes into play has been suggested in Open Source Planning and also supported by an Jack Dromy MP. It is possible to get plans in place within 1 year. The regulations allow for it and the “stick” of the presumption coming into play encourages it. Amendments to the localism bill could make it statutory and set financial and other penalties, such as powers in default, or powers for planning consultancies to take over plan making in default, if plans are not in place. The main issue is a logistical one, determining many plan examinations at once in Autumn 2012. This is manageable. Local Planning Authorities can prepare joint plans to reduce the number of examinations. There were a number of plan examiners laid off in 2010 because of a “lack of demand” with many plans delayed then. Temporary and retired inspectors can be brought in. Planning barristers can be drafted in as temporary inspectors rather than fighting appeals (each appeal of course takes two barristers). It is doable, with resources and efforts, resources which would otherwise be spent at appeals. The housing site ranking is simply an extension of what many authorities are doing already. Even before an authority finalises its housing target in its submitted plan it can publish its preferred site ranking at an earlier stage. All local authorities now have consulted on spatial directions of growth and so there is no reason why they cannot decide on a rank-ordering, even though they might argue that at a certain point development should not take place. This would be then used on appeal if an area fell short on its five year supply. Where a site was next in line the decision would be straightforward. If it was further down an appellant would need to successfully argue that it should be preferred over other higher ranked order sites. This would be much better than the crude binary “yes”, “no” approach. If a local group wanted to argue that a site they wished to protect should be ranked lower, it would require then to demonstrate that other sites should be ranked higher. The reality that tough decisions on housing cannot be dodged would be apparent. 52 http://www.leightonbuzzardonline.co.uk/community/community-news/bill_puts_green_spaces_in_peril_1_2982860?utm_ medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed 53 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1918430.pdf 54 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/the-cause-celebre-housing-sites-whether-not-when/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w19

Finally your committee might want to consider that the “presumption in favour” might also be balanced by a few other positive planning presumptions in favour, to ensure that poor schemes do not slip through. I would suggest: — A presumption in favour of quality urban and landscape design; — A presumption in favour of priority to use of sustainable modes of transport; — A presumption in favour of sustainable and inclusive communities (paras 124–127 of NPPF); and — A presumption in favour of increased biodiversity (para 169).

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? What function is this section supposed to fulfil? It is a curious hotch potch of high level principles, operational principles and specific policies. Much of it is repetitive of other sections of the NPPF and could be easily edited out. Where it does duplicate other policy sections the differences are confusing. For example the second bullet in para 19. is worded slightly differently than the wording in para 14. Which wording has priority? What are the “key sustainability principles”, they are nowhere defined. The section would be clearer if it was split into key objectives for the English Planning System, right at front of the document—first paragraph. Then the key operational principles—how this will be put into practice, the plan-led system and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Then the Core Spatial Planning Policies that the remaining sections of the NPPF are elaborations of. It is in this last function that the section falls down on most. If one were to ask a representative cross section of the public what they wanted out of the planning system they might reply—more affordable homes, no sprawl, good designs, schemes in the right place, community involvement, matching development to infrastructure, providing for business, improving and regenerating our cities, protecting our villages and best countryside, enhancing wildlife, prosperous town centres, halt the decline of local facilities etc. None of these are part of the core principles. Compare the section with its equivalent in para 13 of PPS1 to see the decreased emphasis on many of these central issues. Indeed any document that does not promote good design of development, so it goes in the right place, in a planned way as determined by the community, cannot call itself a planning document. These are the core principles of good planning. The NPPF indeed is not a planning document, it is a deregulation document allowing poorer design, in an appeal-led unplanned way over the heads of the community. It is about enhancing the rentier unearned income of landowners, a value itself created by the community and extracted from through economic rent—a deduction that destroys growth rather than creating it. The NPPF is a rentiers charter, flogging a discredited approach to growth, at the expense of the earth, based on boosting the profits of the few rather than the many, that has brought the country and the world economy to disorder and economic ruin. The core principles needs to set out what the roles are of the key components of English places, cities, market towns, the countryside, the coast, villages. It needs to set out the context for the national policy of urban containment, and planned growth to prevent sprawl. Finally it needs to set the scene for a step change towards more but better and more sustainable development.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? Since 2004 we have gone beyond old-fashioned narrow land use planning to a modern European approach of spatial planning which “goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they can function.” (para 30 PPS1). This concept of spatial planning is entirely absent from the NPPF draft, it takes planning back 10 years. There is no mention of “place shaping”—the process of bring about a shared spatial vision. There is no mention of community strategies (despite legal duties), there is no equivalent of the PPS12 section on the process of infrastructure planning (paras 4.8–4.12). Without joint infrastructure planning growth won’t happen. Infrastructure won’t suddenly and magically turn up when development is completed. There are a number of disjunctions with national policy is some departments. As stated the NPPF seems to be ploughing a different furrow from DEFRA and its policy statements on sustainability, the natural environment and the National Ecosystem Assessment. The simple offloading of waste issues to the National Waste Strategy is problematic. This has yet to be produced. There is an urgent need to find more space for waste uses now to meet the requirements of the EU landfill directive—we cannot wait until 2012 when the National Strategy is produced.55 If Regional Plans are revoked there will also be a clear breach with EU Directive 2008/98/EC56 unless and until the National Waste Strategy contains local planning authority by local planning authority targets for the apportionment of waste.57 55 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/nppf-waste-cant-wait-until-2012/ 56 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:01:EN:HTML 57 https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/national-planning-policy-framework-55-waste-management/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w20 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? No. It is already being applied and is showing that without further strengthening it is unworkable. The “duty to cooperate” would be created by section 95 of the Localism Bill, and this section was heavily modified in committee stage in the Lords. It would insert a new section 33A into the 2004 act requiring to “to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in any process ...the preparation of development plan documents”, on a “strategic matter” concerning two or more local planning authorities. Notwithstanding your committees concerns58 about the vagueness of the wording used the bill proposes a duty to engage not a duty to agree. We might well see and have and are seeing neighbouring authorities arguing for years about what should the outcome be. Indeed a “duty to agree” would be preposterous. So what are the issues and potential solutions for the many matters where housing and other issues spill over local authority boundaries? Because of the extremely tight “underbounding” of many large towns in the 1974 local government reorganisation this issue affects most such areas as well as many smaller towns. NPPF para 44–47 refers to the duty, it cross refers para 23 strategic priorities on the matters cooperation should cover (note the countryside and the rural economy are not such matters curiously). Para 46 is the critical one providing the “teeth” of the post-regional plan system: “Local planning authorities will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having successfully cooperated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts when their Local Plans are submitted for examination. This could be by way of plans or policies prepared as part of a joint committee, a memorandum of understanding or a jointly prepared strategy which is presented as evidence of an agreed position”. Para 48 provides a new soundness test—that plans should be: Positively prepared ...based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is practical to do so consistently with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It is important for your committee to understand how this will work in practice. At the outset of an Examination in Public (EiP) into a submitted plans an independent inspector will deal with the lawfulness of a plan. If the inspector considers there is a prima-fasce case that a plan is unlawful they will write to the LPA recommending that it is withdrawn.59 Of course parties may issue a legal challenge once the binding report is issued. The legal test will be “engage constructively” but the policy soundness test will be stricter “successfully cooperated”. The inspector may find that the outcome of cooperation is unsatisfactory and find the plan unsound. This is already being applied and I will give two crucial recent cases. The first is Rochford, a district in the Thames Gateway Essex mostly greenbelt. Like many areas where Greenbelts were too tightly drawn and remaining areas within the inner boundary of Green Belt had run out (they were typically drawn up lifespans of 20 years) meeting needs implied a green belt strategic review. The regional plan set targets which implied such a review. The submitted plan however proposed a low target and meeting the shortfall in a neighbouring authority—Basildon—which also had a high target requiring a review. Basildon said no we don’t want the extra housing. Rochford asked for the examination to be suspended until after the localism bill got royal assent,60 the inspector said no61 in the first case to apply the “duty to cooperate” she said that it could be found unsound as the delivery of the strategy would depend upon delivery in the adjoining authority. The lesson is clear, the combination of the requirement to meet objectively assessed needs and the duty to cooperate means that local planning authorities, in areas of tight planning or boundary constraints must either: (a) have agreed diversionary strategies to areas outside the constraints; and (b) have a strategic review of those planning constraints. There is a name for such strategies—regional planning. The second case is Stevenage. Here regional plans have followed the longstanding expansion of Stevenage to its North and West into North Herts district. Before proposed revocation of the regional plan both were cooperating on a joint approach. After the statement in June 2010 North Herts pulled out—a deliberate strategy of non-cooperation. Because of this the inspector found the Stevenage plan “unsound”. It was undeliverable because of the non- cooperation. The very same week the CALA II decision came in62—the regional plan had to be conformed to. Shortly thereafter the NPPF was published. The end result of this is the bizarre outcome that if the plan 58 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmcomloc/517/51707.htm#a17 59 See http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/ldf_dpd_soundness_guide.pdf page 5. This will need to be updated once the localism bill gains Royal Assent. 60 https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/rochford-asks-for-core-strategy-examination-to-be-suspended-in-light-of-nppf- and-cala/ 61 https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/rochford-inspector-refuses-stalling-request-on-core-strategy-key-precedent/ 62 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/cala-ii-decision-in/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w21

was examined today it would not be Stevenage that would be found unsound but North Herts, for not cooperating. Not surprisingly Stevenage have issued a judicial review.63 Some authorities at EiP have also had to delay or suspend examinations because of challenges that they have not carried out Strategic Environmental Assessments on the impact of reducing housing targets from the regional plan levels (example South Wilts). All of this produced a chaotic situation. Not only do local planning authorities now only have a matter of months to produce up to date plans, they have in the same timescale to agree on joint strategic plans for the same areas and resolve disputes—example expansion of Harlow, Oxford, Bristol, Milton Keynes, Northampton—that have been raging for 30 years or even longer without resolution. There is a risk that some authorities will effectively seek a joint strategy of non-cooperation—gaming the system64—by agreeing jointly to propose together as low a target as they can possibly get away with. There is already some evidence of this occurring in places such as in most of Herts and around Milton Keynes.65 Looking at the two options above is stark and politically unacceptable to many Green Belt66 authorities, either take certain urban expansion areas out of the Green Belt, or cooperate with districts many miles away outside the Green Belt to take the overspill. Unless this takes place as a nation we shall fall short of meeting housing needs. Indeed it is easy to forget the reason we had growth areas and growth points was, in part, a means of resolving pressure on large towns and preventing unacceptable sprawl by diverting pressure to planned areas which would undergo large scale, planned, employment led-growth. Indeed from the figures in the Housing Green Paper, Homes for the Future 2005,67 it is clear that the then government decided on this approach as to do otherwise would mean increasing housing numbers for districts outside the Green Belt by around 40% on average. So the consequences are clear. If the Green Belt is “solid and absolutely inviolate” as the SoS claims,68 and there are to be no national growth areas then there will need to be massive growth in remoter rural England. If the local authorities concerned cannot agree this then they wont get their plans through and developers will then be able to build “what they like, where they like, when they like”. If not inviolate then LPAs could meet housing need locally by a review of Green Belt inner boundaries. Good examples of this stark choice are the three ministers constituencies, Tunbridge Wells—Greg Clarke, Brentwood—Eric Pickles, and Welwyn Hatfield—Grant Shapps. If you meet local objectively assessed need you have to go into the Green Belt. Indeed precedent, such as the Woking first EIP, has set that meeting housing need, a national policy, is sufficient to meet the “exceptional circumstances” test of national Green Belt policy. Indeed this is a good thing as the alternative, moving all development outside the Green Belt, is not always the most sustainable solution, as the first Barker report69 found. In the 1980s there was a considerable over-expansion of Green Belt, indeed it was a perverse effect of the “liberalisation” of planning in that era as Green Belt was applied strictly when other policies promoted growth. Green Belts typically have a life span of 20–30 years—that is the inner boundaries allowed for growth over that period. Now they are straining. Indeed Welwyn-Hatfield has recently consulted on various options—one of which—meeting housing need locally would lead to two-three times more loss of Green Belt than was proposed under the regional plan.70 Indeed such calculations, now being undertaken by many authorities, give the lie to the statements that the Green Belt is “safe”. Indeed the NPPF is biggest threat ever faced to the Green Belt. The reason is the Green Belt was designed from the outset as one of a series of tools to be applied through a “larger than local” plan. Without such a plan the Green Belt is much weaker and may break under strains. Development pressures will build to explosive levels locally, to the extent that some future government may consider that Green Belts are too restrictive and should be abolished (as has been discussed within the corridors of Whitehall and Downing Street several times under different governments), or their will be numerous local incursions as pressures build up. The alternative to regional planning is political suicide, and the government have now committed it. Ministers may have hoped that by saying the Green Belt is “safe” they would diffuse matters. Given that the vast majority of the public confuse the Green Belt with “greenfield” they may have hoped that people would be fooled. The real problem is that the NPPF combined with the abolition of regional planning threatens both with unplanned housing via planning by appeal. Indeed the real risk is that many local leaders may find the choice of proposing targets meeting need, or accepting need displaced from elsewhere, too politically 63 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/stevenage-challenges-unsound-core-strategy-report/ 64 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/gaming-the-system-through-not-progressingadopting-development-plans/ 65 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/gridlock-in-milton-keynes-three-plans-under-threat/ 66 The same problems apply to other highly constrained authorities. 67 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/439986.pdf 68 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110404/debtext/110404–0001.htm Note the rigid phrase “solid and absolutely inviolate” is not part of national policy existing or proposed. 69 http://www.barkerreview.org.uk/ 70 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/green-belt-loss-in-much-of-england-could-double-under-nppf-the-evidence/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w22 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

difficult; and may simply go down the planning by appeal route—then blaming the government or planning inspectors as they used to blame Regional Assemblies. We already have an example in Horsham District71 where the leader has said ok if this is what you want but it will mean losing on appeal. This case is notable as this was the first sound core strategy in the country. If this authority finds it is politically difficult to plan positively for growth then almost everywhere will.72 Larger than local planning performs an essential economic function73 without it you can either build too few houses, diverting spending to land rent, or too many, creating indebtedness and the ghost estates you see in Ireland and Spain. The countries with the weakest planning systems and a lack or regional planning have suffered most in the Great Recession. Good planning is not a “drag anchor”74 to growth, it is its foundation. The informal arrangements proposed by the NPPF for larger than local planning are inadequate. Guidance by the Planning Officers Society on informal arrangements does not try to conceal how inadequate they are.75 A “memorandum of understanding or a jointly prepared strategy” would come under challenge at the first EIP of the jointly affected local planning authorities. Objectors would say that they have not had an opportunity to comment on such an approach or look at its strategic environmental effects. This is a legal requirement under EU directive 2001/24/EC76 which is blind to borders and whether plans or programmes are statutory or not (as long as they are required by “legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions”). Therefore all such joint approaches will require strategic environmental assessment and the early consultation on reasonable alternative options that this requires. The first examination in the area will become the examination for the whole of the affected area, this is unsatisfactory and potentially unlawful. An informal system of joint larger than local examinations will be needed. Effectively local planning authorities will have to rebuild the whole structure of regional and subregional planning. It is not that the government is opposed to larger than local planning, rather they have opposed the form it took before, and sought futilely to abolish it without proper parliamentary authority or following correct legal procedures, and now faced with a vacuum that is causing chaos and shrinking housing numbers nationally. They are now hoping local planning authorities will get together spontaneously to fill it. There is a way forward. Advisers such as John Howell MP and Minister such as Bob Neill have said they are fans of the old structure plan system. It is “larger than local planning” of roughly that scale we need, around the travel to work areas/housing market areas of our larger towns, or groups of smaller towns in between. But counties, the previous basis of structure plans, are not always a good basis for doing this today. We now have many unitary authorities in historic county areas—such as in Kent and Essex, so counties taking on functions would create a democratic deficit. In some cases such as Berks no historic county is left at all. In some counties we already have successful joint arrangements in parts of counties (East and West Northants, South Worc, PUSH [South Hampshire], Greater Norwich). However in other cases towns that need to expand are right on county borders, such as Milton Keynes and Harlow. I propose a series of pragmatic reforms as follows: (1) The power to prevent local planning authorities from withdrawing plans without SoS agreement stays (the Localism Bill clause 97 is removed)—to prevent a stalling strategy. (2) A new clause is inserted to the Localism Bill—right after the new “duty to cooperate” clause—setting out a statutory duty for local planning authorities to have entered into a joint strategic planning scheme for an area. (3) A new clause is inserted into the Localism Bill making such joint strategic plans statutory and providing for their examination. Any “local plan” within the area of a joint strategic plan would need to be in “general conformity” with the joint strategic plan. (4) Requiring local planning authorities to submit a strategic planning scheme to the SoS within 2 months of Royal Assent of the Localism Bill. The policy presumption would be that where submitted by two or more local planning authorities these would be automatically approved unless the SoS used powers in default (see below). Such a scheme would have the option of proposing that larger plans, or joint plans (eg Cornwall, South Worcs) where the plan covers one or more whole housing market areas, would also function as a strategic planning scheme—removing the need for two tier plans. (5) Where authorities refuse to enter into a joint strategic planning scheme or where one is submitted with key authorities omitted the SOS would have a new default power, created by adding a new clause 29a to the Planning and Compensation Act 200477 to set up a joint planning committee under section 29 of that Act. 71 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/localism-stalls-planned-growth-in-horsham-district-leader-condemns-protesters- for-backing-unplanned-development/ 72 So far very very few districts have proposed housing targets above regional plan levels, example Dover, showing that with the abolition of regional plans housing allocations are likely to go down rather than up. 73 http://www.tcpa.org.uk/resources.php?action=resource&id=880 74 http://www.planningresource.co.uk/Policy_and_Politics/article/1061266/pickles-well-cut-drag-anchor-planning-system-down- size/ 75 http://www.planningofficers.org.uk/downloads/pdf/POS_Revised_Advice_%20Note_2_Planning_Post_RSS_Revocation_ March2011.pdf 76 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm 77 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/5/part/2/crossheading/joint-committees cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w23

(6) That minister undertake to revoke regional plans until these new strategic plans replacing them are agreed—then RSS can be revoked in the areas covered (you would also not need to SEA the revocation, only the replacement strategy). This would work much better than the suggested localism bill clauses on joint infrastructure plans. These missed the point. You can’t separate infrastructure from development and they proposed no path for implementation. Effectively it sets up a new ﬂexible “structure planning” type arrangement, but locally driven. The default SOS default power might never be used, but the threat to use it would work wonders in creating locally driven agreement. The reforms would merely formalise what LPAs are doing in the absence of regional plans anyway. Looking at how this might go ahead you could see joint committees set up at County level in some counties such as Oxon. Some counties might form joint committees with unitaries, the District and the County (Dorset, Herts). In some very large counties the counties might be split to reﬂect existing sub-regional arrangements (eg North and South Devon, Hamps, and North and South Essex and Kent). Large towns on county edges would need cross-border joint committees that might go one or two parishes out. This would prevent the expansion of a large town dragging down through controversy the planning of all districts around it. These reforms would work in conjuction with the proposed reforms to the “presumption”. It would be a workable, natural and pragmatic solution. The presumption should be for statutory committees under section 29 of the 2004 act, or else new plans will need to be agreed via every single constituent, rather than by majority vote. The experience is that statutory committees (such as East Northants) have worked much more swiftly than informal arrangements. Finally the presumption of having one local plans should not apply to joint waste plans. These have worked very well and now face having years of work thrown away by the NPPF.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? No. The only evidence listed for the policy changes is in the impact assessment published alongside the draft. However this only lists some of the main changes, and omits the most controversial changes.78 This suggests that the process is not evidence driven. This impression is reinforced by a comment made by the planning minister Greg Clark on the day of the launch of the NPPF. When asked what percent of LPAs had adopted plans. He said to the Property Week interviewer he did not have the latest figures. In fact the latest figures were prominently published in the impact assessment with a map and large table. This indicated to me the impact assessment was not even read by the Planning Minister, and the impact assessment represents an ex-poste facto justification of policy changes made for ideological rather than evidence based reasons. Strikingly low the document does not consider at all the impacts of the major changes in policy, which the government has not wished to draw too much attention to: for example the removal of protection of the countryside for its own sake, the removal of the strict protection of the undeveloped coast, the removal of protection of viable employment land. A major change that one might have been expected to be backed by firm research evidence is the removal of the priority given to previously developed land. The impact assessment only refers to the removal of the national target percent. Here the evidence given is sound. The national target would be impossible to be met in future years as with the exhaustion of large previously developed sites in many parts of the country and the need to meet housing needs the proportion of non-previously developed sites was bound to rise. In any event the change of the definition of previously developed land (excluding gardens) makes year on year comparisons impossible. However it is possible to drop a national target and retain the priority for previously developed sites. The impact assessment seems to suggest that previously developed sites are always more expensive. Not the case some are and some are not and in any event national policy continues to retain a test that housing sites be viable and deliverable so it is not directly relevant. One might expect a thorough research based assessment of this thesis. Similarly there is no evidence presented for many of the key changes. For example a major change is the removal of the power for local communities protect employment land, to provide for their business needs (NPPF para 75). There is no independent research on the impact of this. It, together with the planned changes to the use classes order, it is likely to be wholly counterproductive to the government’s growth ambitions. Employments premises are likely to vanish completely from many urban areas, especially large parts of London. This will mean a shortage of ready to go employment premises in those areas most needing of local employment and small business growth. Firms will scatter to cheaper out of the way locations and ones where they can operate without nuisance complaints from neighbours moving into converted factories next door. The agglomeration economies of cities will be lost. Employees will have to commute outwards to work often by car. Because of the increased travel costs many people may leave cities to maintain family budgets. The risk 78 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/the-justification-for-national-policy-changes-the-nppf-impact-statement/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w24 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

then is that cities will hollow out of the working poor with a movement of jobs to the suburbs and rural areas, starting a cycle of decline seen in many “urban prairie” donut cities like Detroit, and St Lois.

The impact will be even worse on new zoning for employment land. Local planning authorities are often keen to maintain a balance between new homes and new jobs to reduce unnecessary car trips on local roads. If one such authority found it needed to zone 50 HA of each it might ﬁnd that under the NPPF that most of the employment land was developed as short term cheap sheds that after a very short period were converted to or developed for housing. This would be encouraged by the NPPF. So lets say 40ha of the 50Ha went to housing. That would mean that to get 50 HA of employment land, for which there is local demand, they would have to zone for housing on 250Ha of land, well in excess of need. Local authorities will ﬁnd themselves in such circumstances asking why should we be zoning for employment land at all? Hence the policy change, rather than being planning for growth, is likely to lead to less zoning for employment needs than current, and less zoning for new housing, on the assumption that much new housing will come from land currently zoned for employment. By not thinking matters through and not conducting research on policy changes it is likely to have the opposite unintended consequence of what is intended.

The implications would be even worse for those previous “growth areas” such as Cambridge and Milton Keynes, where much housing demand over 15 years would have been generated by people moving to these areas to jobs that have not been created. In these areas the question that they will have to answer before they can set their housing targets is just how much growth they should assume. With the dropping of national growth areas some areas such as Milton Keynes are now only planning to meet “local” need for housing, which assumes limited employment growth. This is a worrying repeat of the 1980s reaction to planning liberalisation by counties such as Herts and Hampshire, which imposed “no growth” policies, restricting employment growth to push down housing targets. What is worse without being able to control what is built on new employment land even those areas with growth ambitions for will be unable to determine how much land to zone and hence what housing targets derived from “employment-led” growth to go with.

Government policy in this field seems to have been excessively influenced by James O’Shaughnessy special advisor to the Prime Minister; who rather than town planning believes that development decisions should be dependent on market pricing and where “Local Government’s role was guiding where to build not whether or what to build”.79 His blind “boy racer” special advisor dogma that markets are always “efficient” in the allocation of resources (all evidence of global economic collapse to the contrary) has had an excessive bearing on the content of the NPPF. Indeed expert civil servants at the DCLG have barely got a look in. It is more troubling those that key figures closely associated with the NPPF are alumni of the think tank “The Policy Exchange”.80 The Policy Exchange is part of the “Stockholm Network” of European groups funded to promote or undermine sustainable development, with close links to ferociously anti-sustainable development and extreme American groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute. Indeed it is telling that the Stockholm Network is largely funded by Exxon Mobil well known for its funding of false climate change denial science. Indeed the NPPF is just a smokescreen to hide, through its redefinition of “sustainability”, the promotion of an extreme “tea party” like vision promoting “property rights” over all other considerations.

The bias in the NPPF creation process is evident in the role and make-up of the “Practitioners Advisory Group”81 tasked with drafting the NPPF—the name is a minsnomer as none of the “Practitioners” are drafters of plans or determine planning applications. It comprises a well known ant-planning councillor, a property developer and an agent for property developers, finally a token member of an environmental group—the RSPB—who later described their involvement and role was to provide “green-wash”82 to the process. Indeed the whole process of preparation of the NPPF has been a closed source one.83 Rather than a typical White Paper process before the election we have had a consultation largely confined to members of one political party, no widespread canvassing of expert opinion for ideas for reform, bypassing of DCLG officials through the practitioners group process, and lack of opportunity for line-by-line comments on the draft suggest that the government has made up its mind and was determined to push the NPPF through even before a single consultation return was received.

Indeed the attitude of ministers has been to be defensive on the NPPF, with numerous press brieﬁngs that changes will be “pushed through”, to distort what the NPPF actually says, and to bizarrely brand genuine concerns from groups such as the National Trust as “a carefully choreographed smear campaign by left- wingers”.84

Two public statements by ministers Greg Clark MP and Andrew Stunnell MP have seriously distorted what the NPPF actually says. This leads me to conclude that either ministers have not fully read and have misunderstood the NPPF as it doesn’t say what they want it to say, or they are distorting its true meaning— 79 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/number-10s-open-aim-to-destroy-the-planning-system/ 80 https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/policy-exchange-nppf-not-pro-sprawl-enough/ 81 http://www.nppfpractitionersadvisorygroup.org/ 82 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/rspb-comes-out-against-nppf-as-greenwash-we-will-be-rolling-up-our-sleeves- to-ﬁght-this-one-of-the-practitioners-breaks-ranks/ 83 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/nppf-ﬁrst-quick-impressions-closed-source-planning-is-here/ 84 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/bob-neills-bad-day/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w25

which is it to be? Greg Clark has stated that the NPPF is against sprawl. A fact check of his blog post85 shows that the NPPF doesn’t use the term sprawl once, and in fact would make unplanned sprawl much easier. Whilst Andrew Stunnell MP has stated that the NPPF would require development to be well designed. It certainly does not.86 One of the major problematic changes in the NPPF is its downgrading of design control to exactly the same wording used in circular 22/80, that only “obviously poor designs” can be refused. Anyone who has faced barristers at any public inquiry in the 1980s or early 1990s knows what that has been found to mean. It is green light to the mediocre, the bland, the undistinguished, the formulaic and the merely arguably and slightly poor; a policy that led to the bland little box housing of that era. Ministers need to launch a major listening exercise, similar to that in the NHS, to canvass a broader range of views of those working and involved in this sector and to switch from a hectoring anti-planning mode into a genuine listening mode. Various bodies will be suggesting major rewrites of the NPPF, which is what it needs. I shall be submitting a suggested redrafting shortly. I would finally recommend that the committee continues to investigate in more detail some of the key policy changes. A number of specialist bodies will be giving more detailed evidence on issues such as the watering down of transport policy, open cast, and heritage policy so I won’t go into detail here. It is necessary to point out to you committee certain changes which might pass unnoticed. For example the strict presuming against development of the undeveloped coastline that doesn’t require a coastal location, and the integrated policy on coastal planning we currently have, would both be deleted and replaced in much weaker form. Secondly it prevents (para 141) one important means of controlling development in the Green Belt known as “infill only villages” that is for more open and smaller villages in the Green Belt allowing some limited infill according to strict rules. What this means in practice is that many such villages would have to be deleted from the Green Belt and much more intensive development allowed within them. This is a major threat to the Green Belt. This has proved a useful and pragmatic tool and should stay. Thirdly It deletes the policy against large adverts on buildings and the open countryside. Until local plans are in place (needlessly duplicating this policy) we are likely too see a proliferation of such hoardings across the countryside. Finally it makes it very difficult to steer developments to sites which cause the least congestion and which are the most accessible. This is because of the deliberate addition of text to make it almost impossible to refuse a scheme on adverse transport impact. As the main author of the NPPF John Rhodes has said:87 “We’ve tried to write some text which says ‘…you don’t solve world hunger’ in other words in the South East you are not responsible for congestion on the network it is not a proper reason for refusing planning permission and unless there is some extreme harm in relationship for instance to safety which obviously shouldn’t be allowed, once you have done what you can transport shouldn’t stand in the way of granting planning permission”. Logically this is exactly the same position as a promoter of a power station saying they are not responsible for CO2 emissions, everybody else is. August 2011

Written evidence from Dr Gavin Rider Questions: 1. 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 over planning decisions? 2. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? 85 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/greg-clark-misrepresents-what-nppf-says-on-his-blog-fact-check/ 86 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/now-lib-dem-junior-minister-andrew-stunnell-mispresents-the-nppf-on-design/ 87 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/increasing-congestion-and-lack-of-road-capacity-to-be-no-longer-reason-for- objection-under-nppf/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w26 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Responses:

1. No—there is no capacity for local communities to exercise any “power” over planning decisions. The “exercise of power” would suggest the capability to express both support and opposition. The draft NPPF and Localism proposals appear to provide no powers for local communities to oppose planning decisions, or to challenge them if they have already been granted. There must be a public right to challenge planning decisions and to have those decisions changed, otherwise there is no community “power” at all.

2. No—“sustainability” is an abstract and unquantified concept that cannot be relied upon to be consistently applied from one area to another. It appears to permit the idea that an area’s natural beauty can be totally destroyed by development providing there are plenty of other areas elsewhere that would be available for later exploitation by future generations. “Sustainability” cannot possibly apply to the consumption or exploitation of a finite natural resource such as open landscape, purely because it is limited. Only if a natural resource will regenerate, as a crop does, will it be possible to regard the consumption of that natural resource to achieve economic growth as “sustainable”—and even then the rate of consumption must be balanced by the rate of regeneration for the consumption to be “sustainable”, which is at least a quantifiable assessment. One cannot possibly apply such an evaluation to the consumption of open countryside by development, so consumption of the open countryside for housing development can never be considered as “sustainable”.

3. No—the principles of the policy are to make great use of the term “sustainable” and to claim that the new planning policy will simultaneously protect and enhance the natural environment while encouraging development. But the abolition of planning restrictions that were put in place to do exactly the same thing and their replacement by a universal “presumption in favour of development” cannot possibly be considered either clear or workable.

4. No comment.

5. Probably.

6. No—there is no mention of the need for evidence to justify allowing housing development in the open countryside, nor is there any definition of the criteria by which that evidence could be judged to be “robust”. The document is completely unhelpful in its treatment of the need for evidence, including making completely meaningless statements such as “evidence supporting the assessment should be proportionate, using only appropriate available evidence”. This appears to be saying that the evidence is only really required if it is already available. That seems to imply that if the evidence of the need for a development is not available the default decision should be to approve the development anyway. That will lead to the uncontrolled exploitation of the open countryside for financial gain by developers who are only interested in making a profit for themselves, not in satisfying a local housing need.

Previously, “exception site policy” allowed Affordable Housing developments to be undertaken in the open countryside where development would normally be prohibited, providing the need for the developments was proven by “robust and shared” evidence of the local housing need. This at least provided some kind of yardstick by which proposals could be judged, albeit in a somewhat flexible and ill-defined way. There has been no “quality control” applied to either the production or the evaluation of this evidence, so developers have effectively been allowed to generate their own (highly questionable) evidence to support their development proposals. Local authorities have been deficient in not testing the evidence rigorously enough—they have generally accepted any and all evidence provided to them regardless of its integrity, as long as it supported the proposed development. Local authorities themselves have been guilty of generating invalid evidence of housing need to support exception site developments by extracting unqualified figures from Choice Based Lettings registers, contrary to all the guidance published by the DCLG. This is not objective. It has permitted planning approval to be given for developments that are supported by nothing more than false and invalidly produced evidence of the need for them.

What is needed is an independent auditing function, whereby the justification for granting planning permission for developments outside normal development boundaries (i.e. in the open countryside) will be subject to random checking. The independent auditor should have the power to inspect any planning application at any time to confirm that the evidence of the need for it is “robust”. The auditor should have the power to reverse incorrectly granted planning consent and to impose fines for such incorrect approval. This would serve as a disincentive for local authorities to “bend the rules” and would encourage “good practice”. The public should have the ability to call in the auditor to review any planning approval that they consider has been incorrectly granted. Only if the public have a right to challenge planning approvals in this way will there be real “localism” and community power.

I would suggest that the Environment Agency would perhaps be a suitable body to undertake this independent auditing function, as they are currently consultees on planning applications anyway and their basic remit is to protect the natural environment. September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w27

Written evidence from Community and Regional Planning Services

Introduction

1. Community and Regional Planning Services is an independent planning consultancy operating throughout England 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 and community councils, amenity groups and private individuals. We have experience in using planning policy both 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 training in the planning system through seminars and workshops. Through all our work runs the thread of a high level of environmental awareness and commitment together with community sensitivity.

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

Summary

This Evidence: — welcomes the more concise form of the NPPF compared with previous Planning Statements and Guidance; — draws attention to both procedural and policy weaknesses in the draft NPPF and calls for improvements in the final version; these include: — the time given to local planning authorities to adjust to the new NPPF and the policy changes which it incorporates; — the need for a real improvement in the status of local communities in respect of plan-making and development management decisions; — town centres and office uses; — the viability of developments and developer obligations/contributions; — housing land allocation; — the effective use of land and the priority to be given to “previously-developed land”; and — transport issues; — discusses the definition of sustainable development and the “Presumption in favour”; — suggests adding three topics to the “Core principles”; and — discusses the “duty-to co-operate” and the problem of larger-than-local infrastructure.

Evidence

1. The NPPF is a bold attempt to consolidate national planning policy into a more concise and readable form. This will be widely welcomed by various users of the planning system, local authorities, developers, local communities and third parties.

2. The NPPF incorporates policy changes, of course, as well as being “slimmed down” when compared with previous Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Guidance. However, in the spirit of “localism”, local planning authorities (LPAs) may wish to incorporate some of the lost detail from the PPSs into their local plans where this does not conﬂict with the NPPF, since previously they were advised not to repeat the text of PPSs in local plan documents. Without this, some local authorities may consider there to be policy gaps.

3. With the policy changes that the NPPF includes, even recently-adopted local plans may ﬁnd overnight that they do not conform to the NPPF, thus rendering them liable to the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, through no fault of their own. LPAs should therefore be given time to adjust their local plans to the new regime, both to incorporate new national policy initiatives and selected detail from the PPSs. This could in many cases be achieved by the production of a short update Local Development Document (including any necessary consultation and Examination). We suggest a period of 12 months from the date of issue of the ﬁnal NPPF before the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” can be invoked. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w28 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

4. “Local communities” has different interpretations according to context. Even in a compact urban local authority such as a metropolitan or London borough, “local community” has to mean some neighbourhood or other meaningful area at sub-authority level. Some rural local authorities are now geographically very large, especially after the last round of local authority reorganisation and the creation of some large unitary authorities the size of their former counties. In these instances, “local communities” are usually much smaller, equating to market towns or even individual parishes.

5. Even with the proposals in the Localism Bill and the NPPF, local communities are not really going to see any greater powers over planning decisions in general than was previously the case. Parish and Town Councils are statutory consultees, for both development plans and planning applications, but the weight given to their views varies considerably from one authority to another.

6. The one exception will be where a neighbourhood plan is produced but, apart from the power to identify “Local Green Space” land for community use, local communities will only have “the power to promote more development than is set out in the Local Plan” (to quote draft NPPF para 17) and not less. This is hardly “giving local communities sufﬁcient power over planning decisions”—at least not in a balanced way. Except where there are Neighbourhood Development Orders, local communities’ inﬂuence over the location and design of development is likely to be no greater than at present, making the announced intentions of the Localism Bill rather hollow.

7. Whilst LPAs must remain the sole planning authority for their areas (except where Neighbourhood Development Orders are in place), it is recommended that more weight be given than hitherto to the views expressed by democratically-elected Parish and Town Councils (where such views are expressed), both in respect of local plan preparation and of development management decisions.

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

8. “Sustainable development” is not actually deﬁned in the draft NPPF except by a footnote reference to the 1987 Brundtland report, and it does not appear in the Glossary.

9. An attempt to explain the use of the term is made in draft NPPF paras 10–12, with an emphasis on pursuing the “three components in an integrated way” i.e. the economic, social and environmental roles. Planning is in a unique position to do this. Unfortunately, the draft NPPF, despite its “core planning principles”—which in 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 planning system can contribute to this, but the popular image that planning stands in the way of businesses is, in general, a myth.

10. Other examples of the NPPF’s not following through the principles of sustainability include a weakening of developer obligations, the location of ofﬁce development, the re-use of previously developed land and transport. See our comments on “General assessment of the ﬁtness for purpose of the draft Framework as a whole”, below.

11. The planning system has since its inception in 1947 stuck to the principle of balancing competing interests and 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 upsetting this careful balance.

12. The “presumption in favour of sustainable development” as it stands is dangerous. It is understandable that pressure needs to be put upon some local authorities to accelerate their plan-making in order to ensure that their local plans are up-to-date, although time should be allowed for this before any “presumption” is invoked (see our answer to the Committee’s ﬁrst Question). Para 15 of the draft NPPF states that LPAs should produce “clear policies that will guide how the presumption will be applied locally”. If this means that the “presumption” could not be invoked until the local planning authority had devised, consulted on and adopted such policies, then well and good.

13. Otherwise, unless the “presumption” is qualiﬁed to a much greater extent than at present, some undesirable consequences could arise. The only example given in the draft NPPF of where a proposed development would not 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 invoking the “presumption”, especially at appeal.

14. Policy constraints such as National Parks, AONBs, heritage coasts, conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Green Belt, local strategic gaps, SSSIs and other recognised wildlife sites, ancient woodland, locally valued landscapes and open public amenity areas should be accepted as locations where the “presumption” would not apply. Even with these policy constraints’ being listed, the “presumption” could lead to unacceptable development in other areas of open countryside. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w29

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

15. Para 19 in the draft NPPF and its bullet-points are a succinct strategic vision for plan-making and planning decisions. Although each of these themes is developed further in the NPPF, some matters are so important that they should be promoted to Core Planning Principles (or what is already in para 19 should be suitably enhanced). These are: — the importance of food security and therefore the need to protect productive farmland from irreversible development; — reducing the need to travel (only brieﬂy touched upon in para 82), not merely emphasising sustainable transport; and — the importance of enabling local communities, especially rural ones, to retain their identities and therefore avoiding patterns of growth that cause these identities to be lost.

16. To answer the second of these questions, the one difﬁculty would appear to be the conﬂict between the aspirations of “localism” and the need to plan larger-than-local infrastructure. This does not mean that the passing of Regional Strategies is lamented: these were not very successful in integrating national and sub- national infrastructure with more local development proposals either.

17. We explore this in greater depth in answer to the next Question, but sufﬁce it to say here that there will have to be increased monitoring and involvement in local planning by national infrastructure providers such as the Highways Agency, Network Rail, the Environment Agency and gas, electricity and telecommunications network operators to ensure that their forward investment plans keep ahead of development proposals. Hitherto, many of these bodies have conﬁned their strategic planning roles to working with regional and sub-regional plans and have given less attention to local plans. This must now change.

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

18. The “duty to co-operate” will ensure that local authorities work with their neighbours to resolve planning and infrastructure issues that cross local authority boundaries. The extent of such co-operation will be examined by Local Plan Inspectors and Local Plans will be deemed unsound if any necessary co-operation is not demonstrated.

19. However, the mere “duty to co-operate” may prove insufﬁcient in two respects. Firstly, planning for large-scale infrastructure which extends or impacts beyond neighbouring authorities. If one or more developments proposed are of such a scale or impact (or a number of smaller developments cumulatively have such impact) that infrastructure is affected a considerable distance away, then co-operation between neighbouring authorities may not be good enough. An authority making such a proposal in its local plan, or a developer submitting an application for a large development, must be obliged to show that it/he has considered the wider implications of the proposal and that appropriate provision is or can be made and funded by the relevant infrastructure provider(s).

20. The Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), depending on their geographical coverage, may have an advisory role here—but no more than that. LEPs have no democratic representation and their plans do not have to be subject to public consultation (or possibly even Strategic Environmental Assessment). Their advice to LPAs, therefore, cannot be deﬁnitive. Furthermore, their raison d’être is the promotion of economic development and they are therefore not in an ideal position to balance economic, social and environmental planning policies.

21. Secondly, a local “duty to co-operate” is likely in some areas to give rise to imbalances especially between housing and employment. One authority may be promoting housing growth but with few employment opportunities, whereas another may have little potential for housing (due, perhaps, to environmental or other policy constraints) but is strong on promoting employment. Unless these two authorities are close neighbours, this could give rise to increased longer-distance commuting—an unsustainable position which has both infrastructure and environmental consequences.

22. Even if housing and employment are in close proximity, local housing may not be able to supply the necessary skills that the employers seek. This is an additional factor that could give rise to unsustainable commuting, and goes to show that appropriate in-depth analysis of these issues is required: the promotion of mere numbers (whether of housing or jobs) is insufﬁcient. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w30 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

23. As well as a duty to co-operate, therefore, LPAs should have an obligation in their local plans to assess where residents of any proposed new large-scale housing developments are likely to work and where employees of any proposed large-scale commercial or industrial developments are likely to live, this evidence to be examined by the Local Plan Inspector. Similarly, promoters of large-scale developments at the application stage should carry out equivalent assessments (this goes further than the existing travel assessments or travel plans).

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based? 24. [We have not answered this Question.].

General Assessment of the Fitness for Purpose of the Draft Framework as a Whole 25. As it stands, the draft NPPF represents a good start but there are many areas where improvement is needed. Areas of concern not already mentioned above include: — Although “effective use of land” is mentioned in the “Core planning principles” (para 19), the draft NPPF does not otherwise give sufficient emphasis to the re-use of “previously-developed land” (PDL) or to prioritising the allocation and development of sustainable PDL sites before greenfield locations. Local authorities should be required as part of their plan-making continually to assess the actual and likely availability of urban PDL for various uses and to apply a sequential test when allocating land for development. This is not merely about protecting the countryside (though that is important) but about supporting urban regeneration in a positive and pro-active way. — The NPPF is too weak on the question of the viability of developments (paras 39ff). Development proposals have to be viable in order to proceed, but no development should be permitted to do so if it cannot meet its obligations to mitigate its social and environmental impacts. Mitigation of these impacts is just as much a legitimate cost as land acquisition, construction materials or labour, to be taken into account when assessing viability. Planning authorities should not be encouraged to reduce these legitimate obligations in order to “improve” the viability of a proposed development, otherwise the remaining unmet costs (whether monetary, social or environmental) fall on the wider society of businesses and residents. — Office uses should be included with retail and leisure uses for which it is preferred that they be located in town centres (paras 76ff refer). Offices generate considerable commuting travel journeys and town centre hubs are better served by public transport compared with suburban or out-of-town locations. Furthermore, town-centre offices provide employees easy access on foot to retail and leisure uses at lunchtimes and before/after work, thus strengthening the town centre economy. A strong town-centre policy for office development would support the Government’s climate change policies by avoiding damaging increases in car use and would support much-needed urban regeneration and revitalisation of our High Streets. — The section of the draft NPPF on transport (paras 82ff) provides too much emphasis on “giving people a choice about how they travel”. This is weak. Much stronger policy is needed on locating development where non-car modes of transport are available or can be provided and—for larger developments generating considerable numbers of trips—the contributions that developers should make towards the provision of public transport services and cycling routes serving their sites. The advice (para 86) that: development should not be prevented or refused on transport grounds unless the residual impacts of development are severe, and the need to encourage increased delivery of homes and sustainable economic development should be taken into account. is unacceptable. LPAs must be given the discretion (a) fully to assess the transport impacts of a proposed development, (b) to require developer obligations or contributions as necessary to mitigate those impacts and (c) ultimately to refuse permission if such impacts are not adequately mitigated. — The requirement for an additional 20% allowance for housing allocation in local plans (para 109) unnecessary and unacceptable. The mere allocation of additional land over and above that calculated to meet local needs does not of itself increase the rate of housing development, which is much more determined by market conditions and the availability of finance than it is by the availability of land. Much allocated land has remained undeveloped for many years, even through the so-called “boom” times. Increasing allocations beyond that required to meet local needs merely deters the development of the more difficult—but usually more sustainable—sites, many of which are on previously-developed land and in urban areas, at the expense of greenfield, rural and urban-fringe land. Also, where a LPA can demonstrate a history of windfall sites coming forward which have contributed to—and are likely to continue to contribute to—a substantial proportion of housing completions in its area, then it should be able to make an allowance for windfall sites in its five and 10-year supply calculations, without this being treated as an “exception”. This is particularly important for local authorities whose areas are mostly urban or are highly constrained by eg Green Belt. September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w31

Written evidence from Professor David Fisk CB FRAEng FCIBSE FRIBA (Hons) Summary — Sections 9–12 are an unexceptional restatement of principles. — Section 13–18 then essentially reverse the thrust altogether and looks likely to favour developments that in the long term could make a community unable to sustain itself. — The motivation may be based on a series of urban myths about planning and the English economies which seem difﬁcult to align with the recent relatively better performance of economies with more, not less, restrictions in land use. Deeper malaise is not apparently to be addressed in this NPPF.

Introduction I was until 2010 the Royal Academy of Engineering Professor in Engineering for Sustainable Development at Imperial College London. I am an Honorary Fellow of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers and the Royal Institution of British Architects. I was previously Chief Scientist and a policy director in the Department of Environment. I am associated with a number of bodies that have their own articulation of “sustainable development”. The views offered here are my own based on material taught by me at Imperial and are not intended to reﬂect in any way on these other bodies approach to this broad issue.

Sustainable Development Section 9–12 The draft NPPF quotes the Brundtland definition of sustainable development. DCLG will know that the term was not introduced by the Brundtland Commission but already appeared in its terms of reference. In the 1980s “sustainable” (as in “sustainable fisheries”, “sustainable forestry”) just meant what it said on the tin. Subsequent interminable redefinitions seem largely to curtail or redirect its meaning rather than add light. The Brundtland Report itself was a 300 page review of major global policy areas. The scope is breath taking. It not only included issues like biodiversity but issues long since shunted elsewhere like arms proliferation, over population, and sprawling megacities. They found Governments frequently patching a solution today by creating future liabilities they might not be able to meet. The Commission seems to have been onto something since the failure to meet Mephistophelian bargains has been a recurrent theme in the last 20 years in many parts of the world. They did not suppose that Governments got into the position intentionally, but rather that it was an organizational failure. Debate was either too short term, too narrowly focused or there was an expectation that, if future liabilities had to be paid, environmental capital that no one owned, or the social capital of the poor who were desperate anyway, could be used to get out of the mess. The Brundtland definition then only sets the Commission’s idea of scale—big issues over large timescales. That it might be applied to a proposal for a lap dancing club in Broadway High Street might have struck the Commission as perplexing. Brundtalnd’s actual solution was to provide an external check and balance to process with an international legal instrument—a kind of ECHR for future generations. That got swept away in subsequent UN negotiations and what was left was the paper-thin Rio Declaration signed by 150 countries, several of them run by latterly identified odious tyrants. The Declaration was referenced once in a NIREX planning Inquiry as a legitimate expectation, but as the draft NPPF shows, has been sent to oblivion. Although sustainable development appears in the EU Treaties (though that has not apparently influenced the like of the CFP), the UK has been especially prolific with the term. Statute often requires public bodies to “take it into account”. This is actually better than nothing because English Courts delight in taking an extraordinarily narrow view of a statutory power and as a consequence these bodies have to behave exactly as Brundtland feared they might. For example it would seem that the Olympics Park Legacy Authority had a remit confined to the interests of an entity called “the taxpayer” and could not have taken into account legally the wider interests of London and in one case the economy of Haringey in particular. Indeed English regeneration schemes have an uncanny habit of creating collateral damage elsewhere in the regional economy. Is the Olympics Park a regeneration scheme or just part of the plot against Uxbridge? The effect of these SD powers over the last two decades has otherwise not been that impressive. This is largely because Government necessarily provides the sustainable development framework for the statutory body and so in a sense marks its own homework. This is true even more so since the Sustainable Development Commission was dissolved. The problem has never been what was included in these sustainable development strategies. One UK Strategy even embraced the Obesity campaign, a world first in the sustainable development community. The problem is what is left out. For example the UK has been so coy about “population” that even in its sustainable development indicators it breaches UN guidelines and measures the economy by GDP not GDP/capita. Population and migration of course are central issues in land use planning. When sustainable development assessments have been published alongside major infrastructure proposals, as in the Third Runway or HS2, consultants have naturally felt they must be circumscribed by what Government, rather than the citizen, thinks would count. In both these examples the big Issues were left outside of the scope of the assessment. That was spotted by the SDC for the Third Runway but the SDC had effectively disappeared by the time of HS2. The Select Committee has already considered in some detail the saga of the English Eco-towns that weren’t. Wordsmiths in DOE did re-work the “definition” to a “better quality of life for all”. This reappears in the NPPF re-amble and if it really was to be the guiding principle in English Planning the “for all” would cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w32 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

revolutionize the system. It would have brought it much more into line with Northern European prescriptive planning and North American negotiated covenant practice. That is clearly not to be the case as the next section shows. While the pre-amble is largely unexceptional, and prospectively likely to be ineffectual, the second section is a train crash

Sustainable Development 13–18 It is hard for an external reader not to guess that this section has been shoe-horned in from Departments that neither understand the background to the Brundtland Commission, how planning actually works and what currently motivates applications in England. The first difficulty is that “development” in planning has a different gloss from “development” in the rarefied text of Brundtland. In planning, painting your front door would be a development. It is a change. Whether it is a “development” in the grander sense, even for the local community, is another issue. The hypothetical lap dancing club would be a sustainable development if it paid its bills. The collateral damage of that success would not, as the text is written, seem to be a material issue. Quite why paragraph 18 thinks that proposers will respond to an expectation to “play their part” when they have been given such a strong presumption in their favour is mysterious. The confuscation of “sustainable development” and changes in land use essentially neuters the system. Except apparently from section 16, for birds, who unlike citizens, fortunately have the protection of EU Directives for the viability of their nests. The core problem seems to be a misunderstanding of the role of land use in the economy as a whole.

Planning and the English Economy The urban myth is that planning restrains economic growth. But the economy is a complex system and what is the economy depends a great deal on where you stand within it. Even in the construction sector the position is ambivalent. The English property developer thrives on boom and bust and selling on, but at my end of the industry which has only intellectual capital for return we look on enviously at Northern European systems that have steady if modest rates of construction and where house builders can be proud of their craft and have not been reduced to land bank collectors. The difficulty for this self-serving urban myth is that developed economies that have of late run circles around the English economy, all have planning systems more prescriptively draconian. Economies with lax planning like Ireland or US States like Florida, hit the subprime wall with a crash. Mogadishu has no planning system of any kind, but that does not make it the power house of the African economy. The presumption as written could be England’s precursor for its next asset bubble. A second urban myth repeated recently in no less than a Financial Times Editorial is that a single objector can halt a development. In truth objectors just run out of money. As the OFT’s report on Tesco’s real estate growth has shown, a developer with a deep pocket, good legal advice and patience just has to bide their time. Hemel Hampstead apparently is not surrounded by fields but by Pension Funds. Local Authorities will be rightly concerned at burning hundreds of thousands of pounds of their rate payers’ money in appeals, when the tone of this NPPF might lead them to be advised that the Secretary of State would approve anything that has a roof on it. In a fast moving world, planning delays could be seen as burden. But delays are about process, especially a not-fit-for purpose legal system, not the plan itself. Ironically the mix of terminology and perspectives in the NPPF promises to make the system more lawyer bound than ever. If the local plan is the only gateway to be passed, then planning lawyers presumably are already gathering to breach its drafting. The NPPF appears to imply (section 14) that if a plan is stuck in the Courts all permissions have to be granted.

Deeper Problems? Perhaps the real difficulty is that the English have forgotten what the Planning system was for. If people work just to pay taxes so as to fund large public sector vanity projects, then maybe tax revenue generating lap dancing clubs and hypermarkets plonked anywhere are fine. But suppose people work principally so they can enjoy their home, live in communities of people they like and bring up their families in localities spared cycles of degeneration and fitful regeneration. In a nation that, especially in the South East, is beginning to look conspicuously overdeveloped, overpopulated and over tarmac-ed compared with competing centres in Mainland Europe, the draft NPPF may indeed be following the Brundtland prescription: a quick fix to a current problem that passes on an unmanageable future liability for the real heart of what drives the English economy, its people.

Coda The Committees’ deliberations will help the Government untangle some of the problems that seem to have arisen by a Frankenstein fusion of conflicting ideas. However the Government appears to have judged that this is not the time to attend to the real underlying problems in England that cause such friction in the paper-thin planning system and divert so much money away from productive industrial capital investment into land speculation. Perhaps this is all too deep in the English psyche . A big building speculator giving evidence to another Select Committee is reported as saying: A man who wishes to rise in the world can hardly expect to rise by following out a fair trade ...it is necessary for him to add speculative building to it, and that must be done not on a small scale; ...for the builder makes very little profit out of the buildings themselves; he makes the principal part of the profit cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w33

out of the improved ground-rents … rather than the proﬁt of the buildings ... which ... in many instances, he scarcely looks at all. This evidence was given 150 years ago to the Select Committee on the Bank Acts. September 2011

Written evidence from the Association of Convenience Stores ACS (the Association of Convenience Stores) represents over 33,500 local shops across the United Kingdom. ACS is a strong supporter of high streets and local shopping. ACS main concern is to ensure that the town centre first provisions on the National Planning Policy Framework for England continues to provide the clarity and consistency that will make investment and regeneration possible in our cities, towns and neighbourhoods. We are concerned that the draft NPPF constitutes lacks the clarity and force required to ensure that stated Government and cross-Party objectives of supporting town centres are met. Unless strengthened, the NPPF will weaken “town centre first” provisions of national planning rules. Therefore we urge the Committee to recommend substantial strengthening of the policy to prevent a significant step backwards that would undermine investment in our towns and neighbourhoods. ACS asks the Committee to dedicate specific time to hearing views on the implications of NPPF reforms on the vitally important issue of town centre first policy We believe that the Committee would learn a significant amount about the broader impact of NPPF by focusing on the way the new policy framework will change the dynamics of planning for town centres. We ask the committee to make the following recommendations for changes to the NPPF: 1. The NPPF statement on high streets must not be undermined by the overriding presumption in favour of sustainable development. 2. The “town centre first” rule applied through development control must not be weakened. 3. The NPPF policy on what must be covered in impact assessments must ensure councils have the information they need to make good decisions.

Relevance to the Committee’s Inquiry ACS (the Association of Convenience Stores) is the trade association representing over 33,500 shops trading in communities across the UK. ACS members include some national chains such as The Co-operative Group and Martin McColl, a number of symbol groups such as SPAR, Costcutter and Londis and thousands of independent small businesses. For any further information on the issues raised in this submission please contact: — Shane Brenan, Public Afﬁars Director (01252 515001, [email protected]). — Edward Woodall, Public Affairs Executive (01252 515001, [email protected]). ACS believes that the issue of how national policy supports our town centres is vitally important to the Committee’s inquiry and warrants speciﬁc focus as part of the Committees evidence gathering. A short focus on these issues will provide wider insight into the necessary improvements to NPPF, in particular: — the risks of not setting out more explicitly the limits of the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”; — the role of NPPF in ensuring that local people are furnished with objective and consistent evidence that is a sound basis for making decisions; and — the continuing importance of guidance on how to undertake assessments on long established national planning issues, such as in this case managing town centre, and out of town development.

A Watershed Moment for the High Street Our high streets face a “watershed moment”—years of pressure caused by changing consumer trends (internet and supermarket growth) and poor development control (allowing too much out of centre retail floorspace) have caused an alarming acceleration of decline in the economic downturn. Recent figures on retail development show the pressing nature of the problem we face. During the recession the rate of out of town retail development has accelerated. — In 2011 over 4 million square feet of out of town floor space is under construction88 Less than 1 million square feet in under construction in town and if Westfield, Stratford is excluded, this figure is near zero.89 88 CB Richard Ellis http://portal.cbre.eu/portal/page/portal/research/publications/Grocery_Pipeline_July_2011.pdf 89 Westfield quote from BCSC. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w34 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— The pipeline of proposed development shows more than 30m square feet of new out of town space, compared to just over 7m in town. A ratio of almost 4 to 1.90 — This trend is driven in very large part by supermarket developers. In 2007 supermarket represented only 37% of major retail development. So far in 2011 supermarkets account for over 68%.91

Figure 1

90 CB Richard Ellis http://portal.cbre.eu/portal/page/portal/research/publications/Grocery_Pipeline_July_2011.pdf 91 Retail Week http://www.retail-week.com/property/the-great-space-race/5026972.article. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w35

Figure 2

The recession has weakened the commitment of many Councils to their long planned town centre regeneration schemes and led to some feeling compelled to accept the only development that appears to be available. Where this happens it is short sighted for two reasons: 1. Badly planned out of centre retail development will end the prospect of retail led regeneration of the town for the indeﬁnite future, leaving the Council a much bigger problem for how to regenerate the high street without retail development. 2. Even if a developer secures approval for a new store now it is common practice to wait until the economy starts to recover before building the store and so the effects of new development will impact not during the downturn but in the recovery when other more sustainable schemes in existing centres are more likely to be achievable.

Unfortunately those Councils that are seeking to protect their long term development plans from short term alternatives are facing challenges in the appeal court. More than 60% of developments brought forward to appeal by developers since 2009 have found against the Council in favour of the developer.92

A signiﬁcant recent factor has been the communication from Ministers concerning the need for Councils to favour growth (23rd March 2011).93 Also, Ministers have chosen not to intervene to steer the direction of policy in the past two years there have been 146 cases of developments that could have been called in by the secretary of state on grounds of not being consistent with national policy and only one was.94

Cross party support for the Localism Bill exists in the broader principles of empowering local communities and allowing them to shape and build their neighbourhood. It is integral that these principals are not over shadowed by the Government commitment to deliver growth. The current trend in the call in procedure is to ignore the decision of local communities and say “yes” to developers. 92 http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011–06–09b.57989.h&s=speaker%3A24936+2011–06–09..2011–06–09#g57989.q0 93 http://www.communities.gov.uk/statements/corporate/planningforgrowth 94 http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011–06–09b.57989.h&s=speaker%3A24936+2011–06–09..2011–06–09#g57989.q0 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w36 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

In order to confront what is a substantial economic and social threat to our communities Government must act in three ways. 1. Ensure that NPPF is a robust statement in favour of town centres that ensures that Councils and not developers are in charge of local decision making. 2. Make more use of call-in powers and act now to ensure that short term decision making does not undermine long term growth and regeneration projects. 3. Produce additional guidance for local authorities and neighbourhood groups to aid to them in developing sustainable high streets.

Changes Needed to NPPF ACS supports simplification of NPPF where it brings clarity and greater consistency. In the case of town centre first this is much needed. In response to the questions set out by the Committee ACS has highlighted three priorities: 1. The NPPF statement on high streets must not be undermined by the overriding presumption in favour of sustainable development. Recent experience shows that Ministerial communications concerning the need for Councils to prioritise growth (as issued on 23rd March 2011) have led to Councils explicitly losing appeals against decisions that are consistent with existing town centre first policy. For example the decision by the Planning Inspectorate overturned the decision of East Hampshire District Council to refuse an out of town Tesco supermarket proposal even though the Council refused it on the grounds of substantial economic impact on Alton town centre.95 In the same way the presumption in favour of development as expressed in paragraph 14 is likely to override much of what the rest of the policy is likely to achieve. In particular the policy statement that Councils should “grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date” will prove a licence for planning barristers to undermine much of what Councils wish to achieve through the plan making and development control decisions. It is therefore necessary for NPPF to be far more explicit about the development issues where the presumption should not override other objectives. Town Centre First is a prime example of this. Failure to get this right from the outset will irreversibly alter the investment and development strategies of retailers and could mark the end of town centre retailing in all but the biggest and most recently invested in city centres. 2. The “town centre first” rule applied through development control must not be weakened. The vast majority of retail development brought forward for consideration is not resultant from the local plan process. It is therefore a policy that relies first and foremost on robust and consistent development control. Therefore the sequential assessment is the centrepiece of town centre first policy. It stipulates that developers must prove, and councils must be satisfied that retail development of the type proposed cannot be accommodated within the town centre. If they prove this they must then prove it cannot be allowed on the edge of the centre, only once they have proved that there is no sequentially preferable site can a developer be allowed to locate a new retail development out of town. NPPF removes significant amounts of detail from this vital rule, thereby increasing the prospect of inconsistency of interpretation between authorities and the opportunity for developers to circumvent it. NPPF also shifts the policy away from being an objective requirement of the developer to prove that there is no sequentially preferable site for their development, to a policy that merely requires the Council to “prefer” town centre locations. The change is likely to have been made with the intention of giving Councils more flexibility, in reality however it is likely to have the opposite effect. The lack of policy certainty will serve only to make Councils more exposed to legal challenge if they decide against the developer and they will as a result feel less able to resist unplanned for out of town development that ill undermine their more ambitious regeneration schemes for existing centres. We urge the Committee to recommend that the sequential assessment as expressed in the relevant paragraphs of PPS4 is retained in its entirety. 3. The NPPF policy on what must be covered in impact assessments must ensure councils have the information they need to make good decisions. A close second to the sequential assessment in underpinning effective town centre first policy is the impact assessment. National policy stipulates what are the relevant factors to consider in making a judgement about the positive and negative implications of new development. NPPF significantly curtails the extent of what is prescribed for this policy. The effect of removing the explicit criteria from the expression of the policy is to remove certainty from Councils and developers. The result will be that there will be more inconsistency in how developments are considered from one area to the next, and even from one decision in the same area 95 10th June 2011—HM Planning Inspector—Appeal Ref APP/M1710/A/10/2143427 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w37

to the next. This will in practice less transparency and more confusion. The main effect will be the greater exclusion of local people from the decision making process. We urge the Committee to recommend that the impact assessment as expressed in the relevant paragraphs of PPS4 is retained in its entirety. September 2011

Written evidence from Sustrans About Sustrans Sustrans makes smarter travel choices possible, desirable and inevitable. We’re a leading UK charity enabling people to travel by foot, bike or public transport for more of the journeys we make every day. We work with families, communities, policy-makers and partner organisations so that people are able to choose healthier, cleaner and cheaper journeys, with better places and spaces to move through and live in.

1. Introduction 1.1 Sustrans is the charity that’s enabling people to travel by foot, bike or public transport for more of the journeys we make every day. Our work makes it possible for people to choose healthier, cleaner and cheaper journeys, with better places and spaces to move through and live in.1 1.2 Sustrans was founded in 1977 partly in response to emerging evidence at the time about the threat of “global warming”, as it was popularly termed then. We believe that now more than ever before, we have an urgent collective responsibility to reduce our contribution to climate change by changing the way we travel. Sustrans is committed to creating an environment in which people can make low and zero carbon transport decisions every day. Planning for future development has a key role to play in this. 1.3 We welcome the opportunity to respond to this Communities and Local Government (CLG) Committee inquiry into the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and particularly to the section of the inquiry being undertaken by the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) (section three of this response). 1.4 The draft NPPF is a missed opportunity which in its current format will undermine the voice of local people and potentially exploit vulnerable communities by handing over too much power to commercial interests. 1.5 The draft has a long way to go before it can make a credible contribution towards sustainable development. The draft framework fails to provide a clear definition of sustainable development and prescribes numerous approaches which we believe will undermine efforts to deliver more sustainable communities. Because of this, we feel it fails to improve on the previous system which, though imperfect, was able to ensure the influence of local communities in decision-making and prevent excessive urban sprawl to a greater extent. 1.6 We have three main overarching concerns about the NPPF as it stands. First, we support Campaign for Better Transport’s main concern about the draft NPPF2 which is that it lacks an overall vision of the development pattern which planning policy should foster in order to promote sustainable transport patterns. Second, the poor definition of sustainable development means that in practice, the NPPF paves the way for a presumption in favour of all development, whether sustainable or not. 1.7 Finally, the abandonment of all national standards for parking, density and transport assessment in favour of local decisions threatens the Government’s ability to meet the legally binding CO2 emissions reductions targets for 2020 and 2050 as set out in the Climate Change Act. 1.8 While Sustrans supports the empowerment of communities and local government through the government’s localism agenda, it does not follow that central government should retain no strategic overview. Indeed, central government should have a clear and effective framework in which localism can operate and thrive. 1.9 The NPPF fails this fundamental test. There is no obvious view of where most development should be located to minimise traffic impacts, no vision of the importance of a hierarchy of town, local and neighbourhood centres, new developments or where new development is taking place in existing towns or conurbations. 1.10 The draft NPPF would benefit from a complete rethink, and we encourage both the CLG and EA committee inquiries to make detailed recommendations on this. An improved document should contain a coherent and workable definition for sustainable development which truly balances economic benefits with social and environmental benefits. Furthermore, it should retain a set of national standards on the crucial issues which will influence the sustainability of development including: population density, parking standards, accessibility and community engagement standards. 1.11 The remainder of our submission takes each of the inquiry questions relevant to Sustrans’ work in turn and expands on our key concerns regarding the NPPF. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w38 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2. 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 over planning decisions? 2.1 The NPPF weakens the voice of local communities through its presumption in favour of development. Furthermore, time and resource pressures currently constraining the development of local plans are likely to see authorities default to the content of the NPPF for planning decisions. In its current structure and content, it is insufficient to ensure these decisions will deliver broad sustainability outcomes. Nor is it fit for local communities to use as the basis for meaningful contributions to the planning process. 2.2 Combining localism, growth and environmental protection was always going to be a difficult task, but it was a welcome ambition. Early in the life of the government the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, aiming to stimulate economic growth, looked to the planning system. 2.3 In his March budget, George Osborne announced “a new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development is ‘yes’”. That step alone may have jeopardized the planning system’s fundamental principle to exist to serve the public interest, integrating social, environmental and economic ends. This statement, and others made subsequently by other Ministers, seem to imply that the planning system exists to meet commercial interests first over all others.

Community Engagement 2.4 The major potential consequence of this reframing is that the NPPF proposes a default “yes” to development which forces local communities and indeed local authorities into an entirely defensive position— having to defend against developments which will otherwise proceed “by default”. The onus for generating assessments of a development’s likely impacts will fall to the least well-resourced groups with a stake in the planning process. 2.5 The draft framework potentially holds huge risks for the protection of open space in and around our cities, towns and villages. With a default “yes” to development, local voices will not be heard unless fully engaged with the planning process. The risk is that there will be a development “free-for-all” in all unprotected areas or areas of low social capital and general disengagement from planning and local development processes in the mistaken belief that it will generate economic growth. 2.6 Planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design in the layout of new developments in terms of function and impact, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development. This should also contain clear, comprehensive and inclusive access policies which consider people's diverse needs and aim to break down unnecessary barriers and exclusions in a manner that benefits the entire community. 2.7 Community involvement is an essential element in delivering sustainable development and creating sustainable and safe communities. In developing the vision for their areas, planning authorities should ensure that communities are able to contribute to ideas about how that vision can be achieved, have the opportunity to participate in the process of drawing up the vision, strategy and specific plan policies, and to be involved in development proposals. 2.8 Developers should be required to play their part in providing the resources to ensure this can happen. Central government’s role is to ensure that communities across the country have equal access and support to contribute to these processes, regardless of where they live. 2.9 Sustrans has a great deal of experience in community consultation and engagement work and has worked with many local authorities to deliver schemes acting as the liaising body between government and the community. 2.10 The work we do has taken place within the context of local authorities which understand that the success of a planning decision can be heavily influenced by the level of community buy-in and involvement throughout the lengthy process. Not all local authorities appreciate this relationship and structures should be put in place to assist local communities in this already complex area. A multitude of barriers already exist and distance communities from the planning process: — The costs of participation for local communities (and for the planning authorities running community involvement exercises). — The complexity of many of the issues. — Planning can seem a remote, bureaucratic process which does not encourage involvement. — The difficulties of identifying and reaching the different groups within a community. — The language of planning, with its reliance on technical expressions and jargon, can be off-putting. Sometimes planners inadvertently reinforce the barrier through the way they communicate. — The perception that community involvement exercises will be captured by individuals or articulate groups which dominate proceedings. Community involvement is not about giving a free hand to unrepresentative vocal groups to block development irrespective of the case for it. Nor is it about talking to a few, favoured organisations.3 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w39

2.10 Sustrans would therefore urge the committee to underline our concerns that the NPPF does not strengthen the voice of local communities and may indeed weaken the already delicate voice they have. 2.11 The test for rejecting pro-development local or neighbourhood plans is set too high and is too vague: “plans should be prepared on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would signiﬁcantly and demonstrably outweigh the beneﬁts, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole” (20). Neighbourhood plans will therefore promote more development and not less compared to the wider local plan (17). 2.12 The Localism Bill is also giving powers to private companies, such as developers or landowners, to take forward neighbourhood plans and may even give them a vote in the referendum that is needed to approve the plan. This combination of factors will seriously undermine the power of even the strongest local communities. 2.13 We urge the committees to consider the other associated proposals that will be inter-operative with the NPPF in order to ensure that communities are not failed by the systemic changes when taken as a whole.

Local Plans 2.14 Local plans are required to have a certiﬁcate of conformity with the NPPF. In its absence, or the absence of an “up-to-date and consistent” local plan, planning applications will be determined in accordance with the NPPF. In those circumstances, the NPPF will take precedence over local development plans, where full consultation has occurred (26). 2.15 In reality, we expect that many developments over the next few years will be judged against the NPPF but it is not ﬁt for this purpose. If local plans were to default to the NPPF in its current draft, there is a risk that national objectives around issues such as climate change, public health and social cohesion would be simultaneously hindered in local centres across the UK.

3. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 3.1 The definition of “sustainable development” is inconclusive both in the NPPF and across government. In the NPPF, this weakness invalidates the term. Furthermore, the use of the term “sustainable development” when used in the context of a presumption in favour of development ultimately confirms that in its current format, sustainable development = development. 3.2 For example, the NPPF states that “development should not be prevented or refused on transport grounds, unless the residual impacts of development are severe”. In our view, this does not represent a balanced approach to considering the economic, social and environmental benefits of a particular development, but will allow for transport impacts to be ignored. (See also Section 4 below)

Defining Sustainable Development 3.3 The government has not been consistent in its definitions. The official definition is from the UK (not just English) Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS), Securing the Future, which remains in force, and could be mentioned in the NPPF. The coalition government’s Statement “Mainstreaming Sustainable Development” is not mentioned either. Finally there is the older definition from Brundtland used in the NPPF. What this means is that the government now has at least three different definitions of sustainable development. 3.4 The issue of the Brundtland definition is that by itself it is uncontentious, it is simply a requirement not to be unsustainable, but to be meaningful in policy terms you need to add flesh to the bones and have a policy framework which is positive about the sustainable actions required. The definition in para. 9 of the NPPF seeks to redefine the Brundtland definition by referring only to “basic” needs. 3.5 The NPPF definition goes on (10) to define what sustainable development means for planning—the so called 3ps. Breaking down this logic shows that, as drafted, the NPPF is underpinned by the following principles: — economic growth is sustainable; — growth meeting housing and social needs is sustainable; and

— except where it severely damages protected environments or producing too much CO2. 3.6 Or in effect, development = sustainable development

Presumption in Favour of Development 3.7 The NPPF states that the planning system is required to do everything it can to support growth. It places a presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of the planning system (13). But sustainable development is poorly deﬁned (10). Local authorities should approve development “wherever possible”, “without delay” and grant planning permission where the local “plan is silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date” (14). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w40 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

3.8 The threshold for rejecting development is set at a demanding height: “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” (14). CLG Minister Greg Clark has claimed that the presumption in favour of sustainable development means that “if a proposed development, or plan, does not give rise to any problems, then it should be approved without delay”. 3.9 Evidently, this weakens the concept of sustainability and its application to planning. This in turn could both complicate local community’s understanding and willingness to engage with the process and further disengage the local communities which the draft NPPF is designed to engage with. The presumption in favour of development puts too much power into the hands of developers and commercial interests and would place all but the strongest communities at the hands of developer interest. Those communities with the least social capital will be most at risk of exploitation in this sense.

4. Transport 4.1 We support the Campaign for Better Transport‘s assertion that the NPPF is a manifesto for sprawl and congestion which would not support the creation of sustainable communities. Implicitly the document rejects the evidence that “smart growth”4 ideas, which North American and European planning authorities have increasingly adopted, can deliver this. The lack of detail will weaken local authorities “ability to negotiate with developers to produce positive outcomes for local communities, achieve national objectives around climate change or tackle congestion”.5 4.2 Before its closure, the Sustainable Development Commission made important contributions to the research outlining transport”s wide impact on the sustainability of communities. The committees should refer to Fairness in a Car-Dependent Society6 to see how patterns of travel and the planning decisions relating to and inﬂuencing them are so crucially linked to the sustainability of a development.

Sustainable Transport 4.3 Sustrans has been working in the sustainable transport field for over 40 years and understands the complex relationships between planning policy and transport choices. Being able to make more sustainable transport choices has a positive impact on not only individual health and wellbeing but also on the quality of our environment. As exemplified by the DfT’s LSTF programme, sustainable transport is being regarded as a “win-win”—achieving twin benefits of reducing carbon while supporting economic growth through tackling congestion and limited road capacity etc. etc. 4.4 There are a raft of obstacles which prevent people from making more sustainable choices, some as seemingly simple as habit, others as complex as disincentivisation (free parking at destination, free petrol, company car) or as concerning and complex as transport poverty.

“Get Out” Clauses 4.5 The draft makes a number of well-meaning references throughout to promoting and providing for sustainable transport but we believe the impact of these will be far outweighed by the number of caveats or “get-out-clauses” which modify many clauses. Typical phrases include “where practical” (83), “where reasonable to do so” (83), “depending on the nature and location of the site” (86). Furthermore, we are convinced that the drive to provide sustainable transport will be further diluted by the suggestion that decisions “need to take account of policies set out elsewhere in this framework” (88). 4.6 We feel that in (85) there is too great a focus on large scale infrastructure facilities, given the streamlined nature of the document, and in particular roadside facilities, which have not even been deﬁned. We recommend this text be replaced with greater detail on how sustainable transport could be delivered and made more competitive with other modes of transport, and how it helps to meet meet economic goals through e.g. tackling congestion in constrained urban locations. 4.7 Sustrans is extremely concerned with the third bullet point in paragraph 86 which states “development should not be prevented or refused on transport grounds, unless the residual impacts of development are severe”. We feel this makes it very difﬁcult for authorities to refuse an application on transport grounds. 4.8 We believe it crucial that this statement be reworded to state that transport impacts must be a key part of a decision on a proposal and should form a separate paragraph. Furthermore Local Authorities should ensure proposals are supported by a robust Transport Assessment and a package of measures to mitigate its environmental impact.

Transport Poverty 4.9 Dispersed and low-density population combined with the steady closure of local high street services and a growing number of out of town facilities with abundant car parking has often meant that providing effective public transport in rural areas is seen as too expensive and too difﬁcult. Transport policy in rural areas has instead focussed on extending the road network and by increasing and incentivising parking in out of town facilities. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w41

4.10 Local authorities are reducing investment in bus services as a direct result of cuts to government funding for local transport and ahead of planned cuts in fuel tax rebate for buses. Many services which run through rural areas are unprofitable without subsidy, and provide essential access. 4.11 Sustainable transport is seen as an urban privilege facilitated by a frequent public transport system and by the closer proximity of essential services to households. It is therefore commonly assumed that owning a car is essential if you want to travel efficiently in many areas to gain access to jobs, education, healthcare and shops. However, 25% of households in England and Wales do not have access to a car. Development which is dependent upon access by car is fundamentally promoting social exclusion. 4.12 Furthermore, as fuel prices are pushed higher and become more volatile as a result of decreasing supplies and international political unrest, the lack of feasible alternatives to car travel is a significant concern for many households. For many, the costs of running a vehicle already places a disproportionately high burden on household expenditure—higher fuel prices will push many more people into “transport poverty” (which can be likened to the concept of “fuel poverty”). 4.13 A planning framework which does not protect against inaccessible or badly connected development will almost certainly lead to greater car dependency and have a resulting negative impact on inequality, social cohesion and wider efforts to combat climate change.

Town Centre Vitality 4.14 Promoting the vitality of town centres and meeting the need for accessible retail services remain objects of planning policy. The needs test, which required developers to demonstrate a need for out-of-town retail development has not been re-introduced despite the previous undertaking. 4.15 The sequential test, which requires local authorities to ensure that town centre sites, or failing that, edge of town sites, should be used before out-of-town sites should be reconsidered. It has been retained for retail and leisure development, it is no longer to be applied to office development. 4.16 Henceforth it is likely therefore that office development and business parks will be located in out-of- town locations inaccessible by public transport, such as motorway junctions, where it will generate traffic and aggravate congestion on the road network (77–78). In addition, the weaker tests for assessing the transport impact of new development in the transport section of the NPPF compared to current policy could allow for more inappropriate locations for distribution centres which will add to congestion. 4.17 Local and neighbourhood centres, which can be reached on foot and by bicycle and are vital in reducing the length of journeys, are not mentioned in the Framework. These centres play a crucial role in supporting the government’s localism and Big Society ambitions. As such, there should be a specific undertaking to protect and promote them within the NPPF.

Parking 4.18 Evidence also shows that provision of parking is important in determining travel patterns.7 Maximum parking standards for commercial development have been shown to be effective, particularly when allied to travel plans, in promoting development that enhances rather than undermines town centres and minimizes single occupancy car use. National car parking standards, part of PPG 13, are not mentioned at all in the Framework. They also have been abandoned and will be determined locally. Planning authorities will be free to set minimum standards if they wish. 4.19 DCLG put out a press release on the changes to parking policy on 1 August, saying that standards on parking “will be scrapped”, which effectively prejudges the consultation. This ignores research that shows parking is not the key to revitalising our high streets,8 and that town centres need to concentrate on the quality of the shopping experience rather than on providing parking if they are to compete with out of town shopping centres. 4.20 The NPPF even proposes that it should be difficult to turn down an application that would result in higher levels of traffic and congestion. The test for the rejection of development on the grounds of transport impact is demanding: “development should not be prevented or refused on transport grounds unless the residual impacts of development are severe, and the need to encourage increased delivery of homes and sustainable economic development should be taken into account” (86). 4.21 On the other hand the Framework does include a policy requiring local authorities to aim for a mix of uses “to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities” (91). It also stipulates that: within large-scale developments particularly, “key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties” (92). 4.22 We are supportive of policies set out in paragraphs 91 and 92 which encourage mixed use development. Mixed use development reduces the need to travel by the private car and allows communities to travel by foot, bike and public transport. Therefore we feel mixed use development can have significant economic, health and environmental benefits for our communities. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w42 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Travel Plans 4.23 Sustrans does not agree with the loss of the national requirement for Transport Assessments and Travel Plans, which are now to be determined by local criteria. We argue that the enforcement of these documents should be retained at a central government level, to ensure a robust approach to mitigating the transport impacts of development is maintained across England, giving the government a mechanism to help it meet its targets under the Climate Change Act.

5. Conclusion 5.1 In conclusion, the draft NPPF requires signiﬁcant reshaping to avoid being detrimental to the already weak relationships between communities, developers and local authorities with regard to planning decisions. The draft framework has incited much criticism from a wide range of lobbying organisations but less in the way of positive suggestions to move forward. 5.2 Sustrans would support both the CLG committee and the EA committee if they were to call for further deﬁnition of “sustainable development” and to insist on the protection and promotion of the rights and views of local communities over and above those of private developers who should be seen as welcome partners but not as leading authorities for community development. The implications of urban sprawl and unrestrained development go well beyond car dependency and will impact on the health, wellbeing, equality and cohesion of society. September 2011

References 1 www.sustrans.org.uk 2 http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/files/What-NPPF-means-for-sustainable-transport.pdf 3 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/147588.pdf 4 http://www.smartgrowthonlineaudio.org/pdf/TISG_2006_8–5x11.pdf 5 http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/traffic_reduction/blog 6 http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/fairness_car_dependant.pdf 7 http://www.etcproceedings.org/paper/making-parking-management-an-effective-tool-in-travel-planning 8 http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/Info%20sheets/ff39.pdf

Written submission from Hampshire County Council Executive Summary — Hampshire County Council welcomes the aim to simplify the planning process and slim-down the abundance of existing policy guidance. Hampshire has accommodated a significant amount of growth in the past. We see ourselves as “open for business” and are keen to ensure that the national policy context is framed in such a way that it allows us to continue to support appropriate levels of sustainable growth in the future. Our comments on the NPPF should be seen in this light. — The County Council is concerned, however, that the NPPF does not provide an appropriate or balanced context for the preparation of local plans or the determination of planning applications at the local level. — It fails to adequately recognise the importance of planning for strategic issues at the larger-than- local level eg at district and borough level. — The Government’s definition of sustainable development places too much emphasis on the achievement of economic objectives at the expense of social and environmental considerations which risks new development being unsustainable. — The Impact Assessment accompanying the NPPF does not fully consider the range of options open to the Government in seeking to revise and consolidate existing planning policy guidance. — It is not adequately justified and is lacking in robust evidence for the approach it advocates. — It is based on a flawed understanding about what the planning system aims to achieve and how it needs to operate to achieve it — The draft framework has over-simplified existing policy guidance to such an extent that a great deal of important detail is lacking in a great many areas. — It fails to provide an effective and timely mechanism to ensure the Duty to Co-operate is adequately addressed early enough in the planning process — It fails to adequately address the resolution of conflicts that will inevitably arise at times during implementation of the duty to co-operate. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w43

— There is a lack of clarity in a number of areas regarding how the NPPF relates to other aspects of Government policy. — It is inconsistent in its use of terminology in a number of areas — It risks the creation of a period of local policy void by failing to put in place reasonable transitional arrangements between the new and old planning systems — All of these ﬂaws run the serious risk that, rather than clarify, simplify and speed up the planning process, it will result in greater uncertainty, frustration and delay.

1. Introduction 1.1 Hampshire County Council is supportive of the desire to simplify and rationalise the plethora of existing Government planning policy guidance. As a county and a council which likes to see itself as “open for business” we clearly recognise the importance of economic prosperity, employment opportunity and the desire to foster and facilitate growth; particularly where this brings about regeneration. Hampshire has accommodated significant levels of growth over the past 30 years but this has not been accompanied by the necessary supporting infrastructure. Hence the County Council’s view is that growth should not be allowed to occur at any cost. Development should only be allowed to occur where it is accompanied by the local and strategic infrastructure necessary to support it and provided that the environmental and social costs of development do not outweigh the economic benefits. The desire for growth and prosperity, therefore has to be balanced against other important considerations. 1.2 The planning system is concerned with the balance and resolution of competing (and often conflicting) interests in the development and use of land and seeks to secure the best outcome for society at large with whom it must engage in the decision making process through a political, democratically accountable system. It is therefore, by its very nature, complex, convoluted, controversial and takes time. 1.3 It is the County Council’s view that the NPPF does not adequately recognise or reflect these complexities. Instead it puts an over-emphasis on achieving economic objectives and meeting the needs of the development industry at the expense of environmental and social objectives. Furthermore it seeks to impose a one-size-fits- all policy context which over-rides consideration of local circumstances. 1.4 That is not to say economic considerations are not important; merely that the balance in the NPPF is tipped too far in the direction of economic imperatives and that this is applied uniformly across the country. However, the implication of the balance being wrong is that the NPPF will fail to achieve its ultimate goal— sustainable development. It will lead to more delay rather than a speedier system, more confusion rather than greater clarity and, ultimately, a by-passing of the plan-led system as more and more decisions are determined through the appeal process. Not only is this counter to the principles of localism but it will mean more cost and delay for the development industry and local resentment rather than mutual acceptance of the benefits of growth; the exact opposite of what Government intends to achieve with the NPPF. 1.5 Furthermore, the NPPF is undoubtedly expected to endure for a sufficient period of time to provide the certainty and consistent policy context the development industry desires. Whilst it is, to a degree understandable that emerging Government policy takes a pro-growth stance at this particular point in the economic cycle, the fact that it is a cycle and the economy will slowly recover from the current trough means the policy must remain appropriate throughout times of both boom and bust. Hence our calls for a more balanced and measured approach

Response To Select Committee Questions 2. 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 over planning decisions? 2.1 The NPPF gives a very clear message. Unfortunately, however, in the County Council’s view, it is a message with the wrong emphasis that will undermine localism and the long-term sustainability of communities. 2.2 The NPPF is extremely clear that sustainable development is about positive growth and that the role of the planning system is wherever possible to allow positive growth to go ahead without delay. It prioritises the need to support economic growth above all other objectives by requiring “significant weight” (13) to be accorded it. Plans should meet objectively assessed development needs in full. Planning policies should take into account market signals such as land prices, commercial rents and housing affordability (19). Development should be approved where it complies with the plan. If a plan is “absent, silent or indeterminate” development should similarly be allowed. All of this should apply unless the adverse impacts of allowing development “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits (14). 2.3 All of this is absolutely clear. However, if one consideration is given undue prominence in the decision- making process (in this case the imperative to achieve economic growth) it precludes a balanced assessment of the impacts of a development taking place. It also seems inconsistent with the localism agenda which seeks to give local communities greater control over the planning of their local areas. Both local communities and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w44 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

decision-makers are, effectively, given a power just to say “yes” to growth (other than in very exceptional circumstances) rather than being able to consider what is best for their areas. This is unlikely to empower local communities.

(i) The definition of Sustainable Development 3.4 Government defines “sustainable” in the Ministerial Foreword to the NPPF as meaning ensuring better lives for ourselves that don’t mean worse lives for future generations and “development” as meaning growth. The County Council takes issue with this latter part of the definition. Development does not necessarily mean growth. Development is defined as an occurrence, event, fact or happening, especially one that changes a situation. Growth goes beyond that and implies an increase in the level or scale of development which is in addition to that which has occurred in the past. Put simply an increase of development activity may not always be sustainable as the Government defines it. It may result in economic benefits but that is not, in itself, sustainable. 3.5 The most oft-quoted definition of sustainable development is that set out in the 1987 report of the Bruntland Commission “Our Common Future”. Here sustainable development is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. At the 2005 World Summit it was recognised that achieving sustainable development requires the reconciliation of environmental, social and economic demands—the so-called “three pillars” of sustainability. 3.6 In the same way that it is the aim of the planning system to seek to reconcile competing interests in the use of land it is the aim of sustainable development to reconcile these three competing aspects of sustainability. It cannot be assumed to be sustainable to automatically prioritise any one of the “pillars” (whether environmental, economic or social) over the other two. Yet that is what the Government’s approach seeks to do by defining development as “growth” and making “yes” the default response to development proposals in the NPPF. 3.7 Interestingly, in the “Easier to read summary of the draft National Planning Policy Framework” Government defines sustainable development as “What we do today to meet our needs, must not stop future generations being able to meet their own needs.” This is a definition, clearly based on Bruntland, which we would wholeheartedly support.

(ii) Sustainable Development vs Sustainable Economic Growth 3.8 In parts of the NPPF (13, 19 etc) Government seems to mix and match the use of the terms “sustainable development”, “development” and “sustainable economic growth” as if they were interchangeable. They are not for the reasons set out above. However, in using the terms in this way the NPPF seeks to give an over- emphasis to its pro-development approach. 3.9 As a policy objective, being resoundingly pro-growth or pro-development is perfectly valid. However, if that is the objective then Government should be honest about this; it should recognise that, if the prioritisation of economic growth or proactively supporting and driving forward the new development that the country needs are the key objectives, these will have potentially undesirable social and environmental consequences. It should not seek to claim, as the NPPF appears to, that a pro-growth agenda is necessarily sustainable. Government should also recognise that the planning system is not the only tool at its disposal to achieve this objective

(iii) Other Material Considerations 3.10 As stated above planning is concerned with reconciling competing interests in the use of land. The nature of those interests and the unique circumstances of each piece of land mean that different considerations are important in each development proposal. The same approach is followed and the same principles applied cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w45

to deciding applications, but each development proposal and each site is different, both in itself and in the way it interacts with its surroundings and the impacts it has on local infrastructure, services and communities. In order to achieve successful planning outcomes practitioners must have the ability to account for these variations in the decision-making process. They should also be able to negotiate improvements to development proposals and address infrastructure deficits if these are appropriate / necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Without this ability the quality of development and the built and natural environment and quality of life for local communities will suffer immensely. 3.11 Therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development, particularly in so far as it is laid out in the draft NPPF, should not be the over-riding consideration. There is some concession to this point in the NPPF where Government allows material considerations to be taken into account and weighed against the presumption in favour of sustainable development. However, this is very much secondary to the application of the presumption itself. Only where adverse impacts “would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” (14) should the presumption be over-ridden. Elsewhere the NPPF requires: — objectively assessed needs to be met (14 & 21); — plans to positively support local development (17); — planning to proactively support and derive the development the country needs (19); — full account to be taken of market and economic signals such as land prices (27); — household and population projections to be met (28); and — authorities not to over-burden development with such a scale of requirements for affordable housing, infrastructure contributions and so on so as to render it unviable even at the lowest point in the economic cycle (39, 41 & 73). 3.12 The point being that the NPPF is not, in the County Council’s view, advocating a balanced approach to assessing development proposals. It is not aiming to reconcile the three pillars of sustainability and it is not adequately acknowledging the important local and site specific considerations that local communities consider important and require decision-makers to tack into account. Rather it is stressing that development should be permitted at (almost) any cost. 3.13 It is this imbalanced approach and the way it is equated with “sustainable development” and how this over-rides local considerations which are of greatest concern to the County Council.

4. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 4.1 No. The principles are inconsistent both within themselves and with other aspects of the NPPF meaning that they are unlikely to be delivered in their entirety. Put simply, if plans and planners are expected to place so much weight on proactively driving forward and supporting growth, meeting development needs in full and not over-burdening development with ﬁnancial impositions then that seriously compromises their ability to deliver the other social and environmental principles set out in paragraph 19 of the NPPF. 4.2 If “yes” is the default response to new development proposals then this may pose a risk to environmental and heritage assets, the protection of local amenity and place undue pressure on existing infrastructure. If planners are expected to accept proposals as they are submitted and are unable to seek improvements (on the basis that doing so may impose additional cost on developers) it limits our ability to promote mixed use schemes, encourage the use of renewable energy technology and promote resilience to climate impacts, advocate designs and layouts which promote alternative forms of transport to the private car, improve health and well being and secure the infrastructure many communities desperately need. The same applies to securing good design in new development which, interestingly, is not a core planning principle but which seems to be given a high priority later in the NPPF (114–123) 4.3 On a more technical point, there is an inconsistency between the desire for “succinct local plans” and the presumption in favour of sustainable development (14). The presumption states that planning permission should be granted where “the plan is absent, silent or indeterminate” on a point. This clearly steers plan-makers to ensure they produce plans that deal with every eventuality in order to ensure that they are not silent, indeterminate or fail to deal with a possible development proposal. If they did fail to cover all the bases there would be little point producing a local plan at all as the default, set out in the presumption, is that permission should, in such circumstances, be granted. All of this suggests local plans will need to be detailed and comprehensive rather than succinct. This, in turn, has implications for both the time and cost of their preparation and how accessible (or otherwise) they are to the layman. 4.4 It should be clariﬁed that this is not an argument for deeply convoluted and impenetrable local plans. It is an argument for a more balanced and sensible approach to decision-making which does not set the default position as being to approve all applications for new development.

Ev w46 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

that it prescribes that the default response local communities should make in response to development proposals is “yes” (other than in a very limited number of very exceptional circumstances). This largely prevents local communities expressing any contrary view. It is this contrary view which prevails across much of the country. 5.2 In many places, by over-simplifying existing guidance, it seeks to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. For example, it may not be unreasonable to abandon the 60% brownfield target. Not least since it was never properly justified in the first place and has been consistently exceeded. However, that does not mean that the principle of prioritising brownfield development over Greenfield (where this can be shown to be an appropriate, realistic and deliverable objective) must also be lost. The principle could be retained even if the target is lost. 5.3 A major flaw is the lack of transitional arrangements between the existing suite of policy guidance, statements, regulations and local development frameworks and the new NPPF which is to take effect immediately and over-ride that which currently exists. The existing system has been created over a number of years through extended periods of consultation and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders and partners including local communities. To set that aside, in effect, overnight and give prominence instead to a radical and untested NPPF is wholly inconsistent with Government’s localism agenda. 5.4 To cast the many recently adopted or published core strategies on the scrap heap and require a planning system to be built from scratch across the whole country cannot be a sensible way forward. A way must be devised of creating a period of transition between the primacy of plans based on the old suite of guidance to allow the creation of new plans based on the NPPF. If only the NPPF takes precedence in the interim this is to deny local communities any say in how the future of their communities is shaped. 5.5 The relationship between the NPPF and local plans is far from clear. The NPPF says it will be “open to” local authorities to seek a certificate of conformity with the NPPF. Does this mean they are obliged to or not? If not, what benefit is there in obtaining a certificate? How will it be obtained and from whom? What will be the added status of a plan which has a certificate compared to one which doesn’t? What of a plan which is refused a certificate of conformity? The certification process is likely to be very time and resource consuming for both local planning authorities and Government itself. These are important matters which must be clarified. 5.6 There is also a lack of clarity in terms of how the NPPF relates to aspects of the Localism Bill. The point is made throughout our response that the NPPF limits the degree of choice communities have in making local decisions. However, there is also a lack of clarity surrounding the “Duty to Co-operate” and planning for strategic issues. The NPPF (45) indicates that, in two tier areas district and county councils should co-operate on “relevant issues”. It is the County Council’s view that this term is too vague and that the NPPF should elaborate on the type of instances where such co-operation might be appropriate. A good starting point would be the list of matters set out at paragraph 23 of the NPPF headed “strategic priorities”.

6. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 6.1 No. The County Council has made numerous representations in response to recent Government policy consultations making the point that Government fails to fully appreciate the nature of decision-making and service delivery in two-tier areas. The NPPF still does not adequately reflect the situation outside London where funding is directed to the district councils level yet a great deal of the responsibility for service provision dependent on strategic infrastructure lies with county councils. In London the Mayor is able to produce a strategic plan and act as a CIL(Community Infrastructure Levy) charging authority. The same is not the case outside London. 6.2 In order to redress this balance the County Council seeks the same powers as the Mayor given our role in delivering much of the infrastructure necessary to support local services. Without such powers, given the lack of obligation on districts (as CIL charging authorities) to spend any CIL receipts on the actual infrastructure used to justify the application of CIL or to distribute funds to bodies who are responsible for infrastructure delivery, the ability to address large scale strategic infrastructure and planning issues is greatly diminished. This is a significant issue in Hampshire where we have accommodated a significant amount of development in the past but this has not been accompanied by the infrastructure necessary to support it. We have begun to address this through a number of significant regeneration and investment programmes. However, must retain the ability to continue this work to address the legacy problems created by past growth. At the very least we have argued, along with others, that there is a need for a formal and statutory role for county authorities to address larger-than-local strategic issues, particularly in so far as the delivery of infrastructure is concerned. We have called, and we repeat here, for counties to be required to produce statutory Strategic Infrastructure Assessments to influence and inform the preparation of local plans. 6.3 This “hole where strategic planning used to be” was an issue acknowledged by the report of the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee into the Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (March 2011). Paragraph 145 of the report is copied below. None of these points are addressed in the NPPF. “We are concerned not only at the speed at which the Government has sought to abolish RSSs, but also at the apparent lack of understanding by the Government of what RSSs provide and what should replace them. The DCLG has not explained how infrastructure, economic development, housing and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w47

environment protection be retained at a strategic level nor has it explained how the current planning system will move to the new system, after the Localism Bill comes into effect, without any transitional arrangements in place. Nor has it explained how local authorities will collect data and evidence that necessarily underpin local planning decisions. Nor has it described convincingly how local authorities will be persuaded to work with other local authorities and the newly-formed Local Enterprise Partnerships, when planning issues affect larger than the local area. There are concerns that it may be left to the courts to intervene when local authorities are reluctant, or indeed hostile, to working with other local authorities. The Government has offered no explanation of how the duty to co-operate will be measured or enforced. It has given no guidance as to how accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers will be provided, nor how renewable energy and planning for climate change will be considered. Ministers have said that the gold standard upon which they are to be judged will be the building of more homes, but much of the evidence suggests that the New Homes Bonus may well be ineffective in increasing house building at all, let alone the building of the right homes in the right places.”

7. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? 7.1 No. This is apparent from the Impact Assessment which accompanies the NPPF. Here, rather than relying on evidence, Government seems to justify the pro-development approach advocated in the NPPF based on a misunderstanding of what the planning system aims to achieve and how it works to achieve it. As stated throughout this response, the planning system aims to balance competing objectives for the development and use of land. This makes it a complex, contentious and convoluted process as there is a need for transparency in how all of the competing interests are weighed in the balance in the decision making process. That process is subject to detailed scrutiny by all interested parties. This will remain the case regardless of this NPPF. 7.2 As the CLG select committee recognise (see paragraph 6.3 above) there is no evidence that Government’s incentives to promote new development in local communities will work. Until such a time as they manifestly do work many local communities will remain sceptical of and reluctant to accept new development, particularly in rural villages. This puts democratically elected representatives in the unenviable position of having to make decisions which may be in accordance with Government policy but against the wishes of the local community (or, more likely, vice-versa). The likelihood in such circumstances is that decisions are ultimately taken higher up the decision-making hierarchy either through planning appeal or, ultimately, by the Secretary of State. Whilst this may ensure a decision is made, it does nothing to incentivise communities to welcome new development. 7.3 Part A of the Impact Assessment accompanying the NPPF appears to be based on the premise that process costs determine the number of planning applications received and that, if the process was less convoluted and took less time, more applications would be forthcoming. As stated above, it is unlikely that the inherently complex and contentious process could be made quicker if it is still to remain inclusive and transparent. However, even if it could, it would make little difference to the number of applications received. Or, at least, Government produces no evidence of this. Developers do not submit applications for the sake of it. They submit applications for development for which there is demand. If demand is constrained through a lack of availability of mortgage and development finance (see para 7.5 below) the number of planning applications will remain subdued regardless of what improvements are made to the planning process. 7.4 The Impact Assessment also seems to assert that the chance of success is a determining factor in deciding whether or not to submit a planning application. Again, there is no evidence for this assertion. As the Impact Assessment notes (p13), the success rate for planning applications in 2009–10 was 85%. 85% is a very good success rate and shows that planners are not frivolously refusing planning applications. Rather, it shows planning applications are only refused where this is absolutely necessary and with good justification. Compare the 85% planning application success rate with the 33% appeal success rate (p27). Developers still take refused permissions through the appeal process despite this low success rate. This illustrates that, if the demand for the development was there, the developer would take the chance of submitting an application anyway as the financial rewards are so substantial and the costs of not doing so damaging to commercial competitiveness. 7.5 Part B of the Impact Assessment goes on to assert that the main reason previous housing targets set out in Regional Spatial Strategies were not met was because of the planning system: because the targets were imposed from above and never owned locally and, if they had been, all would have been well. This completely underplays the fact that the credit crunch hit and the country entered a period of recession which is on-going today. The availability of both development and mortgage finance dried up almost overnight which effectively curtailed demand for new housing and the ability of developers to fund new development. If one reads any of the quarterly reports of any of the major housebuilders in 2011 it is clear that the main factor determining their volumes is the finance market—not the planning system. The planning system, admittedly, has a role to play in terms of the “burdens” it imposes on the development industry. But this is very much secondary to the availability of finance. And, it should be borne in mind that those “burdens” are not imposed willy-nilly. They are negotiated with developers in order to mitigate and minimise the impact of new development on local communities. 7.6 Overall, the County Council considers the Impact Assessment to be insufficiently robust as it is based on these fundamental mis-understandings of both the planning process and how it responds to the market. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w48 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

7.7 Not only that but, where the NPPF proposes new measures such as the 20% addition to five year housing supply (109), no reasoned explanation is given for this figure of 20% as opposed to any other figure.

7.8 The assessment itself is also over-simplistic as it assesses impacts against only two alternatives: no change or the NPPF. That is not a robust way to evidence and substantiate policy change. At the very least there should be a middle-ground option which recognises that there is a beneﬁt to be gained from some change to the status quo but not the radical change proposed in the NPPF (see para 5.2 above by way of example). It is a major ﬂaw in the impact assessment and the evidence base for the NPPF that these intermediate options have not been assessed. September 2011

Written evidence from Barratt Developments PLC

Summary — Barratt Developments Plc welcomes the simplification of the planning system intended by the National Planning Policy Framework. — The brevity of the guidance leaves it liable to differing interpretations which in turn could create disputes that result in delay—the antithesis of its intention. — The relationship of the NPPF to 160 documents yet to be reviewed, documents not apparently cancelled and the intended production of good practice guidance needs clarification to provide a complete picture of government planning policy. — Sustainable development should be more fully defined. — Further guidance on the operation of the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development needs to be set out to provide a clear position for decision making and to reduce disputes. — The importance of the development plan is supported and so it is imperative that the tests of soundness are fully expressed so that unsound plans are not brought forward and the current frustratingly slow coverage of local plans is perpetuated.

Introduction

1. This submission is made on behalf of Barratt Developments Plc who trade under the names of Barratt Homes/David Wilson Homes, Ward Homes and Wilson Bowden Developments.

2. Barratt is Britain’s best known house builder and has sold over 300,000 new homes around the country and is one of the leaders in terms of low carbon design, urban regeneration and social housing provision, in addition to its mainstream market housing activities.

3. The Company’s results for the year ending 30 June 2011 showed we completed almost 11,200 dwellings despite the challenging economic background of which 23.5% were social housing. The Company is building on over 375 sites in England, Wales and Scotland. It re-entered the land market in 2009 and has an owned land bank of about 47,900 plots. The Company also holds about 11,000 acres of strategic land whereby sites are pursued for allocation in the development plan system before a planning application is made.

4. The Company’s activities cover the whole of England and last year had approved 106 planning applications covering almost 11,000 dwellings. In terms of planning activity the Company is one of the leading participants in the country with a breadth of experience in terms of geography and complexity of issues.

5. Therefore, the Company has a major interest in the operation of the planning system and thereby the content of the National Planning Policy Framework.

6. The Company welcomes that the Government intention that the National Planning Policy Framework to be a simpliﬁcation of the planning system in order to deliver prosperity in a fair and responsible manner. Against this background, the Company wishes to ensure it operates so that it can efﬁciently increase the delivery of development.

7. The Company’s main interests relate to development planning and development management in relation to housing and business issues. Other issues such as transport, design, sustainable communities, Green Belt, climate change and the natural and historic environments are of relevance insofar as they inter-relate to the Company’s main issues.

8. In submitting this evidence, there has been a deliberate emphasis on its general principles rather than detailed wording. Comments on detailed wording will be made separately into the ongoing consultation by DCLG. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w49

Sufﬁciency of the Guidance 9. The Company support the production of national guidance which is clear, succinct and readily understood. However, its brevity could lead to the ability to interpret its contents differently and so create dispute and delay—the antithesis of its intention. 10. In this context it is relevant to ask: (a) Are there other documents to be produced? (b) What other key documents that are not intended to be withdrawn need to be read with the NPPF? (c) Are there lessons to be learned from the existence of NPPF equivalents in Wales and Scotland?

Other Documents 11. The impact assessment that accompanies the Draft NPPF says that there will be a review of 160 other documents to determine what should be retained and that in the future “good practice guidance would be developed and owned by relevant external bodies, rather than being specified centrally”. 12. So it is clear the picture is not yet complete and that uncertainty will remain. Even when some of the additional documentation is produced it is uncertain if this “good practice” would be official government policy or just the wishes of a lobby group. This Company considers it is essential that the Government should have ownership of core documents irrespective of the body that initiated their preparation. Indeed the preparation of the NPPF provides a good example of a reasonable way forward. At the outset views were canvassed broadly, then a group of experts were invited to pull a proposal together; the Government considered that and published the draft NPPF accordingly. 13. The consultation document on the NPPF lists those policy documents which are intended to be cancelled. As noted above this leaves a lot yet to be decided. Whilst it is not relevant to try to list all these documents, the retention, or not, of some are fundamental to the understanding of the NPPF. Given that compliance with the NPPF has at the heart of government planning policy, such fundamentals need to be resolved. 14. This Company has concerns about three documents in particular: (a) The Planning System: General Principles which accompanies PPS1 (2005) (b) Delivering Affordable Housing, which accompanies PPS3 (2006) (c) Guidance on Information Requirements and Validation (2010) 15. The Planning System document sets out the fundamental rules under which the system operates, if these are to continue or be amended the NPPF should say so accordingly. The relationship of this document to the Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development is particularly relevant. 16. Delivering Affordable Housing sets out a range of important rules to establish an affordable housing policy in the absence of Circular 6/98 which was cancelled by PPS3. The NPPF reduces affordable housing guidance to a single bullet point and a definition in the glossary. This appears insufficient for such an important subject and if Delivering Affordable Housing is not to be retained then an alternative policy document must be provided. 17. The validation document covers some 39 pages and is a key matter for submitting planning applications. The NPPF reduces this to one paragraph which is not in conflict with the validation document but given the key important function of that document at least a cross reference or footnote should have been provided. 18. Given that the NPPF is not a complete statement of government policy and is to be supplemented, it is relevant to consider which areas of policy need more detail. This Company considers these are: (a) The constitution of an evidence base for local plans. (b) The definition of viability and deliverability. (c) The production of neighbourhood plans. 19. The NPPF makes reference to local plans being based upon “adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence”. This is a welcome statement but in the absence of clear supporting guidance, this intention could be interpreted in a variety of ways. In the case of the housing requirement, the Company would say that this should be based upon the national projections and where it is proposed to deviate from these, the rationale for deviation should be explained and so be subject to examination. 20. The NPPF indicates a retention of the Strategic Housing Land Availability and Housing Market Assessments which is welcome, subject to some detailed amendments, but a context for local decision making needs to be established. 21. Similarly, evidence in respect of the quantum and location of land for business and to justify the need to retain and provide additional green spaces are essential to create a balanced plan capable of conforming to a Strategic Environmental Assessment. This is crucial to enable a plan to be considered “sound”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w50 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

22. The NPPF rightly raises the need to ensure viability and deliverability and this Company strongly believes this should be a central plank of planning policy. Without viable development, nothing happens. Consequently, this welcome reference in the NPPF needs to be supported by a clear assessment of what is considered viable and how this should be demonstrated. It cannot be left that in a Local Plan Inquiry the planning authority to say one thing, the developers/land owners another and the Inspector left to arbitrate. This appears to be the position in relation to the emerging Community Infrastructure Levy inquiries and it is unsatisfactory. At its best the plan making system is not quick and the consequences of decisions are not seen for years ahead. It will be too late for an inadequate assessment of viability to result in a lack of delivery to be realised some years later. Government policy is based upon increasing delivery and so this key element needs to be set out. 23. The concept of neighbourhood plans is introduced by the Localism Bill and so it is reasonable to look to the NPPF for guidance about their operative detail. Unfortunately, the four short paragraphs that relate to neighbourhood plans leave a lot of unanswered questions. Given that such plans could be prepared by a small group of people without professional expertise then it is essential that they have sufficient guidance to ensure their outputs do not result in unnecessary conflict and their proposals are viable and implementable. Concern has been expressed in the Committee Stage in the House of Lords about the legitimacy and operation of a neighbourhood forum, especially where they are not currently constituted as parishes. Whilst the Government may be confident that the provisions within the Bill cover these issues, it is essential that such bodies have an effective operating document for their activities. The NPPF as is stands falls short of that requirement.

Lessons from Wales and Scotland 24. The devolved administrations in Wales and Scotland have their own national planning policy statements—Planning Policy Wales and Scottish Planning Policy. It is reasonable to look at these to see if they offer a better way of succinctly setting out planning policy. 25. Planning Policy Wales covers 212 pages and certainly presents more detail and explanation than the NPPF. However, each chapter is cross referenced to a large number of other documents and so it acts more as a central reference point rather than a complete statement of policy. As such it is probably not in keeping with the Government’s intention for the NPPF. 26. Scottish Planning Policy at 54 pages is much more succinct but because of its presentational style it is probably about 50% more words than the NPPF. The Scottish version has a few key cross references to other documents and presents a fuller picture of planning policy than the current NPPF. This Company considers that the Scottish version has much to offer as a model of the appropriate balance of being succinct whilst giving sufﬁcient detail.

Conclusion on Sufficiency 27. This Company would conclude that the NPPF as it stands is not a complete document sufficient to fulfil its intended purpose nor should it be regarded as a complete expression of government planning policy. Apart from the need for it to clarify its relationship to other documents, of itself it requires expansion in other key areas, particularly: (a) The definition of sustainable development. (b) The operation of the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development. (c) The tests of soundness, including the role of the Inspectorate and the Secretary of State. 28. This Company considers that there is a significant danger that the intention of the NPPF to avoid confusion and delay and so results in hindering growth and not helping communities shape development. This danger stems from the brevity of the document leading to various interpretations and thereby outcomes. 29. This, in turn, would lead to disputes being resolved by appeal or through the courts. This would be a wholly unsatisfactory outcome. 30. Already it is evident that lobby groups see the phrase “grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date” as a threat resulting in uncontrolled development. This Company regard that as a misrepresentation as it ignores the established basis of planning decisions being made on the basis of material considerations. However, this misrepresentation is fuelled by a lack of definition of “out of date”, a clear restatement of planning principles and a substantial definition of sustainability to better understand the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development.

Sustainable Development 31. The NPPF deﬁnes sustainable development in one sentence at paragraph 9. This sits in contrast to the existing PPS1 which sets out the policy of Planning for Sustainable Development over 18 paragraphs covering 6 pages. Whilst it is understood that reducing the extent of guidance is a key objective, this is such a fundamental issue that more explanation is required. In the committee stage of the Localism Bill in the House of Lords, amendments were put forward to include the central position of sustainable development in planning within the Bill. This debate took place before the publication of the draft NPPF and the Government gave cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w51

assurances about its commitment to sustainable development. This Company considers that as it stands the NPPF falls short of giving a sufficient definition or clarity that it is the fundamental consideration. 32. The Company considers it is right that the NPPF is the place for defining sustainable development rather than in the Bill. Therefore, it is considered that the NPPF should be amended to provide a fuller explanation of sustainability using much of the text of PPS1, paragraphs 1 to 13. A recommended text is appended.

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development 33. The Company welcomes the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development and like the Government see it as both a “carrot and a stick” to both plan making and decision taking to produce a more positive planning process. 34. However, this Company is concerned that there is still uncertainty about its effectiveness. The presumption is said to operate when plans are “out of date” but it is unclear what qualifies as out of date. All plans have to contain the presumption as a starting point and have clear policies as to its local application. This appears to result local variations to a definition of the presumption. If it is to be the “golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking” then it is a matter of national interest that it is consistently defined and applied. 35. Whilst additional guidance in the NPPF would help, (although the Company in evidence to the Public Committee on the Localism Bill stated that the presumption should be on the face of the Bill and still maintain that position) the essential minimum requirement should be a statement on behalf of the Secretary of State to provide a basis for his own decision making and that of the Inspectorate in dealing with appeals.

Soundness 36. The Company agrees that the certainty provided by having adopted coverage of Local Plans is beneficial. Therefore, it is essential that these plans come forward quickly but also that they are found sound so that they can be used for decision making and are not delayed. 37. The tests of soundness set out in the NPPF are repeated from those which already exist in PPS12 with the added test of being “positively prepared”. However, this raises some confusion in that it refers to also meeting “the unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is practical to do so…”. Clearly this has a cross reference to the Duty to Cooperate but as it stands even with the proposed amendment to the Localism Bill, there is no apparent sanction if the Duty is not complied with. Given the wording of this test those who fail in their Duty by not accommodating their neighbours needs may justify their position on the basis that it is not practical. Thus the plan can be found sound but needs fail to be met; this is an unsatisfactory position. 38. The Company feels that the NPPF should provide an explanation of the importance of the Duty to Cooperate, as a matter of planning principle and reasonable behaviour, and so the implication of not fulfilling this Duty to be set out. The Company feel this would be to clarify that not only that the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development would operate but that in the event of subsequent refusal of proposals and a successful appeal, an award of costs would be automatic. 39. The tests of soundness fail to refer to the need to comply with European legislation, specifically the need for a Strategic Environmental Assessment. Indeed the need for such an Assessment is not referred to in this section of NPPF except in reference to neighbourhood plans. This is an important omission and this section of the NPPF should be amended to include this requirement. In addition, the Company considers it is essential the Government issues guidance on the requirements for a satisfactory SEA and cross references that accordingly. 40. The importance of viability and deliverability is referred to elsewhere in this section of NPPF but does not clearly follow through as a test of soundness. Therefore, although there is a requirement for plan makers to assess cumulative impacts of policies (though welcome of itself) the outcome of such assessments will not prevent an unviable plan being adopted. The Company considers that the need for plan to be assessed as viable should be a test of soundness. 41. This Company considers that the tests of soundness need revisiting to ensure that implementable plans which meet all needs in a balanced and sustainable way is achieved. 42. Within this context the role of an Inquiry Inspector is crucial. However, the revised Local Planning Regulations, which are also the subject of consultation, makes a reference to Inspectors only being able “to recommend modifications to overcome these issues (conflicts with national policy and the regulatory process) if the Council ask them to”. This seems rather bizarre and the NPPF does nothing to set out the procedure. Clearly, the tests of soundness in the NPPF will mean nothing if in finding a plan unsound, the Inspector is not requested to recommend modifications and the plan goes ahead unchanged. The result is likely to be a legal challenge which is unhelpful in achieving the desired objective of a strategy for a particular area. 43. Similarly, the role of the Secretary of State in this context is unclear. There is a reference to a certificate of conformity (for plans) with the framework but this does not say from who and it implies it is optional. If it is optional, what is its value? cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w52 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

44. Adopted plans have a weighty status in decision making and so it is important that they are soundly based, fulfil government objectives and produced in a timely fashion. It is essential that the Regulatory Framework which covers this area is clarified and reflected in the NPPF.

Conclusion 45. NPPF represents a major change in the way in which government planning policy is expressed. The production of this draft has been a significant undertaking and its general direction of travel is most welcome. However, this Company considers that the document as it stands is an incomplete statement of government planning policy with some crucial elements for its successful operation missing. 46. Whilst these elements are missing uncertainty prevails and despite the recent guidance issued by the Inspectorate, planning applications cannot be pursued with confidence. Given that current applications are at a historic low set against an increasingly desperate need for development, the total picture of government guidance needs assembling as a matter of urgency. 47. The objectives of the Government to promote sustainable growth should not be frustrated for the want of complete guidance. Uncertainty, delay and conflict serve no one. Therefore it is important that the NPPF be clarified in several important aspects so that it is indisputably fully fit for purpose. Barratt Developments PLC 6 September 2011

APPENDIX 1. Sustainable Development 1. Planning shapes the places where people live and work and the country we live in. Good planning ensures that we get the right development, in the right place and at the right time. It makes a positive difference to people’s lives and helps to deliver homes, jobs, and better opportunities for all, whilst protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, and conserving the countryside and open spaces that are vital resources for everyone. But poor planning can result in a legacy for current and future generations of run-down town centres, unsafe and dilapidated housing, crime and disorder, and the loss of our finest countryside to development. 2. Good planning is a positive and proactive process, operating in the public interest through a system of plan preparation and control over the development and use of land. 3. Sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning. At the heart of sustainable development is the simple idea of ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for future generations. A widely used definition was drawn up by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. 4. Planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns or urban and rural development by: — Making suitable land available for development in line with economic, social and environmental objectives to improve people’s quality of life; — Contributing to sustainable economic development; — Protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside, and existing communities; — Ensuring high quality development through good and inclusive design, and the efficient use of resources; and, — Ensuring that development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities with good access to jobs and key services for all members of the community. 5. This plan-led system, and the certainty and predictability it aims to provide, is central to planning and plays the key role in integrating sustainable development objectives. 6. The Government set out four aims for sustainable development in its 1999 strategy. These are: — 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. 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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w53

communities and personal well being, in ways that protect and enhance the physical environment and optimise resource and energy use.

7. The following key principles should be applied to ensure that development plans and decisions taken on planning application contribute to the delivery of sustainable development: (a) Development plans should ensure that sustainable development is pursued in an integrated manner, in line with the principles for sustainable development set out in the UK strategy. (b) A spatial planning approach should be at the heart of planning for sustainable development. (c) Planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design in the layout of new developments and individual buildings in terms of function and impact, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development. Design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted. (d) Development plans should also contain clear, comprehensive and inclusive access policies—in terms of both location and external physical access. Such policies should consider people’s diverse needs and aim to break down unnecessary barriers and exclusions in a manner that beneﬁts the entire community. (e) Community involvement is an essential element in delivering sustainable development and creating sustainable and safe communities. In developing the vision for their areas, planning authorities should ensure that communities are able to contribute to ideas about how that vision can be achieved, have the opportunity to participate in the process of drawing up the vision, strategy and speciﬁc plan policies, and to be involved in development proposals.

Written evidence from E.ON UK

Summary

We welcome the vision behind the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which is intended to simplify planning guidance and provide greater coherence in policy. We advocate the principle of a streamlined planning regime at all levels and hope that the NPPF, when ﬁnalised, can achieve this. However, as currently drafted we are concerned that this aim has not been realised and projects may be unnecessarily hindered.

The scale of the energy challenge is significant. The Climate Change Act 2008 commits the UK to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, and the EU Renewable Energy Directive requires that 15% of all final energy consumption comes from renewable sources by 2020. We need a step change to take the UK from 6.7% of electricity generated by renewables in 2009, to over 30% by 2020. Additionally, over 25% of existing generation needs replacing over the next fifteen years, to maintain security of the UK’s energy supplies. Ofgem estimates that to meet the Government’s energy policy goals, £200 billion of investment is needed by 2020, in all forms of low carbon energy development.

An effective planning regime will help to support investment across the whole of the UK and provide greater energy security. It is, however, important that the planning system works for all scales of energy development. Energy developers need a stable long-term policy framework in order to meet their investment criteria and a signiﬁcant proportion of this investment will be consented under the Town and Country Planning Act. It is vital that the local planning system is effective if it is to encourage investment in the UK.

We think it is right that Local Planning Authorities (LPA) should design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development, whilst ensuring adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily. LPAs should have a positive strategy to promote good quality energy developments and we also support the recognition that the LPA should not require applicants to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy. However, the framework in its current drafting does not highlight the need to also balance security of supply and affordability, and this should be addressed as a matter of importance.

In assessing the likely impacts of energy developments, planning authorities should follow the approach set out in the energy National Policy Statements (NPS), which we support. The framework directs local authorities to do this for wind energy development in a footnote to the document, but this needs to be strengthened to require the same approach for all energy developments, within the main body of the framework, so the intention is clear.

We support the presumption in favour of sustainable development, especially given the need to meet the challenges of delivering long term secure and affordable energy supplies. Secure, low carbon and affordable energy can have a very positive impact on the long term economic prosperity of the UK, and the green agenda should promote and drive the creation of new jobs and innovation. A planning regime that supports this is critical. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w54 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Questions Q1. 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 over planning decisions? 1. Effective and timely implementation of planning reform is crucial given the pressing need in the UK for new energy infrastructure both to reduce CO2 emissions from the energy sector and to maintain security of energy supplies given the large volume of generating capacity which will close over the next fifteen years. Whilst the NPSs are widely recognised as being crucial to this, we also believe that at a sub 50MW scale, energy developments (both in the home at microgeneration level and in the community or standalone larger developments) will make an important contribution, and the NPPF will have a central role to play in the delivery of such schemes. Our concern is that the NPPF, as currently drafted, does not adequately meet the needs of the energy industry and the guidance for decision makers falls short. 2. We understand, and indeed support the Government’s aim that local communities must be involved in planning, and that the introduction of a simple and clear document should help facilitate this by increasing their understanding and expectations of how planning should work. However, a framework that works for communities, the general public, as well as decision makers and developers is a difficult balance. If the aim of the framework is to produce a document which communities and individuals can easily read and understand, then this framework succeeds in achieving this. If, however, the document is also intended to provide sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others, including investors and developers, then we believe that for energy it falls short of this mark. It can be easily addressed by requiring decision makers to use the NPSs when taking decisions. 3. The Energy NPS process has been well documented; it was both robust and allowed critical review which resulted in strong, coherent and comprehensive policy statements. The NPSs set out the need for new energy developments, expressing the importance to the UK of delivering low carbon, including renewable, energy deployment, and affordable and secure energy supplies while balancing this need against potential impacts on local communities. The draft NPPF can be praised for its inclusion of low carbon energy, clearly stating that it is “Government’s objective that planning should fully support the transition to a low carbon economy, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change” (page 42). However, at no point does it reference the need for energy security, or for energy to be affordable. 4. Footnote eight (page 43) directs decision makers, in the case of wind energy, to follow the approach set out in the NPS for Renewable Energy and Infrastructure and the relevant sections of the Overarching NPS. We welcome this inclusion but it needs to be strengthened. This should be a key paragraph stated within the body of the framework, not hidden in the footnote. Furthermore, we would like this to extend to all energy developments and would suggest the following drafting: “In assessing the likely impacts of energy development in broad areas, and in determining planning applications for such development, planning authorities should follow the approach set out in the National Policy Statements EN1–5. Where plans identify areas as suitable for energy development, they should make clear what criteria have determined their selection, including for what size of development the areas are considered suitable”. 5. Including the paragraph in this way will address our concerns that the guidance is weakened because it does not tackle the need for energy sources to remain secure and affordable for consumers, as we move to a lower carbon sources of energy supply. For policy makers this presents a significant challenge in balancing each element, given that they are often in competition with each other, and the framework must address this challenge. This paragraph allows it to do so at almost no extra word count. 6. Furthermore, the section on Sustainable Communities should also make reference to energy. Whilst energy needs are considered in the climate change section, this does not go far enough to encourage authorities to think about energy in the context of sustainable communities. We can offer examples of best practice; for example last year we signed our first city partnership agreement to help Stoke-on-Trent become the country’s first sustainable city. In the past year we have signed similar agreements with Sheffield, Exeter, Coventry and Milton Keynes. Through these agreements we work together with local authorities to look at the right energy solutions for that particular community. By working in partnership with the local authority, local businesses and community groups, we are able to bring forward schemes that meet the community’s energy needs, but also provide local jobs, increase local skills, and support vulnerable groups therefore contributing to the broader sustainability of a community and of course supporting Government’s localism agenda.

Q2. Is the deﬁnition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 7. We endorse the presumption in favour of Sustainable Development and agree that all local plans should be based upon and contain this as their starting point, with clear policies that will guide how it will be applied locally. Planning positively for development and approving, where possible, good quality developments, will not only support economic growth but help combat the effects of climate change and promote stronger cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w55

communities. We were pleased to see that it reﬂected the three pillars of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental. 8. A “presumption in favour of sustainable development” is essential to supporting growth, especially in the absence of sub-national or local renewable energy targets. We hope that this helps to encourage local authorities to support the appropriate development of sustainable energy projects. This could be linked to appropriate incentives to encourage local authorities and communities to plan positively for sustainable energy projects. 9. Our concern remains that the NPPF fails to highlight the importance of energy, especially against other important development needs such as housing. We would like to see paragraph 17 strengthened to require authorities to develop plans that support the strategic development needs set out in Local Plans, including policies for energy, as well as housing and economic development.

Q3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 10. The core planning principles consider many of the important elements we would expect to see. We agree with the sentiment that planning should proactively drive and support development that the country needs. This will help deliver our future economic growth for UK plc. However, we would like the planning policy to state the need to consider energy in the wider context of UK targets and the need to encourage significant investment in our future energy infrastructure. 11. We welcome inclusion of the statement that plans must set out a positive long-term vision for the area and be kept up to date, providing a practical framework within which planning applications can be made with a high degree of clarity. It is also important that this is balanced with national, sub-national and local needs. 12. We support the principle that planning policies and decisions should enable the reuse of existing resources and encourage the use of renewable resources, for example by the development of renewable energy. This is important given the need to meet the very significant energy challenge which the UK faces. This could be further strengthened by extending the wording to include low carbon, as well as renewable resources. 13. Whilst we understand the need for planning to be genuinely plan-led, authorities must also be flexible enough to consider good quality projects outside of mapped areas.

Q4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 14. Greater cohesion in planning matters could be achieved if the NPPF were to state that, for energy developments, decision makers should use the NPS as a primary document. When examining local plans, the framework expects the local authority to develop a plan consistent with national policy. The plan must enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the framework. The relationship between the NPPF and the NPS could be reinforced if it included that plans should also be consistent with NPSs (where they are in place). The energy NPSs are designed to help deliver the UK ambition for energy and this ambition should be delivered at all scales—nationally significant projects, as well as smaller projects. Locally, we all have a role to play and we would like to see authorities incentivised to take responsibility for this. 15. How the NPPF interacts with offshore developments, including the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and the Marine Policy Statement (MPS) is also very important. 16. The framework expects local authorities to work collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries are properly co-ordinated and clearly reflected in individual Local Plans. For example, footnote three requires that for marine areas, local planning authorities should collaborate with the MMO. This is an important inclusion, but to be sufficiently clear, how the local authority should interact with the MMO should be a clear statement within the main body of the text. 17. The NPPF states that in coastal areas, local planning authorities should take account of marine plans and apply Integrated Coastal Zone Management across local authority and land/sea boundaries. This makes a clear link with the marine planning regime and the terrestrial planning regime, but should require authorities to take account of the MPS as well, as the marine plans will not be in place in all areas, for a number of years.

Q5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 18. The Government expects joint working on areas of common interest to be diligently undertaken for the mutual benefit of neighbouring authorities. With the abolition of regional renewables targets, it is imperative that local authorities have the right framework to support the development of sustainable energy infrastructure. 19. Working across boundaries, local authorities can maximise the effectiveness of sustainable development, and benefits may also be realised by working with other organisations, such as community interest companies, across local authority boarders. This could, for example, include the sharing of a supply chain for biomass stations, or the waste heat from a conventional power station. We would like the duty to cooperate to be cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w56 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

strengthened, as without a specific duty to plan for strategic infrastructure there is a risk that each local authority will simply assume that its neighbouring authorities will deliver. 20. Local Plans will be examined by an independent inspector whose role is to assess whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with the “Duty to Cooperate”, legal and procedural requirements, and whether it is sound. A Neighbourhood Plan must be assessed by an independent examiner before it can go to a local referendum. Where pre-application is appropriate, encouraging discussion between developers and planning authorities (and statutory consultees) is also important and there must be recognition that statutory consultees will need to provide advice in a timely manner at all stages of the development process. We would like the NPPF to consider this inclusion. 21. There is a lot of positive intent in the NPPF and we welcome this. Aligning local and national benefits is no easy task and our concern is that when local plans are published there will still be a significant gap between the local potential capacity and national need for energy development, because the net local benefits may be limited, depending on the type of project, and there is little incentive for local plans to incorporate this type of development. As part of the independent assessment of Local Plans an independent review of energy infrastructure should be included and where this is not aligned with national targets and the NPS, the local authority should be required to reassess. 22. Securing long term reliable, affordable and low carbon energy is everyone’s responsibility. Local authorities and communities must recognise this and translate goals into strong local plans. A positive strategy must be adopted and policies should be designed in a way that maximises energy development, while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily. We would ask that local authorities support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy, including developments outside such areas being taken forward through neighbourhood planning. They should also identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co-locating potential heat customers and suppliers. Such thinking is essential to provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning.

Q6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? 23. We welcome that the NPPF is not intended to be spatial in nature, but are concerned that some of the drafting around “plan-led” frameworks could have unintended consequences. 24. Local Plans, incorporating neighbourhood plans where relevant, are the starting point for the determination of any planning application. We are concerned that there are a lack of drivers for local planning authorities to encourage energy developments, for example wind farm developments. Without this driver the capacity will not materialise in the local plan, which will ultimately lead to an increase in refusals for good quality projects which are needed to ensure the UK meets its energy objectives. 25. Further, there are a wide range of siting options for energy developments and technologies and mitigating measures vary significantly. A framework which specified predetermined locations for development would be unnecessarily restrictive. A flexible approach is required which enables a judgement to be reached by the local authority in relation to the location and development in question. 26. Finally, the NPPF states that local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to assess the quality and capacity of energy infrastructure and its ability to meet forecast demands and take account of the need for nationally significant infrastructure within their areas. Whilst this is welcomed, we often find that, although we are a provider, and authorities do consult with us on new policies and plans, our views often go unheard or are not given sufficient weighting in relation to the views of anti-development groups. September 2011

Written evidence from CBI Minerals Group Summary — We strongly welcome the pro-growth thrust of the NPPF but we are concerned that sustainable development is not sufficiently clearly defined. The NPPF fails to take sufficient account of the importance of National and European environmental legislation and guidance in the planning system. — We strongly support the Government’s expectation that NPPF will deliver a system where the default answer to development is “yes”. — We think the core planning principles as expressed in paragraph 19 of the draft NPPF are generally clearly and appropriately expressed. — There should be recognition of the need for government departments and agencies to work together in delivering the Government’s aim of achieving a presumption in favour of sustainable development. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w57

— We are concerned that the NPPF does not adequately address the need for local authorities to cooperate on a sub-national level in respect of the steady and adequate supply of minerals. — We are concerned that the NPPF contains some signiﬁcant policy changes for which there is no clear evidence base to justify the changes. The CBI Minerals Group is pleased to have the opportunity to submit comments to the Committee on the draft National Planning Policy Framework. These comments are made in respect of the six questions posed.

1. 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 over planning decisions? We strongly welcome the pro-growth thrust of the NPPF but we are concerned that sustainable development is not sufficiently clearly defined. The NPPF is silent on the important role other legislation and guidance plays in delivering (or not as the case may be) sustainable development. Increasingly, National and European environmental legislation dictates where development can take place and there is a need for determined cooperation between all government departments working together to ensure the government’s expectation that the planning system will deliver a sustainable future for the country can be achieved. We welcome the recognition in paragraph 100 of the NPPF that minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth but we believe it is essential that this recognition should be stated “up front” in the introduction to underscore the importance of a steady and adequate supply of minerals for securing sustainable development. The NPPF should recognise the special nature of mineral development in that minerals can only be extracted where they occur in economic quantities. The definition of sustainable mineral development must recognise this key locational criterion. This becomes more critical for the rarer industrial minerals which predominantly are located in National Parks and AONBs. We are concerned about the loss of current important technical guidance contained, for example, in MPS2 in relation to dust and noise. Clear guidance of sufficient weight is an essential tool in helping to secure new permissions. We are concerned that paragraph 102 bullet 7 appears to be proposing, for example, that local authorities develop their own set of noise limits which could lead to major inconsistencies across the country.

2. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? The decision on what is and what is not sustainable development is core to the success of the NPPF in delivering the governments aim to build the economy and to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities. We support the Government’s hope that the NPPF will deliver a system where the default answer to development is “yes”. However, we think there is a need for more clarity within the NPPF on the definition of sustainable development. On the one hand the document sets out the criteria in paragraph 10 for delivering sustainable but on the other it throws up barriers to development which we believe are not sustainable. For example, paragraph 16 (repeated in paragraph 170) states that development likely to have a significant effect on sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directive would not be sustainable, yet the legislation recognises that there may be imperative reasons of overriding public interest, which could be of a social or economic nature, sufficient to override the harm to the site. In so far as minerals are concerned, we believe the NPPF should explicitly state that development which meets the Government’s objective for minerals as set out in paragraph 100 is sustainable.Sustainable minerals development means balancing the need for the minerals to support economic growth against the impact of working them where they occur.

3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? We think the Core planning principles as expressed in paragraph 19 of the draft NPPF are generally clearly and appropriately expressed. We do think however that bullet 5 of paragraph 19 is somewhat confusing. While we recognise the need to seek to protect and enhance environmental and heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their signiﬁcance we do believe allocations of land for development should not only prefer land of lesser environmental value but also land of lesser heritage value. This is particularly important in respect of minerals development because as stated above unlike other forms of development minerals can only be worked where they occur.

4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? No, the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning policy is far from clear. For example the NPPF is silent on its relationship to the new Marine Planning Regime. This is of concern to the minerals sector because marine dredged aggregates make an important contribution to the supply of essential raw materials to the construction industry. This is recognised in the current mineral planning guidance (MPS1). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w58 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

We are concerned that the NPPF pays little regard to the impact the vast amount of National and European environmental and other legislation and guidance has on the process of delivering development. There should be recognition of this and the need for government departments and agencies to work together in delivering the Government’s aim of achieving a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? We welcome the recognition of the vital role played by the national and regional aggregate guidelines and the aggregate working parties in planning for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates. We are concerned that paragraphs 44 to 47 appear to be suggesting that the “duty to co-operate” would apply only to neighbouring authorities or in the case of two tier authorities between district and county councils. In the case of nationally important minerals there should be a duty for distant authorities to co-operate on a national on sub-national level. For example, the steady and adequate supply of high quality silica sands in Norfolk is essential to maintain glass manufacturing in Yorkshire.

6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? We are concerned that the NPPF contains some significant policy changes for which there is no clear evidence base to justify these changes. Paragraph 101, bullet 3 contains a major change regarding land-bank policy for three key minerals, namely silica sand, brick clay and cement. The justification for these changes as set out in pages 45 to 47 of the Impact Assessments is misguided. For example: — It has been demonstrated in research work undertaken during the preparation of MPS 1 that the brick manufacturing industry requires a stock of permitted reserves sufficient for 25 years of production at each manufacturing plant. Put simply, without this stock of permissions the investment needed for the maintenance of existing and the development of new brick manufacturing capacity cannot be justified. The availability of a long term supply of the brick clay is a major factor in corporate investment strategies and since much of the brick industry in the UK is owned and controlled at a European level, any dilution of this land-bank policy is likely to lead to a reduction of manufacturing capacity within the country and an increased reliance on imports. — The NPPF would shorten the requirement on Mineral Planning Authorities to provide land banks of raw materials for cement manufacture from 25+ years to 10+ years for a new kiln, and from 15 years to 10 years for an existing kiln, respectively. No justification has been given for this and it appears to be an oversight. With new cement kilns costing in the order of £150 million; 10+ years supply would never support the building of a new kiln. Furthermore, the on going cost of environmental improvements for existing kilns might not be economically justifiable with a reduced land bank provision of 10 years. 9 September 2011

Written evidence from the Mineral Products Association Summary/Key Points — The role performed by “guidance” and by “policy” in the planning system must be clarified. — Guidance has a continuing and essential role to play in making the planning system efficient. — The Mineral Products Association strongly support the presumption in favour of sustainable development. — The definition of Sustainable Development must be much clearer than that set out in the Consultation Draft — Additional weight should not be imposed on specific interests by NPPF policy; assessments of sustainability should be made in accord with the core land-use principles. — The lack of acknowledgement that minerals matters are dealt with by specific planning authorities and through stand-alone Minerals Local Plans will give rise to confusion.

Responses to Questions Posed by the House of Commons CLG Committee 1. 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 over planning decisions? Firstly; it is not clear from the draft NPPF (The Draft) what function policy and guidance respectively have in the planning system. The wording of Question 1 is evidence of the misunderstanding that prevails about this matter. By virtue of the title, the role of the NPPF is to set out national planning policy, not to give guidance. It is intended that the document taken as a whole forms the basis of what constitutes sustainable development. Differing interpretations are possible from the 52 pages, depending on the weight given to any particular cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w59

section or whether sections are interpreted as policy or guidance. Greater policy clarity would be helpful throughout the document. As the MPA understand it, planning policy must be adhered to by those who operate or otherwise interface with the planning system. If they choose to depart from policy, they must justify that departure and the arbiter of that justification in cases of dispute would be the planning inspectorate. On the other hand guidance must be taken account of in the planning process. Like many things, it is a material consideration. A decision maker may be called upon by a planning inspector to show evidence that guidance has been taken account of but that is where the obligation of the decision maker ends. Guidance clearly carries less weight in the planning system than policy and there must be a proper understanding of the function of each to assess the adequacy of the planning policies in The Draft. Secondly, and as a subsidiary point to the first, there will continue to be a need for guidance to fill in the detail of the interpretation of policy as may be agreed between the different parties engaged in the planning process. This will obviate the need for separate agreement to be reached on the interpretation of planning policy principle each time that a decision is called for. The validity of parts of current guidance must be preserved in some way in order to ensure national consistency in the treatment of certain technical matters, such as sensory limits for mineral working conditions. In the view of the Mineral products Association, The Draft should make reference to the future role of guidance and how Government believe it should be produced if it is to carry weight in the planning system. Thirdly, it is not clear what power local communities will have over planning decisions. For minerals there is no clarity that “county matters” fall outside the scope of neighbourhood plans. It may not be not apparent to local communities that there will be two or perhaps three “local plans” for every area (except in unitary authority areas), with which all neighbourhood plans must be in conformity. The Draft gives the impression that there will be only one local plan and one planning authority for each area.

2. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? The presumption in favour of sustainable development is a balanced and workable approach to planning decision making and it is fully supported by the Mineral Products Association. It represents formalisation of an approach that has been advocated for a number of years but has not been properly followed. There has been a steady increase in the requirements placed on developers to provide detailed information on the natural and historic environment when submitting planning applications. Often the evidence required is not proportionate to the proposals being made. In the case of minerals development, it is sometimes doubtful that this level of information is necessary to support the decisions made. It has added substantially to the project costs and in some cases rendered potential mineral extraction operations unviable. Many operators have been left with the impression that detailed environmental information is sought in the hope that it would provide evidence on which to base a negative decision, rather than to identify issues that could be addressed in order to obtain a positive outcome. The fact that minerals are essential to the national economy, to the rural economy in particular and to society, is overlooked. The new presumption in favour of sustainable development should restore that balance. However, the definition of sustainable development in The Draft is unclear. In order to make decisions as quickly as possible and without wasting public resources, planning authorities will need a clear and sound basis on which to assess whether or not development proposals constitute sustainable development. There is no such basis for this “testing” in The Draft as presented. A further concern is that whilst a good idea of what constitutes sustainable development could be derived from key sections at the beginning of the Draft, the principle of pursuing the three components in an integrated way (Paragraph 11) is undermined by exceptions set out later in the document. As examples: Paragraph 169 implies a very strong presumption in favour of proposals that enhance biodiversity and Paragraph 183 implies that the protection of heritage assets should be given particular weighting because they are “irreplaceable”. Perhaps of greatest concern is that development likely to have an effect on sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives is automatically excluded from the category of sustainable development by virtue of Paragraph 170. MPA would contend that, provided such development could meet the tests of “appropriate assessment”, there should be a presumption in favour of it, particularly if the potential effect, though significant, was positive.

3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? The Mineral Products Association supports the statements of policy contained in Paragraph 19. However, they are heavily biased towards considerations related to built development and housing in particular. Mineral resources are not evenly distributed across the nation and, unlike other forms of development, they can only be worked where they occur. The need for minerals development is something that must be based on cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w60 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

consideration of what “this country needs” rather than a simple assessment of local need. Therefore minerals should certainly be mentioned as one of the “needs” in the second bullet point in Paragraph 19 and an additional and speciﬁc bullet point relating to minerals is perhaps justiﬁed. The “market signals” in the third bullet point should include “availability of construction materials and other minerals”.

The core planning principles refer to the key “sustainable development principles” (Second bullet point) but those principles are not identiﬁed in the draft NPPF.

The Mineral Products Association experience is that policy developed by different Government Departments is rarely integrated. A rapidly growing policy framework relating to minerals falls within the responsibility of DEFRA. As a result, the balancing-of-interests approach that used to be the principal basis for regulating of the minerals industry, through the planning system, is no longer apparent.

Environment Agency (EA) permitting procedures now overlap with the regulatory objectives of the planning system. The EA operates within a separate policy framework set by DEFRA which frequently duplicates and may conﬂict with planning. One important change would be to clearly re-establish the primacy of planning policy over environmental policy, so that environmental regulation was operated in support of the planning system where permission has been granted having regard to the principles of sustainable development. Not to do so could undermine the policy intentions for sustainable development. There is no evidence from the contents of The Draft that this position will change.

There is currently a Natural Environment White Paper out for consultation and several DEFRA initiatives such as biodiversity offsetting being progressed. Greater cross referencing of government policy intentions would be helpful.

In our view a further notable omission from The Draft is any reference to marine planning matters. Marine sources contribute a signiﬁcant and growing proportion of the national need for construction aggregates and the Marine Management Organisation is currently developing their marine planning system. The successful integration of marine aggregates supply policy and practice with that which controls land-based aggregates operations is critical to maintaining an adequate and steady supply of these materials.

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

Recognition in the draft of the essential role played by National and Regional Guidelines and the Aggregate Working Parties in planning for a steady and adequate supply of land-won aggregates is welcomed.

However, reduced minimum landbank obligations and the omission of cement and lime production from specific mention in relation to landbanks is a significant concern for other mineral producers. This dilution of policy backing for the production of minerals will make investment decisions to secure security of supply more difficult for those materials, particularly where production and consumption are within different planning areas.

The production of the Guidelines and the terms of reference of the Aggregate Working Parties are typical of the matters that must be addressed in planning guidance (see the response to Question 1) if no further detail is to be included on this matter in the NPPF.

Stronger national policy statements from other government departments such as BIS and cross referencing within the NPPF for minerals supply would be helpful when considering the importance of planning for strategically important minerals.

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

The MPA supports the principle of streamlining planning policy and guidance within the context of presumption in favour of sustainable development. Where current policy is taken forward in this manner the evidence base is self evident. Where new policy is introduced this must be within the context of a sound evidence base and this is not always clear. For example, there is no evidence base for restricting or withdrawing the criteria for sustainable development in the case of peat extraction or development affecting speciﬁed environmental designations. 9 September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w61

Written evidence from the Woodland Trust The Woodland Trust welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation. The Trust is the UK’s leading woodland conservation charity. We have three aims: to enable the creation of more native woods and places rich in trees; to protect native woods, trees and their wildlife for the future; to inspire everyone to enjoy and value woods and trees. We manage over 1,000 sites and have 300,000 members and supporters.

Summary — In its current format the draft NPPF lacks detail in crucial areas and this may serve to undermine the planning system’s ability to protect and enhance the natural environment. With significant amounts of wording being stripped in relation to sustainable development, climate change and flooding the draft NPPF may prove difficult to apply on the ground. It is not clear for example how the retention of protection for ancient woods and trees will work in the light of the default “yes” to development. — Ancient woodland covers a mere 2% of the land area in the UK, it is our equivalent of the rainforest and once lost ancient woodland cannot be recreated. It is welcome that the draft NPPF retains the explicit protection for ancient woods and trees. However there is still a caveat in place that overrides this protection if the benefits of development “outweigh the loss”. This is disconcerting given the overriding emphasis being afforded to economic growth within the planning system. — There is need for greater clarity in relation to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In this draft the definition of sustainable development is used interchangeably with economic growth. Such ambiguity is likely to impact negatively on environmental and social objectives. To ensure clarity of meaning the final Framework should adopt the definition of sustainable development used in the 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy. — It is welcome that the duty to co-operate has been improved substantially since the concept was first put forward as a replacement for regional strategic planning. However, there is concern that implementation will be undermined by both the passive nature of the duty (prescribed bodies need only “consider” co-operation) and the lack of sanctions for non-compliance. — As it stands the evidence base for the draft NPPF outlined in the Impact Assessment failed to include the Natural Environment White Paper or the National Ecosystems Assessment. Delivering on the environmental objectives in these documents and the recently published Biodiversity Strategy should be a priority for the final NPPF.

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 over planning decisions? Guidance 1. At the Trust we are concerned that a vacuum will emerge once the process of distilling all planning guidance from over a thousand pages into one fifty-three page document is finalised. Significant amounts of the detail in relation to sustainable development, climate change and flooding has been removed from the planning system whilst the presumption in favour of sustainable development is inadequately defined. Planning authorities may find it near impossible to apply the new Framework on the ground, especially where one priority (increasing the approval rate for developments) is potentially contradicted by another (protecting ancient woodland). In the past detailed policies were useful for those planning officers tasked with integrating competing demands on land use. 2. Ancient woodland covers a mere 2% of the land area in the UK, it is our equivalent of the rainforest and once lost ancient woodland cannot be recreated. Despite its irreplaceable nature 85% of all ancient woodland remains outside of legislative protection. The Trust has therefore welcomed the retention of protection for ancient woods and trees in the draft NPPF. 3. However there is still a caveat in place that overrides this protection if the benefits of development “outweigh the loss”. Given the very strong emphasis on the importance of development within the Framework, this caveat leaves serious cause for concern. Cases such as Oaken Wood in Kent where 33 hectares of ancient woodland are currently under threat from quarrying proposals demonstrate that the Trust’s fears are well founded. Since 1998 the Trust has contested 256 cases in England where 558 ancient woods, representing a total of 883 hectares, were under threat from development. This demonstrates that the ambiguity in the planning system continues to ensure that ancient woodland remains at risk from development pressures. Regrettably there is simply no guidance in the draft NPPF for a planning officer or a planning committee on when precisely the “need for, or benefits of” a development “clearly outweigh loss”.1 To avoid any ambiguity the caveat should be removed as this would provide a clear steer to both developers and the planning authority. We are not at all opposed to economic growth. However, sustainable development means recognising the existence of environmental limits and they in turn mean halting the loss of our most valuable habitat. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w62 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

4. More positive action should also be taken under the auspices of the Framework in order to protect ancient and veteran trees. Such trees are particularly valuable for biodiversity: any tree that is past maturity is likely to have a hollowing trunk and other decaying columns, cavities, aging bark and dead branches which provide ideal habitats for wildlife.2 The loss of these trees is signiﬁcant both in regard to the loss of wildlife and the impact the removal of these trees has on landscape and historic amenity. Planning authorities should therefore be empowered to proactively protect and conserve these trees when managing development. 5. Meanwhile, the Trust supports the concept of a Local Green Space designation as it allows local communities to designate those green spaces that they believe are important. However, we are concerned by the statement in the draft NPPF that “the Local Green Space designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space”.3 Somewhat surprisingly the four criteria for designating an area are representative of most green spaces which raises the question as to how the designation will operate and when precisely it will be “appropriate” to use it.

Decentralisation 6. Neighbourhood Planning, the primacy of the local plan and the green space designation should pass control over planning decisions to local people. However there is concern with paragraph 20 of the draft NPPF which states that “plans should be prepared on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met.”4 This signiﬁcantly raises the threshold for rejecting a development. By doing so the draft NPPF could remove the ability of a local authority to decline a planning application it may rationally oppose; a position that does not appear to conform to the principles of localism. 7. According to the Impact Assessment, 159 local councils (47%) in England do not have a core strategy published.5 Nonetheless paragraph 14 of the draft NPPF advising on the operation of the presumption in favour of sustainable development states that a local planning authority should “grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date”.6 The Trust is concerned that adopting this approach will lead to the loss of environmental assets such as woods and trees in those authorities where there is either no plan or where the policies are considered silent, indeterminate or out of date. To prevent any unintended environmental degradation the use of this part of the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be delayed until such time as the planning policies of all local authorities are up-to-date. Short cutting the planning process may have a negative impact on the Government’s ability to deliver on the welcome commitment in the Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) to institute: “a strategic approach to planning for nature within and across local areas. This approach will guide development to the best locations, encourage greener design and enable development to enhance natural networks. We will retain the protection and improvement of the natural environment as core objectives of the planning system”.7

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 8. For the definition of sustainable development to be considered “appropriate” it must provide a workable framework through which the planning system can protect the natural world. The draft NPPF uses the 1987 Brundlandt definition as the basis for understanding sustainable development. Regrettably, this definition is very broad compared to the 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy—the UK definition would be a more robust version for the Framework to adopt.8 9. Preventing ancient woodland loss and creating new native woods in rural and urban localities should also be one of the key measures of sustainable development. These are justifiable criteria because woods and trees provide habitat for wildlife, help regulate water flow and quality, prevent soil erosion and regulate climate. Scientific research demonstrates that increasing tree cover in urban areas by 10% reduces surface water run- off by almost 6%.9 Moreover, broadleaved woodland supports nearly twice as many species of conservation concern than any other terrestrial habitat.10 Given these facts it is welcome that the draft Framework offers positive guidance on habitat “enhancement” and tree planting in relation to mitigating the negative impacts of mineral excavation.11 However, the caveat qualifying ancient woodland protection and the presumption in favour of development—especially when deployed in the absence of a local plan—risks undermining the tools with which the planning system can protect the natural environment. 10. Another concern that the Trust harbours is the increasingly muddled use of terminology throughout the draft NPPF. At the beginning the document quotes sustainable development in its own right. However, further into the Framework the term is used interchangeably with “sustainable economic growth”—something that is particularly noticeable in the chapters pertaining to economic development. This is disconcerting as the interchangeable use of the wording could undermine protection and create confusion which will impact negatively on the ability of planning authorities to make decisions in a timely manner. It would also be helpful if the draft NPPF was more transparent in its definition of economic growth. 11. According to the impact assessment there could be significant negative environmental consequences as a result of the relaxation of planning restrictions on the greenbelt. This aspect of the draft NPPF does not appear to align to the principles of sustainable development and may undermine the perception of England as a green and pleasant land.12 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w63

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 12. The core principles of the Framework are bulleted under paragraph 19.13 Bullet points five and six set out the environmental considerations which include seeking to “protect and enhance environmental and heritage assets” and the need to recognise that “some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk, mitigation, carbon storage, or food production)”.14 These aspirations are to be supported as protecting and enhancing environmental assets has social, environmental and economic benefits which the Trust would like embedded across the Framework. Trees and woodland are a particularly valuable type of green space as they encourage exercise, help reduce the mental stresses of modern society and enhance air quality by reducing the incidences of respiratory diseases. Woodland can improve public health outcomes thereby saving millions in costs. Around £110 billion is spent each year in the UK on healthcare, equal to 8.5% of all income. It has been estimated that if every household in England had good access to quality green spaces such as woodland it could save around £2.1 billion annually.15 Given the multiple benefits of accessible green space, the principles of protection and enhancement outlined in the draft NPPF should be supported. 13. In a tough economic climate woodland creation can also offer genuine value for money to local authorities. A recent report, Trees or Turf, demonstrated that managing woodland is a more cost effective regime compared to intensively mown grasslands.16 Indeed, this was a conservative estimate of the cost savings as the figures in the report did not include the ecosystems benefits such as amenity value. Given the benefits of natural green spaces the planning system should encourage woodland creation on both private and public sector land as it offers significant value for money at a time of great pressure on the public purse. 14. Bullet point nine represents a notable step in the right direction: “planning policies and decisions should take account of and support local strategies to improve health and well being for all”.17 Increasing tree and woodland cover can reduce the impacts of poor air quality, mitigate some of the effects of a warming climate, particularly in urban areas, and increase the opportunities for people to adopt a healthy lifestyle. Moreover, the recently published National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA)18 recognised the importance of contact with nature for securing our long term health and happiness, whilst the NEWP reinforced the importance of accessible green space. The planning system must be capable of protecting the natural world and creating new habitats in order to deliver on the welcome recognition that improving public health is inextricably linked with access to nature. 15. Despite the positive wording in relation to environmental protection and enhancement, the Trust remains deeply concerned by the principle expressed in bullet point two stating that “Decision-takers at every level should assume that the default answer to development proposals is ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in this Framework”.19 This undermines protection and ignores the fact that most applications are granted permission (83% according to the impact assessment),20 whilst those plans rejected but subsequently accepted are often improved as a direct consequence of the initial rejection. The success of the planning system should be measured on the quality of outcome instead of the speed at which applications are signed-off. 16. There is also a need for further clarity in regard to bullet point 10 in the core principles. The draft NPPF must define what types of actions are classified as “good” in order to afford planning authorities the clarity and guidance they need to operate the planning system effectively.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 17. Given the core principles articulated in bullet points five, six and nine, it was surprising to read that there is no mention of either the NEWP or the NEA in the draft NPPF or the accompanying impact assessment. The omission of these documents from the evidence base appears at odds with the commitments in the NEWP to ensure that the planning system is able to deliver on the environmental priorities of the Government. This begs the question as to how, if at all, the draft NPPF plans to deliver on Defra’s environmental agenda. Whilst the Trust is keen to welcome the recognition of enhancement and protection, these worthy commitments are clearly not supported across the Framework as a whole. It is disappointing that the evidence base does not make greater use of all the research supporting the importance of protecting and enhancing the environment. 18. Moreover, environmental protection and sound economic policy often go hand in hand. High Speed Rail, for instance, is projected to destroy or damage some of our most precious natural habitats such as 21 ancient woods—a result that is hardly an exemplar of sustainable development. Meanwhile the economic case for the project has been criticised by the IEA,21 the NEF22 and the Taxpayers’ Alliance.23 In recognition that not all economic growth is sustainable, the Framework should remodel the default “yes” in the draft NPPF to ensure that it does not apply in those instances where there is a risk of significant environmental damage.

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 19. The Localism Bill and the draft NPPF replace the regional structures with a duty on local authorities and prescribed bodies to co-operate with each other. It is welcome that local plans are asked to include a “clear strategy for the environmental enhancement of an area”24. The Framework also lists “climate change mitigation and adaptation and protection and enhancement of the natural environment” as strategic priorities.25 Read cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w64 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

alongside the Localism Bill which instructs the appropriate persons or bodies to “engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis” the draft NPPF does provide a forum for larger than local strategic planning which is more robust than the Government’s original proposals on the subject.26 20. However, we are concerned that the duty to co-operate may prove ineffectual in those instances where one or more partners are refusing to progress a shared strategic priority. To resolve this shortcoming the duty to co-operate in the Localism Bill should be amended to strengthen the engagement required of a person beyond merely “considering” actions. In addition, the duty should provide the Secretary of State with a sanction to be applied when local planning authority or a prescribed body has failed to comply with the duties pertaining to co-operation in the legislation. 21. It is also noticeable that the duty to co-operate covers Local Enterprise Partnerships but neglects both Local Nature Partnerships and Nature Improvement Areas. As environmental protection and enhancement are core strategic priorities in the draft NPPF these omissions are surprising and should be corrected. It is important that the delivery of green infrastructure is seen as equal to all other forms of economic development.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? 22. As detailed above the Framework is not sufficiently evidence based or linked into cross departmental policy agendas. It is notable that the impact assessment fails to give any cost/benefit analysis in regard to the protection being afforded to ancient woods and trees. It would appear that the Department for Communities and Local Government has simply failed to analyse what impact the presumption in favour of sustainable development will have on the protection of woods and trees. A rigorous evaluation of the impact of the caveat, which allows development proposals to destroy or damage ancient woodland where the economic benefits outweigh the environmental loss, is needed so that there can be a transparent debate on the potential environmental costs of the draft Framework. 23. Moreover the evidence base for the draft NPPF should include the NEWP, the NEA and the recently published biodiversity strategy for England.27 Similarly, the policies on woodland protection would benefit from the inclusion of the National Inventory for Woods and Trees,28 the Woods for People29 dataset and the Ancient Tree Hunt30 database. This way national and local government can capture the loss of woodland, the protection of ancient trees and the amount of new woodland creation. By measuring long term changes in both habitat creation and loss the Government will be able to provide a fulsome evaluation of the sustainability of the draft NPPF in the years after the document is put in place as the centre piece of the planning system in England. 24. It is also worth adding that in partnership with the Forestry Commission, the Trust developed an indicator for measuring the amount of accessible woodland. The Woodland Access Standard, based on wide ranging research and surveys of public opinion, is tailored to compliment other accessible natural green space standards.31 This standard aspires to the following targets: — that no person should live more than 500m from at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 2ha in size; and — that there should also be at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 20ha within 4km (8km round trip) of people’s homes. 25. The Woodland Access Standard should be adopted as a planning tool as it can be used to measure the success of environmental and social objectives. 7 September 2011

References 1 Department for Communities and Local Government, Draft National Planning Policy Framework (2011), p 48, paragraph 169, at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/draftframework 2 For more information on ancient trees please visit the Ancient Tree Hunt website at: http://www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk/ 3 Draft National Planning Policy Framework, p, 37, paragraph 131. 4 Ibid, p 7, paragraph 20. 5 Department for Communities and Local Government, Draft National Planning Policy Framework, Impact Assessment (2011), p 22, at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1951736.pdf 6 Draft National Planning Policy Framework, p 4, paragraph 14. 7 Defra, Natural Environment White Paper (2011), p 3, at: http://www.ofﬁcial-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8082/8082.pdf 8 Defra, The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy (2005), at: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/publications/uk-strategy/documents/SecFut_complete.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w65

9 Sustainable Cities, Using green infrastructure to alleviate flood risk (2006), at: http://www.cabe.org.uk/sustainable-places/advice/green-infrastructure-and-flood-risk 10 Woodland Trust, Expanding our horizons (2000),p5at: http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/expandingourhorizons.pdf 11 Draft National Planning Policy Framework, p,27, paragraph 102, bullet point 8. In this section the draft NPPF states that local planning authorities should: “put in place policies to ensure worked land is reclaimed at the earliest opportunity, taking account of aviation safety, and that high quality restoration and aftercare of minerals sites takes place, including for agriculture, biodiversity, native woodland and recreation.” 12 Draft National Planning Policy Framework, Impact Assessment, pp 49–55. 13 Draft National Planning Policy Framework,p5. 14 Ibid. 15 Woodland Trust, Greening the Concrete Jungle (2010). 16 Land Use Consultants (prepared for the Woodland Trust), Trees or Turf? Best value in managing urban greenspace (2011), at: http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/campaigning/our-views-and-policy/woods-for- people/Pages/treessavemoney.aspx) 17 Ibid, p 6. 18 National Ecosystems Assessment, UK National Ecosystem Assessment Understanding nature’s value to society (2011) at: http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx 19 Draft National Planning Policy Framework, p5. 20 Draft National Planning Policy Framework, Impact Assessment, p 22. 21 IEA, High Speed 2: the next government project disaster? (2011) at: http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/high-speed-2-the-next-government-project-disaster-web- publication 22 NEF, High Speed Rail is a £32 billion blindfolded gamble (2011), at: http://www.neweconomics.org/press-releases/high-speed-rail-is-a-%C2%A332-billion-blindfolded-gamble- says-think-tank 23 The Taxpayers’ Alliance, High Speed Rail (2011), at: http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/highspeedrail.pdf 24 Draft National Planning Policy Framework, p 8, paragraph 24, bullet point 7. 25 Ibid, p 7, bullet point 5, paragraph 23. 26 Hansard, Localism Bill (2011). 27 Defra, Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem’s services (2011), at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13583-biodiversity-strategy-2020–110817.pdf 28 Forestry Commission, National Inventory of Woods and Trees, at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/hcou-54pg9u 29 Woodland Trust, Woods for People, at: http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/about-us/projects/woods-for-people/Pages/improve-access.aspx This link provides further information on the dataset. 30 Woodland Trust, Ancient Tree Hunt, at: http://www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk/ 31 Woodland Trust, Space for People: targeting action for woodland access (2010).

Written evidence from the Institute of Archaeologists 1. Summary 1.1 It is Government’s avowed intention to maintain the level or protection currently afforded to the historic environment by the recently published Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning and the Historic Environment, a document which has the broad support of the historic environment sector. 1.2 The National Planning Policy Framework, as currently drafted, would (no doubt inadvertently) reduce that level of protection and compromise Government’s ability to promote truly sustainable growth, in particular, by: — placing undue emphasis on development at the expense of the historic environment; and — undermining detailed policies for the protection of both designated and undesignated heritage assets. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w66 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

1.3 The draft NPPF should be revised to ensure that the historic environment is at the heart of sustainable development and not subordinate to it.

2. Introduction 2.1 The Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) is the professional body for archaeologists and related professions concerned with the study and care of the historic environment. It promotes best practice in archaeology and provides a self-regulatory quality assurance framework for the sector and those it serves. 2.2 The IfA has over 3,000 members and more than 60 registered practices across the United Kingdom and abroad. Its members work in all branches of the discipline: heritage management, planning advice, excavation, ﬁnds and environmental study, buildings recording, underwater and aerial archaeology, museums, conservation, survey, research and development, teaching and liaison with the community, industry and the commercial and ﬁnancial sectors.

3. Response to Specific Questions 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 over planning decisions? 3.1 No. Further guidance and clarification is needed to ensure that the historic environment (which includes both designated and undesignated heritage assets) is properly considered and adequately safeguarded within a more streamlined, “bottom up” planning regime.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 3.2 We do not take issue with the Brundtland definition of “sustainable development” but do have concerns as to the way that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is interpreted in the NPPF. The approach (allowing development “unless the adverse impacts of allowing [it] would significantly and demonstrably [my underlining] outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole” (paragraph 14)) is inconsistent with other policies in the Framework and, in particular, those policies protecting the historic environment. For instance paragraph 184 provides that “Where the application will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of a designated heritage asset local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that loss or harm …”. 3.3 These two approaches cannot be wholly reconciled and the concern is that, given the permissive tone of the Framework generally, any uncertainty or inconsistency will be interpreted in favour of development without fully reflecting the environmental implications of any decision. As the draft framework baldly states: “the default answer to development proposals is ‘yes’” (paragraph 19). This is not, in our view, a balanced or workable approach. 3.4 There is a real risk that sites and buildings of archaeological interest will be destroyed without adequate investigation, analysis and dissemination if a permissive approach is adopted without adequate safeguards to protect the historic environment. Nor is it not enough to say that local authorities are in a position to rebut the presumption in favour of sustainable development if there are unacceptable impacts upon the historic environment since: — the policies for the protection of heritage assets are inconsistent with those promoting sustainable development (as seen above) and may be overridden; — without adequate information to assess the implications of development for the historic environment (or a clear policy requirement for applicants to produce such information) permission is likely to be granted “in default”; and — hard-pressed local authorities cannot be expected to “plug the gaps” in planning policy. Local authority archaeological and heritage services around the country are under severe threat in the current financial climate and need the support of strong and clear planning policy for the management and protection of the historic environment. 3.5 Nor are our concerns confined to the protection of designated heritage assets. Although undesignated assets are cursorily dealt with at paragraph 185 of the draft NPPF, fuller and clearer policy provision is required (as is provided by PPS 5) to ensure that such assets are properly managed and protected notwithstanding any presumption in favour of sustainable development. Over 90% of the historic environment is undesignated and is, for the most part, solely protected as a “material consideration” in the planning process. If this protection is inadvertently reduced, irreversible damage is likely to occur and the opportunities which the historic environment affords to contribute to regeneration, place-shaping and tackling climate changes will not be fully realised. 3.6 Policies for the management and protection of the historic environment should be at the heart of sustainable development. As drafted, however, such policies appear largely to be subordinated to it. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w67

3.7 What is needed is policy which clearly and consistently ensures that due regard is at all times paid to the management and protection of the historic environment as an integral part of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

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

3.8 No. The policies are in places internally inconsistent, as noted above.

3.9 No. The Government’s Statement on the Historic Environment for England 2010 is a key statement whose principles we endorse. This Statement has never formally been withdrawn and its status should be clariﬁed in the NPPF. At the very least, the NPPF should endorse its principles or make clear which of those principles no longer inform policy. Furthermore, the NPPF needs to be underpinned by authoritative good practice guidance (such as that currently being prepared for the historic environment) whose status and weight should be made clear in the Framework.

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

3.10 No comment.

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

3.11 No comment

4. Recommendation

4.1 The draft NPPF should be revised in accordance with the detailed representations submitted by IfA to the Department for Communities and Local Government dated 1 September 2011. 8 September 2011

Written evidence from Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Executive Summary — The draft NPPF is a concise and practical document. It may need a light touch to amplify or supplement points during implementation but it is a clear and balanced approach to plan making and development management. — The authors request that it is read in the round (Paragraphs 8 and 12). If done so the key principles are very clear and provide for a planning balance to be achieved in line with the economic, social and environmental factors put forward. — It generally provides sufficient guidance to the parties identified in question 1 on general principles. There are few areas for supplementary guidance to be developed (calculating housing requirements, viability and strategic environmental assessment). These are detailed in the main text. As a principle however these should be kept to a minimum and only considered where necessary to provide consistency of approach. — With regard to “sustainable development” provided the document is read as a whole and all of the references to “sustainable development” are picked up it provides a comprehensive and workable framework. — The core planning principles are clear, concise and relevant. — The relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning related policies is clear. Effective management of the framework is key. — There remains a residual concern that the Duty to Co-operate can be viewed as a statement of faith rather than a statement of fact. The matter presumably will be dealt with through the test of soundness in the examination of local plans. — The need for the provision of up to date evidence including market trends is given sufficient weight in the document. Supplemental guidance on technical matters may be necessary. These points are referenced in our main text. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w68 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Q1. Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others, including ministers and developers while at the same time giving local communities sufficient power over planning decisions? Answer The guidance on general principles is fit for purpose. There are three matters which perhaps should be considered in more detail as matters for supplementary material. These relate to: — Calculating housing requirements The drafting of Paragraphs 107 to 111 is relevant and supported. Paragraphs 109 and 111 (in part) refer to the need for housing to be based on current and future demographic trends/market trends. There should be consistency of approach in the preparation of this evidence and an ongoing role for SHMA’s and SHLAA’s. In this context further guidance on the methodology for the calculation of housing requirements would be welcome and have the benefit of avoiding duplication of effort and debate at Local Plan examination and Inquiry if necessary. — Viability The recognition of viability as a material factor within the NPPF is fully supported. Although a matter frequently debated it would be helpful if the NPPF could be supported by a clear statement of CLG policy on the appropriate parameters to be consistently applied in verifying viability. This would assist local plan inspectors in determining soundness of the plan, the community infrastructure levy (CIL) if a charging schedule is proposed and to inform local authorities and PINS if necessary when considering viability in the context of determining planning obligations. — Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Although there is general reference to compliance with EU environmental law it may be helpful to give a timely reminder to local planning authorities of the need to subject Development Plan Documents to an SEA. This would help remove potential for future judicial review with all of its attendant risks of costs and delay.

Q3. Are the core planning principles clearly and appropriately expressed? Answer A short but considered response is yes. The principles are balanced, clear and appropriate.

Q5. Does the NPPF together with the “duty to co-operate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? Answer Provided the parties establish early strong and effective methods of co-operation then perhaps the duty of co-operation can be effective at a regional and sub regional level. The point is perhaps unproven at the moment. The matter presumably will be dealt with through the test of soundness in the examination of local plans with the default position based on the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the absence of an approved local plan.

Q6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence based? Answer There is an appropriate and welcome recognition of the need for up to date evidence to be applied in plan making. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w69

Fitness for Purpose — As a starting point the draft NPPF is fit for purpose. It provides a clear and balanced approach to a plan lead system which fully recognises the basic principles and interaction of economic, social and environmental considerations with a strengthening of local choice and determination. The authors of the document call for it to be read in the round (Paragraphs 8 and 12). If done so, it demonstrates a considered and comprehensive approach to plan making. — The principle of planning for prosperity (the economic driver) is self evident within the document. The draft NPPF, does not, as some parties suggest dilute environmental protection. There is simply a rebalancing of priorities and a requirement for plan making to be approached with vigour, responsibility and timeliness. The impetus which this could bring should be welcomed. — The need for supplemental guidance in a few areas is noted particularly with regard to Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMA) and will be dealt with more fully in formal responses to DCLG by 17 October 2011. — As a final point there is a need for consistency in plan making and for the plan making cycle to complete itself. One of the factors behind low housing delivery in the recent past has been the plethora of planning reforms introduced since the turn of the century which seem to have frustrated rather than enabled effective plan making. The introduction of the NPPF provides a very clear statement of intent, incentive and sanction to encourage effective and up to date plans to be produced. There will undoubtedly be tensions in implementing this framework, if it is confirmed in this form, but that is inherent in the nature of planning where judgment is exercised to achieve an appropriate planning balance. The strength of the document is the clarity it brings to the “core principles” of planning which are themselves balanced and contribute to “sustainable development.” 8 September 2011

Written evidence from Paule Constable Please find below a brief outline of reasons that I find the new NPPF worrying as regards theatres. I would urge the committee to reconsider and to take this vital part of our communities into much more consideration. I can only think that this is an oversight and hope that by raising these issues we can include theatres much more actively in the new document. — Theatre buildings need to be specifically and carefully considered as regards all planning. The proposed NPPF does not give sufficient guidance. — We have to protect our cultural buildings—both in terms of how they change responsibly in the future and how we protect our existing heritage. — Theatres so often demonstrate how lack of clear planning can destroy a vital part of our UK heritage and how the misapplication of planning strategies can make for confused decisions and ruined buildings. — The definition of sustainable development as regards theatres has to be clearer in the document. We are part of this debate. We need to move forward. — There is a specific consideration given to leisure, sport and heritage but not to culture and theatre. This seems a complete oversight. — Theatre is vital to the development of a healthy community. Culture is essential to the well being of our society. Surely at the moment, following riots and questions about how little we value eachother we don’t need reminding of. 8 September 2011

Written evidence from Paul Appleby CEng FCIBSE FRSA Executive Summary This memorandum sets out my view on the Draft National Planning Policy Framework published in July 2011 in response to the joint inquires by the CLG and Environmental Audit Committees. The following views specifically focus on issues relating to sustainable development: — Economic growth should not be used as an indicator of sustainable development, giving the impression that local authorities should use this as their main measure for assessing planning applications. — There will be a burden on local authorities to have the skills and resources required to weigh up the benefits of each planning application against adverse impacts. — Most developments have both socio-economic benefits and adverse environmental impacts. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w70 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— The NPPF allows “as a last resort” compensation to be paid for a development that signiﬁcantly harms biodiversity. — The wording relating to ﬂood risk is not as strong as that in the 2011 National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England. — Some of the types of development that could be allowed in the Green Belt, such as limited affordable housing, engineering operations and renewable technologies, are worrying.

1.0 Introduction 1.1 As a freelance consultant I specialise in the sustainable design of buildings and providing advice to design and masterplanning teams on all aspects of sustainability. I graduated with a ﬁrst class honours degree in Environmental Engineering in 1975 since when I have worked as a mechanical services design engineer, a lecturer and researcher, setting up my own consultancy in 1988. This became Building Health Consultants Ltd, which remains today as part of URS Scott Wilson. In 2000 I establish the Building Sustainability Unit at URS, from which I retired at the end of 2008. 1.2 I have some 60 publications to my name including the book Integrated Sustainable Design of Buildings which was published in January of this year by Earthscan. It is a comprehensive guide to sustainable design, masterplanning and construction, designed for a global marketplace, but with a particular focus on the UK.

2.0 Sustainable Development 2.1 I am concerned about the way the Draft NPPF interprets the definition of sustainable development. Although referring to the classic definition from the 1987 Brundtland report it goes on to state that “without growth, a sustainable future cannot be achieved”. So in essence the presumption is in favour of economic growth as an indicator for sustainable development. This argument is then used to justify the requirement that local planning authorities should “approve all individual proposals where possible … unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”. The risk is that, without a prescriptive approach to setting out what constitutes adverse impacts, there will be a considerable reliance on the skills and judgement of the planning officers in weighing up the adverse impacts against the benefits. 2.2 Whilst most well planned and designed developments will bring both social and economic benefits, It could be argued that all development damages the environment in some way, either through the carbon emissions and use of non-renewable resources required for construction and operation or through damage to ecosystems, waterways, air quality etc. Even so-called zero carbon buildings will have carbon and greenhouse gas emissions associated with plug-in devices, construction and demolition, whilst almost all development will result in increased traffic movements, water use, waste processing, ecological damage and the like. 2.3 The National Ecosystems Assessment carried out between 2009 and 2011 reports that some 30% of “ecosystem services” from the natural environment have declined in the last 60 years, whilst others are in a reduced or degraded state. There will be pressure on the countryside from the construction of 10 million new homes projected over the next 40 years. Although the NPPF incorporates much about protecting biodiversity it allows “as a last resort” compensation to be paid for a development that significantly harms biodiversity. 2.4 The Draft NPPF also addresses flood risk by requiring developers to “avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding by directing development away from areas at highest risk or where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.” Tellingly this is not as strong as the wording in the 2011 National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England which states that “it is essential that spatial planning ensures that new developments take flood and coastal erosion risk fully into account, and are safe from, do not increase, and where possible reduce risk over their lifetimes.” 2.5 I am surprised by the number of circumstances there are for which permission may be given for development in the Green Belt, including “limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan”, “engineering operations” and “renewable energy projects” that demonstrate “wider environmental benefits”. The latter could include just about any wind farm, solar farm or biomass power station and associated infrastructure. 8 September 2011

Written evidence from Robson Planning Consultancy Summary — The draft Framework wishes to remove excessive policy which is welcome but it could begin by simplifying—including the repeal of much unnecessary control of processes rather than adding further layers to the present cumbersome machine. The resultant policy framework would be much more robust and sustainable if this were done. — Simpliﬁcation could also shorten timescales for Local Plan preparation to ensure plans were up to date and based on recent evidence. (In particular core strategies and site allocation stages should be amalgamated). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w71

— The emphasis of the draft National Planning Policy Framework wishes to make the default position yes. Yet it is still written with too much emphasis on government and local government control rather than genuine creative encouragement to the innovator, entrepreneur and placemaker. — The draft policy framework is too prescriptive in its planmaking with details of theoretical housing capacities and such mechanistic methodologies as SHLAAs and SHMAs whereas the best environments come from experienced professionals working with the land and contexts, making greater use of Masterplans by those willing to take the risk. — The emphasis is still on process not the pleasing outcome: what it looks like, how it works and how it will improve the environment. — A strong policy framework needs to follow through the practical implications of its policies, but often the devil is in the detail as the following seeks to highlight.

Short Responses to Questions 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 over planning decisions? Investors, developers and risk takers are still submerged under the weight of bureaucratic controls.

Is the deﬁnition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? The primacy of sustainable development should supersede that of local plan preparation, especially if plans are not up to date and properly justiﬁed alternatives are submitted by applicants for planning permission. The present system encourages duplication of argument and much delay for representors who later become applicants.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? They are certainly a major step forward.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? No, since much depends on what detail ﬂows from this wide canvas. Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? [No view]

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? No. See submission. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based? No. See submission.

Introduction The government has sought radical revision to the planning system through the Localism Bill, originally aimed at transferring power to communities and neighbourhoods, but is now withdrawing somewhat from this, but it still hangs on to the idea of political control, the extent of which does need to be questioned. Planning in Britain is treated as an administrative process or function, which is odd since the outcome is concerned very largely with the built and man modelled environments, inherently technical rather than political matters. In the aftermath of the Second World War political control was aimed at redistributing populations and employment; this was a quite different problem from that of the 21st century which is concerned with finding our way in a global and multinational economy under the threat of climate change. Why should planning decisions be left to politicians? Their time in office is usually four years or less, whereas planning is concerned with much longer lasting changes: 60 year life for a building and 15 years (or more) for a development plan. In practice a new political administration seeks to overturn the ideas of the previous one much as one might blame the previous plumber. The system is structured so that officers write a report in accordance with policies drafted by officers to give them flexibility and framed by the politicians and this is assessed by a senior administrator. In practice small schemes are delegated, larger ones go to Committee. Standing orders vary between authorities as to which route is followed, but the targets for issuing a decision, currently eight or 13 weeks, are set by central government except when a separate, formal planning performance agreement is negotiated for larger more complex applications. The draft NPPF is silent on these targets, although some commentators have suggested a “default” system (similar to that used for telecommunications masts) of automatic approval, and/or a fee refund, if the target is not met. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w72 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

In many European countries the United States and Canada and so much of the western world planning permission is in effect replaced with a building permit: a legal right to build—a combination of planning permission and building control and is linked to a zoning ordinance. Britain, though priding itself on the ﬂexibility of its system and the opportunities it offers for compromise does not in practice produce signiﬁcantly better environments as a result than say The Netherlands or Denmark. As Wikipedia says “Theoretically, the primary purpose of zoning is to segregate uses that are thought to be incompatible. In practice, zoning is used to prevent new development from interfering with existing residents or businesses and to preserve the “character” of a community.”

Flexibility and discretion come with a price tag normally expressed through delay in determination. This can and often is associated with a lack of urgency in considering a proposal, hence the suggestion of a default system as referred to above, but able to be varied if the applicant is willing to accept a longer period to settle an unresolved technical issue.

All consultation material should be available to the applicant at the same time as it is received by ofﬁcers. The widespread practice of denying the applicant access to material until a few days before the Committee should be stopped. This is particularly so since some change to a scheme could overcome the need for the representation at all in many cases.

Committees themselves could be improved by land use planning training for members, or where this proves difﬁcult greater reliance on independent assessments by professionals presenting their ﬁndings direct to committees.

Pro Development

The draft National Planning Policy Framework sets a presumption in favour of sustainable development in both plan making and decision taking. Planning should not be an impediment to growth. “The default answer to development proposals is yes except where this would compromise key sustainable development principles”. It wants to make development easier and to reduce bureaucracy. This much is clear.

It offers the structure—hence “Framework”—in principle only of how this is to be achieved without spelling this out in any detail: while the aims and objectives are clear, there is very little detail. It is a structural engineering rather than architectural approach to planning and development.

Greg Clark is reported (29.7.11) as saying “Having whittled down planning policy, the department would now aim to compress underpinning guidance”. Guidance is therefore not to be found here even though it is claimed that the dNPPF is a replacement for the guidance of PPG and PPS. Some process and technical implications of the Framework, and its relevance to the mechanics of development management, are therefore added as an appendix to this document so that clear implications of the framework are not lost in the subsequent detail.

The inference is that detail must come later and what we have is a series of indicators; a policy direction. Not the policies themselves. There are however some speciﬁcs such as in the important case of housing supply: authorities are currently required to identify and allocate ﬁve years’ worth of land for housing and the draft NPPF adds: “The supply should include an additional allowance of at least 20% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land”.

The proposals, launched for consultation, will not be made ofﬁcial policy until next year but will already of necessity be affecting plans for development (see Advice produced by the Planning Inspectorate for use by its Inspectors 30 August 2011).

Recasting Planning

Much of the public and media reaction more than anything underlines the tragic way in which planning can no longer call a spade a spade if a sound result is to be steered through the mineﬁeld of lobbyists’ vested interests, coalition politics and a vociferous public.

Behind this was once a professional discipline whose job was to create worthwhile places in both town and country. It is increasingly rendered frustrating by restrictions unrelated to whether it genuinely makes the proposed scheme under consideration better, or whether the restrictions would be better addressed by other legislation. Sound planning requires the application of many diverse skills. It is not a job to be left to amateurs. It should not be left to whoever shouts loudest and who has never had to work through the many stages and vicissitudes of bringing a real project to fruition—often lasting many years in the creation and enduring for a lifetime or more.

Optimistically the present draft framework allows and indeed encourages a discussion of what environments we actually would like to achieve, rather than complain about the results we otherwise will get and deserve. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w73

Planning should not be left to bureaucratic process, although many public professional planners and associated disciplines are genuinely trying to make places better and have frustrations of their own, while others simply confuse activity (appearing busy) with action (a proper focus on projects and real outcomes— making things happen). It is seldom necessary to determine planning applications on the basis of party political dogma. Constructive direction is far more worthwhile. It is all too easy simply refuse an application at the end of a process which may have taken years for dedicated professionals to create and assemble, rather than offer constructive advice. It is encouraging that the new default position “yes” to sustainable development proposals has this clear implication. The draft NPPF includes, at paragraph 26, the suggestion that local planning authorities preparing up to date Local Plans could seek a “certificate of conformity” with the Framework. This implies that in a similar way, the development control system should be modified so that applicants would be able to take advantage of the greater certainty included within the Framework to obtain a certificate of conformity with the Local Plan (if up to date) and this would act as a planning permission.

Making Progress with the Framework. Public Involvement. Sustainable Communities The Framework’s author John Howell believes political consensus is the most important part of the new system. “It’s no use developers consulting communities—consultation is still too much about ‘Here is a proposition: do you like it or not?’; we want to move that on to engagement, where we say ‘Here is a problem: how do we solve it?’” While problem solving in neighbour relations may be fine on minor and simple development activity it is seldom in practice that the general public (other than an informed few) engages fully with planning of any complexity in any meaningful way since beyond voicing an opinion, they are not trained or equipped to assess it any more than they would be expected to comment on brain surgery or advise on the nation’s economy. Creating strong, vibrant and healthy communities is a laudable aim. But It is unlikely that genuinely sustainable communities will result from any community led architectural determinism (or social engineering for that matter) that the planning system can offer. This is much more likely to come from large scale proposals involving the likes of village greens and healthy footpath networks as legitimate planning gains or comprehensive mixed urban projects, but these are not included in the draft. However the draft does aspire to support neighbourhood plans and those parts of the emerging Localism Bill that are relevant. It is difficult, as the detail changes, to know whether these sections will be properly compatible with primary legislation and its supporting orders , etc, when they are finalised later this year and early in 2012.

Public and Private Sectors The risks and rewards of creating, promoting and implementing schemes, with the inherent chances of success and total failure, are borne by the private sector. This provides incentives to individuals and teams not found in public sector planning where policy mistakes and application refusals are managed without proper culpability for being wrong—ie power without responsibility. John Howell’s thought that planning can be solved by public bodies and even a well meaning public runs counter to much of planning of any sophistication which requires project based teams with substantial technical and professional skills (developers with dedicated or ad hoc teams of architects, engineers, economists, accountants, builders, environmental specialists and so on). The present draft framework runs the risk of extending the rights of the less informed at the expense of the more informed but focused team. The appeal system has been designed to compensate for this imbalance and usually does. The number of appeals is therefore likely to increase so that the often complex matter of scheme realisation is not lost. This balance is likely to be undermined by widening public involvement. This will not turn most of the general public with a casual interest in these specialist matters into trained professionals. The process is at risk of encouraging contention and dispute rather than clarity of purpose or more worthwhile built results especially for technically complex proposals. This is a major weakness of the proposed framework. Again it is to be hoped that the default position “yes” is adopted to reduce this risk. The political rhetoric says the presumption in favour of development will work. The substance—to a practitioner—says it won’t. Ambiguity—the enemy of certainty—will lead to endless planning appeals with further resultant delay in realising sound and worthwhile development. The real problem is how to reduce or even eradicate the eternal and often unreasonable contention which most projects can engender—be they house extensions or shopping centres or motorways.

Making Progress with the Framework. Democratic or Informed Decisions Most planning decisions are in practice not taken truly democratically by politicians but by professional planners, senior ofﬁcer planning teams, civil servants or appeal inspectors, often informed in more complex or signiﬁcant projects by design panels. Allowing almost limitless discretion to the decision maker (who has not cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w74 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

lived through the different creative stages of a project) does not necessarily result in better outcomes. Frequently the wide discretion provided to local planning authority ofﬁcers and Councils is illusory or not well exercised, especially in matters of design. An architect whose proposals have been rejected sometimes is met with the stance “you don’t expect me to design it for you do you” by someone with no design qualiﬁcation or proper design experience. Written design guidance varies from the incisive to the banal. At best it should have the status of advice only. It is encouraging that the draft includes a separate Design section and emphasizes that “design policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally”.

Masterplans by qualiﬁed architectural and design teams are much more likely to produce high quality designs than local plan core strategy diagrams and so should be accorded much greater weight in plan and place making.

Development planning and development control policies should seamlessly make much more use of unambiguous, unqualified, objective and justified standards and yardsticks of acceptability rather than allowing almost limitless scope for wide and subjective and often poor discretion. In many cases this could provide the applicant with much greater certainty, avoid delay and expense to applicants while also avoiding unnecessary staff time or not infrequently unjustifiably claimed skills or range of experience. For example noise exposure categories for residential development in PPG 24 are a clear and unambiguous universal standard. Similar and reasonable universal and unambiguous standards should apply for many other situations eg parking, living space standards, privacy, overlooking and overshadowing and could be extended to contamination, safety, energy, affordable housing and many more.

Clearer and more direct contact should be made between applicants’ specialist appointees and many public specialist regulatory services to avoid the need to overburden individual case officers having to pursue and then interpret technical consultees as in fields such as planning policy, environmental health, traffic and transport, arboriculture, design and landscape design, utility services, energy, demography, disability, minerals, archaeology, section 106 or legal specialists etc. leaving only cases of disagreement to be resolved by politicians or the appeal system. The draft is clear that good-quality pre-application discussion, with all other parties as appropriate, is a key role of local planning authorities. It requires a pro-active approach, timely advice and the participation of other consenting bodies at an early stage. If this is to be really successful, legislation may be needed to make pre-application discussions both mandatory and binding.

Improving the Framework

So what needs addressing in the ﬁnal version of the Framework? Separating framework from guidance may be easier politically but it will not lead to seamless planning from inception to outcome. The detail is just as important.

Here are some further specific suggestions aimed at encouraging good and worthwhile development. 1. Take the Office for National Statistics figures without political manipulation as a prerequisite for population and household forecasts in formulating strategic Local Plans at the District level and seek to meet them, irrespective of political advantage. This would avoid the anodyne and crippling dispute about reliance on regional targets. Make local plans succinct and genuine frameworks rather than precise detailed blueprints which do not allow for innovative ideas. Ensure they are positive in approach, justified and effective. 2. Accept that planning has to compromise between “need” for things society wants and cannot afford and “demand” for things people are willing to pay for profitably, using realistic charging mechanisms to improve environments (codified section 106 agreements or a community infrastructure levy but not both such as to prevent investment). 3. Protect recognised environments and heritage assets where these are fully justified by proper quality assessments (Conservation Area Assessments with equivalents in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings etc—not as a list of historical or architecturally interesting artefacts but with a description of their character and their overall quality). 4. Green Belts (especially where development pressures are apparent) should re-examined—without the incorrect claim that they are an environmental designation—to see if they are truly sustainable, since many do not pass this test without being reviewed in their whole District or County context. 5. Development Management. The time for considering a planning application should start when the applicant submits it, not when it is validated. The criteria for validation should be again made distinct from further material that may be required subsequently during its professional evaluation and based on a description of what the applicant wants to do, rather than what the Council wants cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w75

the applicant to do. Validation should be based on a description and plans sufficient to describe what is intended, not an extensive shopping list of studies the validating officer thinks desirable. If further time is needed before determination this should be agreed between applicant and case officer based on what both consider realistic and reasonable.

Some guidance needs to be based on science: The laws of physics have to be followed by us all and these will have absolute controls on many of land’s capacities: How many four person houses can a given aquifer sustain? How many cars can travel on a road of give width in a given time? No amount of political need for a majority can require houses to be built if the ground is unstable.

Some guidance will be based on opinion: What is the market demand (as opposed to local need) for ﬂats over the next ﬁve years for this area? This should result as it always has on viability assessments by those most expert to provide them. While both the draft and the Localism Bill place great emphasis on neighbourhood involvement and giving local people a voice, neither address the problem of how to give a voice to those who aren’t local but would like (or need) to be.

Reducing or eradicating the need for speculative political judgement based on the limited period of an electoral term can only beneﬁt the sustainability of environments: Design panels of architects and other practitioners of long experience must be better than the instant decisions of an overworked planning committee. (The dNPPF seems to acknowledge this in paragraph 120).

Some planning decisions require almost impossible judgements: how many protected newts are worth the loss of a Stately Home? Here the court of informed public opinion may help, although the uninformed or ill informed can so easily produce the wrong answer.

It is wrong to imply that all decisions should be made locally any more than it is that they should be made nationally or regionally. Different approaches are needed for different aspects of any scheme and its possible impacts. (The references to national planning policy for local plans in paragraph 48 and to strategic elements of a neighbourhood plan in paragraph 50 acknowledge the need for these interrelationships but need to be clearer).

Development Management—which has replaced Development Control in name if not in substance—is being encouraged to look for solutions rather than problems. This is clearly a very laudable aim but it needs to recognise where the judgement of ofﬁcers can be relied on and where expert advice is necessary. In practice distinctions are too often blurred to give the ofﬁcer, or even the Committee, a spurious discretion. NPPF as drafted offers no help with this when it clearly could.

Again separating out what should be based on pretty unambiguous science or expert assessment needs to be separated from what can only be assessed based on the genius loci of the site or the subjective judgements of informed appraisers. It would also be helpful if state planning were seen as a professional evaluation (as practised by the Inspectorate) rather than an administrative tool of local government with or without political intervention wherever possible.

This is the better route to reduce the current bureaucracy and meet the stated aspirations of the draft policy framework to facilitate good development. 8 September 2011

APPENDIX

The following additional comments are added In the light of Greg Clark’s wish to follow the framework with PPG and PPS reviews and how the process can work in practice.

A serious and growing weakness is the poor level of trust between officials and applicants or the wider public. A symptom of this is in communication. If a planning officer agrees to return a telephone call by an applicant or planning agent he should do so, and the agent should be similarly trusted. *The same should apply to other timetables either party sets. Like trains, they should run on time. It is artificial to divorce much political policy framework from the guidance itself as the following illustrate: — At a simple level who sets the guidelines on acceptable residential noise levels in the absence of PPG 24 which has been around based on unchallenged science unchallenged since October 1994? Similarly with air quality (PPG23). — The science of responding to climate change to meet measurable rates of greenhouse gas emissions with renewable energy strategies etc. should meet international and nationally set objectives and not be for individual district councils to try to assess. — What can local authorities base their demographic assessments on other than the State’s own impartial Office for National Statistics for each local authority? These—without political manipulation—should be stated prerequisites for all future planning or housing forecasts and therefore provision will come unstuck. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w76 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— What are the criteria for privacy and overlooking distances—are these to continue to be at the unscientific whim of every different planning authority in the land as though people’s eyesight differs from place to place? — Are we to continue to have the eternal disputes over what constitutes a satisfactory design based on the highly sophisticated to inexpert guidance of different Councils (Compare The City Corporation or Westminster with Hertsmere or Broxbourne)? — Is waste management to be left to what each local authority can afford? This would result in unfair and unequal standards, so why not set national or regional standards to ensure adequately healthy environments? — (In the case of contaminated land reliance is placed on the footnote statement “As a minimum, the land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990”). Who decides what more than the minimum—if anything—is needed? — Transport is proposed to be left to the local planning authority, though obviously influenced by the requirements of highway authorities. Why not simply accept and adopt highway authority guidance as most planning officers do in practice? — We are told that Sustainable transport modes are: “Any means of transport with low impact on the environment, including walking and cycling, green or low emission vehicles, car sharing and public transport”. How inexact and vague is that?

It is salutary to ask how the national guidance will help at the coal face in the case of speciﬁc planning applications by looking at the validation checklist which can be very long and has been growing. Similarly, the 1APP set of forms need to be reviewed and overhauled (simpliﬁed where possible) in the light of the past two years of experience in use.

In addition to drawings of a scheme the requirements to validate an application for permission may include the following: — Supporting Planning Statement. — Design statement. — Access statement. — Transport assessment. — Draft Travel Plan. — Planning obligations. — Flood risk assessment/drainage strategy. — Listed building appraisal and conservation area appraisal. — Regeneration statements. — Retail assessments. — Affordable housing statement. — Open Space. — Sustainability Appraisal. — Landscaping. — Tree survey/arboricultural statement. — Historical, archaeological features and Scheduled Ancient Monuments. — Nature conservation/ecological assessment/natural beauty. — Noise impact assessment. — Air quality assessment. — Assessment for the treatment of foul sewage. — Utilities Statement. — Energy statement. — Sound insulation requirements. — Mineral working and restoration. — Sunlight/Daylighting Assessment. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w77

— Ventilation/extraction and refuse disposal details. — Structural survey of the property details of any lighting scheme including a light pollution assessment. — Photographs and Photomontages.

The above shows that any national policy framework needs to be clear about what is political aspiration and what is scientiﬁc certainty. September 2011

Written evidence from the House Builders Association and the Planning and Development Association

Summary — The House Builders Association and the Planning and Development Association welcome the objectives of the proposed NPPF, including its aim of securing economic growth and higher housebuilding output. Both are national economic imperatives. — Its brevity is welcome, but to avoid that becoming a cause of dispute and delay, a suite of guidance documents, many existing but some new, will need to be identified, to enlarge on aspects of the policy. — Sustainable development needs to be more fully defined so that misplaced fears and misrepresentations about the consequences of a presumption in favour of sustainable development can be quashed. — The presumption in favour is principally a process change to make planning more efficient, while a fuller definition of sustainable development will show the continuity of policy and that development that was previously unacceptable has not been made acceptable by this draft. — The greatest weakness of the proposed NPPF is in respect to the duty to co-operate, which will need to be given teeth, by being made a test of soundness of a plan. — The policy will inevitably be appeal-led for a time and, in the absence of RS housing numbers, will rely heavily on political willingness to support the policy. Investor confidence will depend on seeing evidence of that support since, without the objectivity of RS housing numbers, the system is highly discretionary and dependent on political support.

Q1: 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 over planning decisions?

The Government has made clear that its intention is to simplify and clarify thousands of pages of existing PPG, PPS and circular guidance into clear principles that can be easily accessed in one place. (NPPF Consultation Paper, paragraph 10) There is always a risk that such brevity will leave too many gaps, resulting in more confusion than that caused by existing guidance, which is far too prescriptive and contains too much, even for professionals, to digest. That risk is worth taking, however, provided that there is an appropriate suite of accompanying guidance documents; that some of the existing guidance is simpliﬁed and provided Government is ready to make amendments to the NPPF quickly, if particular aspects of guidance were to prove to be a source of frequent dispute, could not be successfully interpreted by the Inspectorate or led to frequent applications to the Courts. If, as a result of such amendments, the document grew to even 100 pages over a 5–10 year period, it would still remain a far more concise document than current guidance. It does, however, need some clariﬁcation in key areas of policy, which will result in some lengthening of the text.

There is a list of existing guidance in the Consultation Paper on the NPPF, Part 5, paragraph 21 and generally speaking, that list is appropriate. We propose the that there should be a further consultation to identify a key suite of essential pieces of guidance and to rank less essential ones accordingly. While some of this guidance may be adequately and properly produced by third parties, Government must remain the key actor in producing some, and must always sign-off any that are produced by third parties, where they expect local authorities and Inspectors to rely on that guidance. While we generally support the retention of those listed in the Consultation Paper, Part 5, paragraph 21, the most important subjects on which guidance is required are: — Calculating housing numbers—In the absence of clear advice in the draft itself on how to calculate housing numbers and in support of paragraphs 14, 23, 27, 28 and 111, SHMAs and SHLAAs must be retained. The SHMAs must retain guidance on the information needed to meet the requirement of paragraph 109 of the draft NPPF to use “an evidence base to ensure that their local plan meets the full requirements for market and affordable housing”. However, we would strongly urge a shortening, de-cluttering and simpliﬁcation of that existing advice, so that it is less prescriptive of methodology and concentrated more on outputs. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w78 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— viability and how to assess it, to deliver the aims of paragraphs 39–43. Although there have been references to viability scattered through existing guidance, this comprehensive new requirement is the major innovation in the NPPF and it is surprising it did not feature amongst the Committee’s questions. The emphasis on viability is a welcome, new and potentially game-changing requirement. As such, CLG must take full ownership of the guidance, which will be required by local authorities and the Inspectorate, and must be fully aware of its implications. It is therefore not acceptable for it to rely on HBF and LGA agreeing advice, while playing no role in its formulation. While it is right that the key players in housebuilding and local government, RICS and the professions should be fully involved, there will inevitably be disagreements on objectives that Government must resolve in favour of delivery of its own policy. Either in that guidance or in the NPPF, there should be more advice on what local authorities should do if sites allocated in their plan do not come forward for development because changes in the market have made them non-viable. For example, should they carry out a site specific review of all the policy requirements attaching to the permission/allocation and review these or should they allocate other sites that will deliver, treating the non- implementable sites as pert of the 6–15 year supply, rather than the five year? — SEAs—Surprisingly, the need for plans to be subject to an SEA is not specifically mentioned in the NPPF (despite references to the Birds and Habitats Directive), which only has a vague reference as a qualifying requirement of neighbourhood plans as well as a reference to compatibility with relevant EU obligations at paragraph 8. The need for a sustainability appraisal is contained in PPS12, which is to be cancelled, and in PPS11 which, apparently, is not. However, SEAs were produced assuming the central role of RSSs in the system, while the Core Strategies required provision of lesser Sustainability Assessment, to demonstrate conformity with the EU law test. The guidance will need to be re-drafted to ensure that an SEA is produced as part of the local plan as opposed to the regional level, with a proportionate evidence base, in line with the capacities of local authorities as opposed to regions. Moreover, this should be the subject of a reference in paragraph 48, dealing with soundness.

Q2: Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? The Brundtland Commission definition in paragraph 9 is too vague, produced in different circumstances for global objectives and is not fit for purpose in this guidance. As noted in Part 5, Summary of Suggestions, paragraph 6 of the consultation paper, a number of bodies from the development sector suggested the definition in paragraph 69 of PPS 3 be used in relation to anticipated outputs from planning policy on housing. We reiterate that preference and would argue that this definition of what is appropriate, even if not specifically called “sustainable development”, is established, is understood, that it contains tests and there are precedents to support its application. In a wider context, “sustainable development” is defined and the anticipated outputs are explained in paragraphs 6 and 13(1) of PPS1, General Principles. Using a new and (in this context) untried definition, containing no precision whatsoever, risks creating a policy vacuum for no reason and of raising unjustified fears about the kind of development the proposed presumption in favour of sustainable development would permit. The above definitions and statements of policy are tried and tested, and we believe the inclusion of an amalgam of them in NPPF would calm many of the exaggerated claims that have been raised about the extent to which the NPPF will allow unbridled development. While we do not read the guidance in that way, nevertheless the retention of these definitions would settle matters and make it clear that currently unacceptable development will remain so and that fundamental principles of land use have not been changed by the NPPF. It is important to emphasise that the presumption, thus explained, would retain most of the existing protections and would not lead to the result claimed by those opposed to economic growth and development. In practical terms, we regard the presumption as no more than a process improvement, requiring local authorities to speed up the grant of permission for development that is in plans or is acceptable under current policy, but it does not change policy on what is acceptable. The planning system was based on a presumption in favour of development from 1947 to 1991, so the concept of a positive default position is not as revolutionary as is sometimes claimed. The draft says, quite correctly, that it must be read and interpreted as a whole, (paragraph 8). Many of the criticisms made of it are the result of “cherry- picking” paragraphs and sentences out of context, particularly the presumption and ignoring all the many caveats and safeguards throughout the document. Many of the attacks on it are the result of the emphasis it gives to economic growth. This is no more than a re-statement of existing guidance in PPS1, which sets out its priorities as economic development, defined as producing “a strong, stable and productive economy that aims to bring jobs and prosperity to all” (paragraph 23), clearly itself a definition of economic growth, alongside social inclusion, the protection and enhancement of the environment and prudent use of natural resources. Moreover, given that the central political and economic concern of the day is achieving economic recovery and growth, against the background of the worst global and financial reverse since the 1930s, it would be cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w79

strange indeed if planning policy was not required to assist economic recovery. It therefore appears to us that the NPPF is a properly balanced and appropriate statement, both in principle and for the times.

Q3: Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? We consider that the draftsmen have done a highly commendable job in summarising the core principles of the existing, extensive guidance, without greatly changing or losing much of consequence from existing guidance, if anything. Planning policy guidance needs to be stable, to evolve only as shown to be necessary or to achieve a new and different policy objective, as PPS 3 did in 2000, when it introduce the radical “brownfield first” policy, but with such highly unsatisfactory results that had to be effectively cancelled by PPS 3 in 2005. While NPPF may quite legitimately and properly, in our view, be seeking more effective process and outputs, in reality it is not changing policy much, if at all, and we welcome that; indeed we argued prior to its publication that existing policy was the result of many iterations, painful compromises over time and was largely accepted and understood by all affected and therefore should not be significantly changed. However delivery of what is acceptable should be quicker and cheaper, which is this could be achieved by the NPPF. There are a number of clarifications that are require in terms of wording, but most of these will not fundamentally affect what is intended and are entirely normal in this type of consultation eg it is fairly but not precisely clear how the 20% buffer of deliverable land relates to the 6–15 year supply, but clarifying that will not affect the obvious aims of the draft. Nevertheless, clarification is necessary, because any ambiguity will provide fruitful grounds for legal challenges, which are a significant source of delay in the planning process. Clarification that Local Plans take precedence over Neighbourhood Plans is also required. Paragraphs 50–52 are very muddled and need to express the hierarchy of plans more clearly.

Q4: Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? The very brevity and simplicity of the document should give all Government Departments a clear reference point as, indeed, it should to local authorities. However the point to remember about planning policy guidance is that it is just that. Its effect depends on how far it is observed and enforced and, as far as different Government Departments are concerned, it will be down to Ministers, collectively and individually, to make sure it is observed and not used as the basis for turf wars. In particular, to retain the integrity of the objectives, other Departments such as DEFRA should consider carefully how far further policy and guidance on complementary matters are really necessary or whether they can be left to local plan policies, as seen ﬁt, at local level. However, whatever relevant advice there is from whatever Department, some kind of comprehensive route map to where it all can be found would help all users of the system.

Q5: Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? The duty to co-operate is the least effective part of the Localism Bill and of the NPPF. There are parts of the country where the soon-to-be-abolished regional mechanisms brought about a measure of cross-boundary co-operation never previously seen. Their abolition is likely to result in the resumption of non-co-operation, particularly on the perennially difﬁcult issue of distributing housing growth across a major conurbation. We are pessimistic as to the outcome in these situations and there might be a role foe LEPs to bang heads together, and “name and shame” non-co-operating authorities. However, we propose strengthening the NPPF to make it clear that evidence of effective cross-boundary co-operation, where there are issues requiring it, should explicitly be made a test “soundness” of a Local Plan. The effect of that would be that if an Inspector found that there had been no effective co-operation across market areas on housing requirements and a refusal to accept wider responsibilities, despite paragraph 47 of the draft, the Plan would be found unsound. The presumption in favour of sustainable development would kick-in and permit developers to bring forward sustainable sites, until such time as a sound plan was produced. Too often in the past, planning guidance has been ignored because there were none or only weak sanctions against ignoring it. This would be an extremely effective sanction and would quickly re-establish the plan-led system and the certainty about what development is going to take place, to local people. The need for cooperation between counties on transport issues does not seem to have been adequately considered, at all.

Q6: Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based? The question is incorrectly framed. It should be, “Does the NPPF require policies in Local Plans to be properly evidence based?” There are a number of very clear references in paragraphs 14, 23, 27, 28, 109 and 111 to the need for an evidence base. In turn, in relation to new housing, the retention of the requirement to undertake SHMAs means that the same processes as were used under the previous/current system will have to be completed, involving the collection and evaluation of evidence. In addition, NPPF suggests strengthening the market related evidence base (paragraphs 19 and 27) including house and land prices. Moreover the abolition of RSs does not abolish the evidence base used to calculate their housing numbers. These are likely to be given weight as material considerations for the next few years, being based on the most recent and up-to-date cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w80 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

evidence. The evidence base requirements will need to be reviewed and kept up-to-date in the medium-to- longer-term, to ensure they remain relevant. It is unfortunate therefore that the Government saw fit to precipitously abolish the National Planning and Housing Advice Unit (NHPAU), although it is interesting that they still refer to its figures, in terms of the housing objectives the NPPF seeks to achieve. (RIA, page 48, first paragraph)

Overview of Fitness for Purpose The draft National Planning Policy Framework should both be read as a whole and be considered in its wider context. The Coalition has said that it wants to see an increase in new housebuilding and that is, itself, welcome because there is now, finally, cross-party agreement on this issue, after many years of controversy about whether higher levels of housebuilding is required. Planning policy is the key enabling mechanism allowing more housebuilding, assuming that funding is also available. Clearly, since 2007, the credit crunch and continuing financial crisis has restricted both private and public investment and, as a result, housebuilding is at barely half the levels that this and the previous administration would hope to see. Nevertheless, the current economic hiatus should be used to put planning in order, so that it is fit for purpose and able to respond to any upturn. That means having plans in place that provide headroom to accommodate higher demand and also to put in place a more efficient system for handling planning applications, provided they conform to long-established principles of acceptable development. To some extent, it can be argued that some of the proposals in the NPPF are necessitated, particularly the presumption in favour of sustainable development, because so many local authorities have failed to put in place LDF’s, as required under the 2004 Act. Indeed, two thirds still seem not to have done so. The NPPF is, however, part of a significant divergence of policy between this and the previous Government on how to deliver those aims. The key element of the 2004 Act was regional housing figures that set targets, to which local plans were required to conform. This was criticized by the Conservative Party, when in Opposition, as being as pointless as Soviet tractor targets. However, although LDFs were being produced far too slowly, meaning that planning applications were too frequently the subject of dispute and uncertainly, the heavily criticised top-down system was starting to work, before the credit crunch reduced effective demand, even if as a “nudge” factor. The myth that regional figures were pointless should be firmly nailed and, indeed, DCLG’s own housing statistical bulletin does exactly that. It states “After falling slightly between 2000Ð01 and 2001Ð02, net housing supply increased for six consecutive years, reaching a peak of 207,370 net additional dwellings in 2007Ð08 before falling to 166,570 in 2008Ð09. In 2009Ð10 net supply fell again to 128,680, a decrease of 23%…” 97% of the 2007–08 figure was new build. (Source; CLG Net Supply of Housing 2009Ð10 England October 2010) Financial year England % change to previous year 2000–01 132,000 — 2001–02 130,510 −1% 2002–03 143,680 10% 2003–04 154,770 8% 2004–05 169,450 9% 2005–06 186,380 10% 2006–07 198,770 7% 2007–08 207,370 4% 2008–09 166,570 −20% 2009–10 128,6890 −23%

In those six years, completions grew by some 10,000 or more each year compared with the previous, and by almost 60% in total. But for the credit crunch, which started to affect the market in August 2007, had that trajectory continued and all other things being equal, output was on target to reach 240,000 net additions in 2011–12, in line with that Government’s targets. Thus the abolition of these targets and a second major upheaval in the planning system within ten years are both to be regretted. We have therefore examined NPPF in the light of: — its prospects of providing a stable framework to permit growth in house building output, if and when the economy recovers; — encouraging the inclusion of appropriate numbers in local plans; and — efficient, consistent and fair processing of planning applications; delivering permissions that are not so encumbered with excessive demands that they are financially non-viable. We do continue to have concerns that, following the revocation of RS figures, many authorities in high demand areas immediately suspended their existing plans and/or announced their intention to reduce the numbers. This is not an encouraging sign of the new system in operation and the acid test of the NPPF policies is how they will maintain or increase housing output, in line with Government objectives. There is existing advice on how to calculate housing requirements, but whether that will be largely ignored, almost as a challenge cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w81

to the Government, remains to be seen. If that results in plans being found unsound, then the new policy will be confrontational and appeals-led from the outset. The degree of objectivity provided by regional plan numbers may have been regarded by some as a top- down imposition, but they performed the invaluable function of giving decision makers, from councillors to the Secretary of State, political cover. The new system puts those same decision makers squarely in the firing line and that is politically the greatest weakness of the NPPF. We strongly welcome much of what it says (and we try in our response above to de- mythologise what it does say), but it is a policy that will rely heavily, in its initial years, on the Secretary of State of the day being willing to back the Inspectorate so that individual Inspectors have the courage to find plans unsound, when appropriate, and to grant appeals, in the absence of sound plans, where applications are made for sustainable development. The system will inevitably be appeal-led for a time, until plans are put in place. We find it hard to believe that, as a General Election approaches and given high profile campaigns, such as that being currently run by the Telegraph, which daily excoriate Ministers, they will apply their own policy. The housebuilding industry and other industries and developers need stability and confidence to invest, as do banks, if they are to fund developers. But the NPPF, in the absence of top-down numbers, is a highly discretionary policy that may not give investors the confidence they need to support the objective of economic growth that underpins the draft. Confidence will only be injected if, despite the politics, some exemplary decisions on Local Plans and appeals are handed down by the Inspectorate and the Secretary of State, at an early stage. 8 September 2011

Written evidence from the Little Theatre Guild of Great Britain Summary — The draft NPPF is deficient in that it contains no policies on culture the arts and theatre. — The current provisions of PPS4 should be continued. — LTG member theatres have saved redundant buildings for the community and future possibilities for similar developments should be encouraged via the NPPF. — Culture in general and theatre specifically is an essential part of sustainable communities. — Specific amendments have been suggested by the Theatres Trust which we endorse.

Submission 1. The Little Theatre Guild of Great Britain (LTG) is a charitable organisation run on behalf of its member theatres to provide advice and guidance on their operations and particularly the many aspects of running a theatre. To qualify for membership of the guild the theatre owners or lessees have to be amateur and non- professional in their activities. We have a guild membership of 104 theatres within the United Kingdom, of which 100 are in England. The LTG receives no grant income, is wholly run by volunteers and is entirely supported by contributions from its membership. 2. The LTG is concerned that the draft NPPF, which is intended to provide guidance on the local operation of planning policies throughout England, contains no policies on culture, the arts and theatre. The draft advises local authorities to grant permission to development applications where the plan is absent, silent or indeterminate. We conclude therefore that it is the intention of those who have drawn up the plan that there should be no defined protection for or provision for buildings used or planned to be used for cultural and theatre purposes, and we note that the draft plan does make specific reference to sports facilities. 3. The current position is that PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Development) specifically states that local planning authorities should “… make provision, where appropriate, for leisure, cultural and tourism activities such as cinemas, theatres, …”. We can see no reason why this stipulation should not be included in the new NPPF since, in our view, no community is sustainable without such cultural provision. 4. The Select Committee will be aware that theatres are a distinct use class in planning, and it is our view that this should not change. In particular, members of the LTG have shown that local theatres can be accommodated in many buildings that have had previous uses, and for which there would be very little viable alternative use, including conversions of redundant churches and chapels, the use of railway arches, oast houses, former civil defence buildings, engine sheds and a bus garage. These conversions have helped keep communities coherent and provide a training base in theatre arts for young people helping them to grow in confidence. It is important to us that policies are in place to sustain the local theatre movement and help it to develop. 5. As is mentioned above, we believe that culture, and particularly theatre, helps to keep communities alive and is essential to any sustainable community. We believe that the NPPF should give the same separate cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w82 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

recognition to culture, including theatre, as the draft now gives to sports, heritage and leisure. In its report on arts and heritage the CLG Select Committee stated that “it is a mark of a civilised society that its citizens have access to arts, culture and heritage”. In its response, the Government is stated to be wholly committed to arts and culture. We would expect that commitment to be reﬂected in its National Planning Policy Framework. 6. The Theatres Trust has put forward a number of speciﬁc changes that should be made to the NPPF draft. We entirely support those changes and in particular, the suggested change to para. 76 bullet point 5 which should refer to “…retail, leisure and cultural proposals ….. thereby allocating a suitable number of sites for cultural uses including theatre.” 8 September 2011

Written evidence from the Highbury Group on Housing Delivery Introduction The Highbury Group on housing delivery is an independent group of specialists from public, private and independent sectors from housing, planning and related professions which prepares proposals for Government and other agencies on maintaining the output of housing including affordable housing having regard to the current economic and policy context. Membership and objectives are set out in an endnote.

Summary — Consideration of whether speciﬁc development is or is not sustainable can only operate effectively within a plan-led system. — The NPPF needs to have a spatial dimension. It should set out the spatial implications of planning priorities set at a national level, as a basis for decision making about allocation of public sector resources and to serve as a basis for secure private investment. — The current draft should be expanded to include further core policy guidance currently included in planning policy statements, which are to be withdrawn. — The NPPF should make it explicit that the presumption is against development which does not meet sustainable development objectives as set out in the applicable plan.

Comments on Draft NPPF in Relation to Housing Delivery 1. The purpose of planning The group considers that it is important that Government sets out its overall view of the purpose of spatial planning. The NPPF, while setting out the principles for planning, does not give an adequate statement of the Government’s overall planning and development objectives. Nor does it set out any national spatial strategy which identifies priorities for development, in terms of regional focus, the balance between urban and rural development or the identification of specific areas with potential for growth, which would act as a basis for decisions about the spatial allocation of national investment resources. This contrasts with the position in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in most European countries. While not necessarily seeking a continuation of the previous government’s approach in the Sustainable Communities Plan and subsequent policy statements to identify growth areas and growth points, a national perspective on the most appropriate locations for growth to take place is necessary to ensure appropriate allocation of national investment resources to support housing provision, job creation, transport, utilities and social infrastructure.

2. Consolidation of planning guidance While the group welcomes a consolidation of planning guidance, the group as a whole does not support further deregulation of planning and is concerned that proposed deregulatory measures, such as relaxation of consents required for land use changes, may mitigate against the principle of maintaining a plan led system which enables sustainable development and the appropriate use of land and development capacity.

3. Future requirements for development The draft NPPF contains no assessment of development requirements arising both from demographic change and from the inequitable distribution of current housing, employment provision and transport, utilities, social and green infrastructure. It is an abrogation of the responsibilities of national government to see these solely as issues for local decision making. This approach will not generate the most effective use of the country’s resources in terms of land and development capacity. The abolition of the regional tier in the English planning system outside London makes it even more critical for a National Planning Policy Framework to have an explicit spatial dimension in terms of identifying areas with capacity for growth which would be a focus for growth related public sector investment. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w83

4. The need for the NPPF to be expanded The Highbury group welcomes the Government’s intention of consolidating key national planning policies in a relatively succinct document—a National Planning Policy Framework. The current draft however needs to be expanded to include further key policy material currently included in existing Planning Policy Statements, notably PPS3. We however consider that it would be helpful if CLG continued to provide guidance on policy implementation, especially technical advice, for example that contained in the guidance on Strategic Housing Market Assessments and Strategic Land Availability Assessments. The current NPPF draft, together with the proposed Local Development Regulations, are not an adequate replacement for the current guidance given in PPS12 on Local Spatial Planning. The NPPF as drafted, on its own, does not give adequate guidance to development applicants, local planning authorities, local residents or to the planning inspectorate, and will leave too many issues of a genuine strategic nature open to contradictory interpretations by planning lawyers in negotiations and at appeal stage, with the risk of inconsistent decisions by inspectors and an over-reliance on legal processes for determinations.

5. The objective of sustainable development The group considers that the objective of sustainable development in terms of economic, environmental and social sustainability is central to both plan-making and development management. However, the group does not support the presumption in favour of sustainable development in its current form as it detracts from the need to focus on a plan led system. Consideration of sustainability should not be considered in abstract but must be contextualised by a plan which applies the principle of sustainability within a speciﬁc geographical area. It is important that the NPPF afﬁrms that growth is a means to an end and not an end in itself.

6. The social objectives of planning While endorsing in general terms the recognition in paragraph 10 of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability, there is a need for an explicit emphasis on the social role of planning in countering spatial inequities and ensuring more equal access to resources and services One of the omissions from the draft NPPF is a clear statement that affordable housing is required to ensure mixed communities, and that we should not be planning or sustaining mono-tenure developments. The NPPF needs to be more explicit in recognising that plan-making and development management often involve choices between policy options and competing interests. The statement that there is no necessary contradiction between increased level of development and protecting and enhancing the environment is simplistic and implies a depoliticised planning system. Planning involves difﬁcult choices which need to be determined by democratically accountable bodies, which operate within a political framework. To imply planning decisions can normally be achieved through achieving neighbourhood based consensus is naïve and ignores both wider needs and wider impacts.

7. Core planning principles We support the statement of core planning principles in paragraph 19, especially the statement that planning should be plan-led and based upon up to date evidence of development requirements. The “core principles” in paragraph 19 need to be recast in a way that balances all the objectives of sustainable development and includes objectives such as reducing the need to travel, promoting compact settlement patterns, promoting low carbon development, supporting town centres and promoting high quality in design. There however need to be additional objectives in relation to the delivery of affordable housing and design quality. It should also be recognised that “market signals” are only one component of the evidence base for land use allocation decisions, as public planning bodies need to take a longer term view of development requirements than the market, which relates primarily to short term or medium term interests of private sector bodies or individuals in relation to the profitability of specific development proposals at a point in time. The extent to which development activity collapsed during the recent recession has demonstrated that the market does not always make the soundest judgements as to the long-term economic sustainability of specific development proposals. We are also concerned as to emphasis given to local circumstances and the needs of the residential and business community within an area without a recognition that planning within an area also needs to have regard to both the wishes of people and businesses who may wish to move into an area and the potential of a location to contribute to providing capacity for needs which cannot be met in neighbouring areas. We support the statement that planning should make effective use of land. This requires strategic planning beyond a limited localised approach.

8. The evidence base In supporting the statement in paragraph 27 that a local plan should be based on an adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence base, it is important, especially in relation to planning to meet strategic needs, that there is consistency for the preparation and use of an evidence base. This is critical both for the effective operation of inter-authority collaboration and to ensure that national investment decisions are based on consistent data. The decision of Government to remove the requirement for minimum key indicators for local planning and for Annual Monitoring Reports to be published on a consistent format and Government intentions to reduce other statistical returns to central government are regressive steps as these will remove part of the key evidence base for central and local Government decisions. They will limit the ability of both public and private bodies to assess the impact of both policy changes and external factors, such as changing market circumstances and the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w84 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

effective demand for different land uses. It also removes the ability of the general public to hold local planning authorities to account if they fail to deliver housing. In this context it is essential that the Government guidance for the preparation of strategic housing market assessments and strategic housing land availability assessments referred to in paragraph 28 is maintained and updated rather than being withdrawn. Similar guidance in relation to market assessment and land availability assessment is required in relation to other land uses such as industrial, commercial and retail provision, transport and utilities provision, social infrastructure and open space, leisure facilities and green infrastructure. It is neither cost effective nor helpful in terms of consistency of planning decisions to leave the development of methodology for evidence base assessment and analysis to 335 individual local planning authorities. Neighbourhood plans should also be required to follow such guidance.

9. Planning across administrative boundaries Paragraphs 44–47 on planning strategically across local boundaries should include speciﬁc references to the need for local planning authorities within housing and employment market areas to undertake joint assessment of both development requirements and development capacity. This should include Strategic Housing Market Assessments and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments. This requirement should however be extended to other land uses listed in the previous paragraph. It would be helpful if CLG provided guidance on appropriate local authority groupings for this process, to ensure no area is omitted.

10. Deﬁnition of strategic matters Paragraphs 49–52 need to be extended to include a list of strategic matters, in relation to which neighbourhood plans need to be in conformity with the Local Plan, expanding the list given in paragraph 23. This should include housing outputs, not just in terms of numbers, but in terms of tenure/affordability, built form, bedroom size mix and space standards.

11. Planning’s role in housing tenure In paragraph 107, objectives for planning policy for housing, the second bullet point should be amended to: “deliver a wide choice of high quality homes which are both appropriate for and affordable by households who need or choose to live in an area” The objective of widening opportunities for home ownership should be deleted, as it is inappropriate for planning policy to be used to promote a speciﬁc housing tenure. The inclusion of such a promotional policy would have the effect of planning policy giving less priority to the provision of affordable housing, which is not generally delivered in the form of homes for owner occupation.

12. Land supply We support guidance to LPAs to ensure that there is sufficient land to meet identified housing needs, and agree that LPAS should have a sufficient reserve of identified land capacity to ensure that targets are achieved, recognising that some identified sites may not proceed within the assumed timescale. While the new 20% requirement will be challenging in some areas, it is a useful mechanism for encouraging LPAs undertake a comprehensive analysis of development capacity. The new requirement should not however be used as a justification for bringing forward sites which are not suitable for residential development or are otherwise in breach of key planning policy objectives. SHLAAs should be carried out with the involvement of housebuilders to ensure that as many potential sites are identified and that sites earmarked to support the delivery of the housing trajectory for the first 10 years are deliverable. It is very important that local authorities engage the expertise of house builders to provide a reality check on their assumptions, otherwise the sites allocated may have little prospect of ever being developed.

13. Brownfield development We support the removal of the crude proportionate brownfield target, which has been predicated on the false assumption that development on brownfield sites achieves sustainable development objectives, while greenfield development does not. Criteria for sustainable development are more complex than relating solely to the previous use of a site. Similarly we support proposals that LPAs should undertake a review of green belt boundaries, to enable the identification of sites which do not and cannot fulfil the objectives of green belt designations, but which may enable the achievement of appropriate sustainable residential development, for example through urban extensions which have good transport access, access to employment and include, utilities, social and green infrastructure.

14. Planning and housing mix We support the statement in paragraph 111 that planning policies for housing mix should be based on current and future demographic trends. However the guidance that LPAs should identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in speciﬁc locations should be supported by a requirement that LPAs should set targets for housing to be provided in their areas in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability and that such targets should be incorporated in neighbourhood plans and be the basis of development briefs for individual sites. Given that market housing schemes will have to be relied upon to bring forward some affordable housing the Local Plan should specify both the overall number of affordable homes required/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w85

achievable in the area, and the proportion of each scheme that it expects to be delivered as affordable housing in order to reach that target number. This will have to be reviewed carefully to ensure that it is viable. It should be noted that there is a risk that CIL will prejudice the ability to deliver affordable housing unless the development plan level of affordable housing is taken as a given in the preparation of the CIL charging schedule.

15. Affordable housing The guidance on affordable housing in paragraph 111 should be strengthened to include a requirement on LPAs to set separate targets for social rent, “affordable” rent, intermediate housing and market housing, which meet requirements identiﬁed through Strategic Housing Market Assessments. These targets should be disaggregated by number of bedrooms, and where appropriate should include guidance on the appropriate built form and density of development. They should also be disaggregated by neighbourhood plan area.

16. Residential density The density guidance in the previous PPS3 should be included in the NPPF to ensure appropriate development, effective use of land supply, and to avoid both over-development and under-development. LPAs should be required to adopt policies on density which are based on the principles of sustainable residential quality and which enable rather than obstruct the provision of housing which meets the needs identiﬁed in the Strategic Housing Market assessment.

17. Housing design We welcome the guidance in the design section of the NPPF. However, we consider that the housing section should include minimum internal space standards for all new development, together with requirements for external space including children’s playspace.

18. Thresholds We support the removal of the national 15 minimum dwelling site threshold for application of affordable housing requirements, as this has in practice limited the provision of affordable housing on smaller sites. We are however concerned that some LPAs may determine higher thresholds in order to limit the provision of affordable housing in their areas. While we would support LPAs applying affordable housing requirements to smaller sites, subject to not negatively impacting on the viability of development, there is a case if the objective of mixed and balanced communities is to be delivered, for an upper limit on a threshold a LPA may determine, and 15 units may be an appropriate ﬁgure. Where units cannot be provided on site on smaller schemes there should be a commuted contribution in areas where that is viable and there is stock that the contribution can be used to secure.

19. Rural exception sites We consider that LPAs in rural areas should be allowed to operate a rural exception sites policy, if they considerate appropriate to their area.

20. Development viability and housing delivery Paragraph 39 should be amended to refer to a “reasonable” return to developers and landowners, not one that is “acceptable” to them. If housing delivery objectives are to be achieved, it is important to avoid delays relating solely to developers and landowners taking a view that proﬁt could be maximised from deferring development. In such circumstances, local authorities may wish to consider the use of compulsory purchase powers. The Government should issue guidance on the basis for assessing “reasonableness”.

21. Financial considerations The NPPF needs to make reference to the role of “financial considerations” in planning, given that Government’s view of the New Homes Bonus, a neighbourhood component of the Community Infrastructure Levy and the proposed reform of business rates are all meant to encourage decisions to promote more development. Moreover, there needs to be clarification that while issues of community benefit are still an important component of negotiations in relation to planning obligations, the basic principles set out in circular 5/2005 will remain and be incorporated in the NPPF and that consents should not be granted for applications which are in breach of key planning policies solely on the basis of additional resources generated for the local authority, neighbourhood or individual households either through direct payments by the applicant or through additional receipts generated either through CIL, business rates or the additional New Homes Bonus generated by housing completions. While these additional resources are clearly factors in the planning decision process, they should not over-ride core planning policy objectives and that such considerations need to be within the overall context of a plan-led system. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w86 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Endnote: Objectives and Membership of Highbury Group on Housing Delivery

The group was established in 2008 as the Highbury Group on housing and the credit crunch and originally met at London Metropolitan University in Highbury Grove, Islington, London (thus the name). The group’s name was changed in September 2010 and it now meets at the University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1.

It comprises the following core members: Duncan Bowie—University of Westminster (convener); Stephen Ashworth—SRN Denton; Julia Atkins—London Metropolitan University; Bob Colenutt—Northampton Institute for Urban Affairs; Kathleen Dunmore—Three Dragons; Michael Edwards—Bartlett School of Planning, UCL; Deborah Garvie—SHELTER; Stephen Hill—C20 Futureplanners; Angela Housham— Consultant; Seema Manchanda—L B Wandsworth; Kelvin McDonald—Consultant; Dr Tony Manzi— University of Westminster; James Stevens—HomeBuilders Federation; Peter Studdert—Planning consultant; Janet Sutherland—JTP Cities; Paul Watt—Birkbeck College; Nicholas Falk—URBED; Catriona Riddell— Planning Ofﬁcers Society; Alison Bailey—consultant; Richard Donnell—Hometrack; Richard Simmons; Nicholas Falk (URBED); Peter Redman (Housing Futures).

The views and recommendations of the Highbury Group as set out in this and other papers are ones reached collectively through debate and reﬂect the balance of member views. They do not necessarily represent those of individual members or of their employer organisations.

The key purpose of the group is to promote policies and delivery mechanisms, which: — increase the overall supply of housing in line with need; — ensure that the supply of both existing and new housing in all tenures is of good quality and more affordable by households on middle and lower incomes; — support the most effective use of both existing stock and new supply; and — ensure that housing is properly supported by accessible infrastructure, facilities and employment opportunities. 8 September 2011

Written evidence from the Historic Houses Association

The Historic Houses Association represents Britain’s historic houses, castles and gardens in private ownership. The HHA has 1,500 member properties throughout the UK of which about a third are open to the public. The HHA estimates that approximately two-thirds of the built heritage is privately owned and maintained. Between them HHA members represent, collectively, one of the greatest “ownership” of listed buildings in Britain: both I and II* properties as well as of Grade II properties, many being ancillary buildings.

The HHA welcomes 14 million visitors each year and one in ﬁve of all HHA properties offers educational visits and there are more than 300,000 such visits annually.

The beneﬁcial effect that public visiting to these places has on the wider economy is estimated at an additional £1.6 billion. Over 30,000 people are directly employed by HHA members or are employed in businesses in their grounds.

The costs of maintaining Britain’s private houses, castles and gardens are signiﬁcant and expenditure by private owners in looking after England’s historic environment is substantial. Owners spend some £3.5 billion annually on maintenance and conservation (Valuing our Heritage 2007: National Trust, English Heritage, Heritage Link, Historic Houses Association, Heritage Lottery Fund). However, the backlog of urgent repairs at HHA member houses alone totals £390 million an increase of £130 million, 50% on the ﬁgure six years earlier (£260 million). Only about 1% of the costs of major repairs to privately owned historic houses are funded by public grant, so ensuring the economic viability of historic houses is of great importance.

Summary of Key Issues — The NPPF lacks key areas of detail on the historic environment. — As a consequence it is open to interpretation and may be inconsistently implemented. — Sustainable development is not adequately deﬁned. — Core historic environment planning principles on proportionality and economic viability are inadequately articulated. — The impact of the Localism Bill and the NPPF does not appear to be properly taken into account. — The national importance of the historic environment and the presumption in favour of its conservation are not fully expressed. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w87

Background (a) Britain’s historic houses are an important resource, which beneﬁts the entire nation. For example, 80% of international visitors say that their principal reason for visiting Britain is connected to heritage and culture. (b) Historic houses provide character, distinctiveness and a sense of place and help create pride in where people live. 87% of British people think that the historic environment plays an important part in the cultural life of the country. An aspect of British historic house estates that gives them unique cultural and environmental value is the entity of historic house, contents, garden/park and surrounding land. In many cases much of the contents remain in the house, and many houses have retained their parks and surrounding land, often with particular environmental and amenity value. This entity helps to create a rural landscape that is not only attractive visually and environmentally, but which is also valued as a place to live and work. For example, Chatsworth features in local authority and other campaigns as a reason to re-locate business to the East Midlands. Changes in the planning system should not be allowed to adversely affect the ability of historic house estate owners and managers to make this contribution to tourism and inward investment. (c) In its responses to the consultation on Planning Policy Statement 5 on the historic environment last year, the HHA made clear its preference for a fast, effective, transparent planning system which is responsive to the needs of local communities. (d) The NPPF should strike a balance in respect of heritage. It must ensure that the settings of heritage property are adequately recognised and safeguarded. At the same time, it must enable the owners of historic properties to adapt them sympathetically, for example to facilitate an economic, to secure their conservation for the future. PPS 5, the planning guidance on heritage, achieved that balance. As this response sets out, that balance has not yet been achieved by the draft NPPF.

Responses to Select Committee Questions

The NPPF does not provide adequate definition of key terms contained within it. The idea of sustainable development, for example, is central to the Framework document. However, there is no definition of it within the glossary or within the main body of the text. The tests for loss are vague, because there is no attempt to define terms such as “substantial harm”, “viable” or “medium term” in the glossary, or to suggest the scope for local authorities in defining these.

The NPPF is intended to be concise, but there is a signiﬁcant danger that the quest for brevity will result in the omission of key guidance for local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others. As a consequence, the Historic Environment section is extremely short and the Framework is vague on subjects such as Conservations Areas. Paragraph 187 states that a “positive contribution” to a Conservation Area is a test in relation to loss, without ever attempting to deﬁne what might constitute a “positive contribution”. The problem is that such phrases are open to wide interpretation without the provision of adequate benchmarks.

Given this, the Practice Guide, drawn up by English Heritage, will be of particular importance, because it will offer more detailed guidance to local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate on the historic environment, where the NPPF is too broad or too vague. The Practice Guide must, therefore, be given a prominence and authority appropriate to its importance.

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

If there is to be a presumption in favour of sustainable development then there should be a very clear deﬁnition of what this means. For example, the Bruntland deﬁnition of sustainable development, that is, development in the present that does not compromise the future, should be included in the glossary.

The issue of sustainable development is of particular importance to the historic environment, because historic buildings frequently depend upon their capacity to evolve and adapt in order to ensure their economic viability and thus their conservation. However, other forms of development which might be considered sustainable in themselves may negatively affect the settings of historic buildings, for example and threaten their future existence. The HHA supports the view that the strong bias in favour of granting permission may, on occasion, result in decisions being made without adequate consideration being given to the historic environment.

At the same time it is important that small-scale economic growth which is appropriately located and designed is encouraged. Where possible this should be undertaken in a strategic way to avoid damaging piecemeal development. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w88 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

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

While there are core planning principles which are appropriately expressed within the NPPF, they are not always fully articulated. Within the historic environment section, for example, the core principle of significance is referred to on a number of occasions, but without fully emphasising its central importance. Once again, this may be remedied by giving appropriate status to the Practice Guide, which provides clearer guidance on the principle of significance. However, the section of the NPPF which deals with the historic environment is insufficient in relation to other related principles.

Paragraph 183 suggests that “the more important the asset, the greater the weight [attached to its conservation] should be”. However, it is important that there should be a clear statement that the level of evidence required in support of an application should be proportionate to the significance of the property concerned, such as that in PPS 5: “the level of detail should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage asset”.

It is also regrettable that the presumption in favour of conservation is not unambiguously articulated, although paragraph 183 does state that “when considering the impact of a proposed development on a designated heritage asset, considerable importance and weight should be given to its conservation”. This phrase could be expanded to state a clear presumption in favour of conservation.

Another core principle in respect of the historic environment, which is articulated within PPS 5, is that “wherever possible historic assets are put to an appropriate and viable use”. Once again, this needs to be stated explicitly in the historic environment section of the NPPF.

Given the timing of the NPPF and the simultaneous passage of the Localism Bill, there is concern about the magnitude of change to the planning system and as a consequence, the capacity of local authorities to manage every aspect of it adequately. In particular, it is not yet clear from the Localism Bill whether Neighbourhood Development Orders override local authority Article 4 directions. This is only one example of the unknown effects of the NPPF and the Localism Bill coming in to force at around the same time. The NPPF should be part of an integrated approach to the management of change in the historic environment. The HHA agrees with the Heritage Alliance that a clearly stated, holistic, integrated relationship between planning policy and across departments is essential, but is not yet embodied in the NPPF as it stands.

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

The key issue, as stated in the answer to 4, above, is the effect in practice of the NPPF in the context of the provisions of the Localism Bill. The NPPF will be insufﬁcient if the Localism Bill results in amendments to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and abolishes the normal statutory duties of local authorities, when drawing up NDOs, to take into account the preservation, enhancement and settings of listed buildings and Conservation Areas. Thereby, an NDO could effectively abolish heritage protection in an area, and the fact that it is doing so would not have to be taken into account when it was being drafted and adopted.

The positive intentions of the NPPF may be lost if “larger-than-local strategic planning” is undermined by the Localism Bill. While, under the terms of the Localism Bill, a draft NDO must be examined by an Independent Examiner, who must decide that it is “appropriate with regard to national policy” to make the NDO, this safeguard seems inadequate. The Independent Examiner must be given sufﬁcient powers to protect historic buildings, which are one of this country’s most important assets.

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

Where the policies contained within the NPPF are based upon previous planning guidance, such as PPG 15 and 16 and PPS 5, they may be considered part of an evolution based upon tried and tested planning practice. This is another reason for ensuring that, as far as possible, the beneﬁcial policies within PPS 5 are incorporated within the NPPF.

However, in certain key areas, there is an absence of hard evidence. In particular, the effect on strategic planning policies incorporated in the NPPF remains uncertain and little or no evidence is provided in relation to this. A similar observation may be made about the presumption in favour of “sustainable development”, which is of great signiﬁcance, but is not even deﬁned within the Framework document. 8 September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w89

Written evidence from the British Ceramic Confederation This response is submitted by the British Ceramic Confederation, the lead body for the UK ceramic manufacturing industry, representing the common and collective interests of all sectors of the industry. Its 100 member companies cover the full spectrum of ceramic manufacture, including the supply of materials, and comprise over 90% of the industry’s production capacity. Companies within the heavy clay sector of the industry, who extract their own minerals, manufacture bricks, clay roof tiles, clay pipes and refractories. We welcome and support the overall intention, approach and content of the draft Framework. However there are a small number of serious shortcomings in the draft which must be addressed if it and the parts of the Localism Bill dealing with planning are to achieve the objective of facilitating economic growth through sustainable development. In particular if the matter relating to landbank provision for brick clay that we detail below is not corrected, the effect will be the opposite of that intended. We detail below our response to the specific questions on the draft NPPF on which the Committee has invited comment. In summary our view is that: — The sections in the draft on neighbourhood planning should be recast and expanded to clarify the mechanism for their production and permitted scope. — The NPPF should make clear that neighbourhood plans must not under any circumstances override county matters such as minerals planning. — Generic guidance on technical matters relating to minerals extraction should be retained to complement the NPPF. — The sections dealing with the Birds and Habitats Directives should be recast to accommodate flexibility to allow mitigation measures. — There is no evidence to support or justification for the proposed changed policy on landbanks for brick clay. The existing policy should be retained. We have confined our comments to major issues of significance to the well-being of our industry, and to avoid repetition have presented them as responses to single questions posed by the Committee even though several of the questions are pertinent to each issue.

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 over planning decisions? Neighbourhood Plans Our first response to this question deals with neighbourhood plans, which we understand are an intended key element in the localism agenda. This is dealt with in paragraphs 49 to 52 inclusive of the draft NPPF. We do not think that the NPPF provides clarity on the mechanism for production and approval of neighbourhood plans, their permitted scope or the relationship between them and other plans. The NPPF should state quite clearly which bodies are permitted to produce neighbourhood plans, how these bodies may be constituted, how the geographical limits of such plans are defined and other such detail. Mention is made in paragraph 49 of parishes and neighbourhood forums. These concepts must be adequately explained and defined. Whereas all such matters may be prescribed in the Localism Bill / Act, we do not consider it satisfactory that they are omitted from the NPPF which will be the principal document advising planners and developers. Of even greater importance is the need for clarity on the relationship between neighbourhood plans and other plans. Paragraphs 50, 51 and 52 are both confusing and contradictory in that respect. The explanation of “general conformity” in the Glossary is not satisfactory. It does not provide sufficient clarity for reconciliation of the contradictory statements that neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan (paragraph 50) and that policies in a neighbourhood plan take precedence over existing policies in the Local Plan where they are in conflict (paragraph 51). In our view there must be consistency between plans, and a neighbourhood plan should not contradict or override the Local Plan in any circumstances, but should complement it. Of equal importance is the need to define in the NPPF the permitted scope of neighbourhood plans. The Localism Bill makes clear that county matters are outside the scope of neighbourhood planning (Localism Bill, Clause 98 and Schedule 9). The NPPF should make equally clear that a neighbourhood plan cannot override or interfere in any way with county matters covered by the Local Plan. In particular minerals planning, minerals extraction and minerals safeguarding are county matters. Not only can a neighbourhood plan not embrace such matters, it must not be able to interfere with them in any way. The responsibility of planning authorities for planning for the sustainable use of minerals outlined in paragraphs 100 to 106 must not be compromised. The consequence would be the sterilisation of valuable minerals reserves and resources. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w90 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Minerals Paragraph 102 bullets 6 and 7, and paragraph 103 bullet 3, give brief mention to measures relating to health, the environment, noise, dust and other impacts that planning authorities should adopt in determining minerals planning applications. The explanatory document Draft National Planning Policy Framework: Consultation issued with the draft NPPF makes clear that most existing policy documents will be cancelled when the NPPF is introduced. These documents include MPS2: Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England, and MPG5: Stability in surface mineral workings and tips amongst others of a similar nature. We do not think the content of the NPPF provides sufﬁcient direction to planning authorities in these areas to ensure that measures adopted are adequate, reasonable and consistent between applications. Whereas we accept the need to reduce bureaucracy and unnecessary complication in planning policy and guidance, these are important technical matters in which planners are likely to have limited knowledge and expertise. The relevant guidance should be updated, not abolished, and cross-reference made to it in the NPPF.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? The NPPF does not make clear the relationship between planning policy and policy on certain environmental matters which have an impact on planning decisions. Paragraph 16 states that development likely to have a significant effect on sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives would not be sustainable under the terms of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Although this statement may be tempered to some degree by the wording of paragraphs 35 and 36 regarding the need to respect the progress and statutory requirements of different assessment processes, and proportionality, it remains the headline statement to which more attention is likely to be paid. Existing procedures to ensure compliance with the Birds and Habitats Directives and related requirements allow for flexibility where mitigation measures such as the creation or dedication of alternative environments and the translocation of species can be used to avoid net adverse environmental impact of development. If the NPPF is to include reference to the Directives, it should embrace these accepted principles.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence based? The answer we give to this question is of vital importance to the future sustainability of the heavy clay products manufacturing industry in the UK which cannot be understated. Paragraph 101 bullet 3 contains a radical change in policy regarding landbanks for brick clay which is totally unacceptable to the industry. Moreover the justification for the change provided in the Impact Assessment pages 45 to 47 is fundamentally flawed. Existing policy contained in MPS1 Annex 2 requires planning authorities to provide a stock of permitted reserves sufficient to provide for 25 years of production at each manufacturing plant. The rationale for this policy is contained in the detailed research undertaken for the then DTLR by the British Geological Survey published in 2001, Brick Clay: Issues for Planning. The specific purpose of this research was to inform policy on planning for brick clay. Two extracts from the report serve to encapsulate its basic conclusions: “Delivering sustainable security of supply requires development plans with a long-term perspective. This period should be at least 25 years, delivered through a landbank comprising permitted reserves and/or allocations in development plans. Provision should be subject to regular short-term review to enable adjustments to be made as required.” “Guidance should stress the importance of ensuring that brick clay issues (including fireclay) are properly explored in up to date development plans. It should emphasise the need for an integrated long-term approach (at least 25 years) to planning a sustainable security of supply of brick clays in a landbank. It should give guidance on the objectives to be resolved over that time and stress the need for flexibility of the long-term approach and confirm the necessity of regular short-term adjustments (no longer than five years) to development plan policy to meet emerging circumstances.” The NPPF Impact Assessment states that the proposed landbank requirements for scarcer minerals—which include clay—”better reflects modern working methods (to extract) and the more efficient use of raw materials which minimises the need for primary extraction”. Whereas this statement may be pertinent to other minerals, it cannot be applied to clay. Working methods have not changed in any way that affects the volume of clay extracted or the rate of extraction. The rate and volume of extraction are determined not by the methods of extraction but by the capacity of the production plant served and demand for the manufactured product. It is important to understand the reason why a dedicated and secure supply of clay for 25 years production is required for any brick, clay tile or clay pipe manufacturing plant. The Impact Assessment recognises that landbanks are of particular importance for some minerals because they represent a secure supply of feedstock to justify the capital investment in major manufacturing facilities. However three further points should be acknowledged. First the capital investment is ongoing throughout the life of the plant to support maintenance and upgrade not least to meet environmental performance standards. Secondly clay is not a commodity the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w91

source of which can be readily changed. The plant speciﬁcation is determined by the nature of the clay available and extraction in close proximity to the plant is necessary to minimise environmental impact and cost. Finally the scale of capital expenditure is considerable and is normally depreciated over a 25 year period.

The NPPF states that “larger landbanks may be justified in specific circumstances, such as the need to ensure the viability of proposed new investment”. This wording in insufficient to provide the security the industry requires. Provision for 25 years supply is needed at all times as explained above.

The consequence of failure to correct this aberration in the NPPF will be that new investment in clay product manufacturing will not be brought forward. The largest part of the brick, clay roof tile and clay pipe manufacturing industry is owned and controlled at European level. The long term security of supply of the basic raw material is a key consideration in corporate investment strategy and decisions. In its absence the location of new plant outside the UK where conditions are more favourable will become increasingly likely.

We are not aware of any evidence to support the policy change proposed. All existing evidence supports retention of the policy contained in MPS1 Annex 2. Moreover its replacement will jeopardise future investment and employment whilst providing no advantage in planning or environmental terms. 8 September 2011

Written evidence from West Berkshire Council

Executive Summary — West Berkshire Council welcomes the aim to simplify the planning process and slim-down the abundance of existing policy guidance. West Berkshire has accommodated a significant amount of growth in the past. West Berkshire is “open for business” and we are keen to ensure that the national policy context is framed in such a way that it allows us to continue to support appropriate levels of sustainable growth in the future. Our comments on the NPPF should be seen in this light. — The Council is concerned, however, that the NPPF does not provide an appropriate or balanced context for the preparation of local plans or the determination of planning applications at the local level. — The Government’s definition of sustainable development appears to place too much emphasis on the achievement of economic objectives at the expense of social and environmental considerations which risks new development being unsustainable. — The Impact Assessment accompanying the NPPF does not fully consider the range of options open to the Government in seeking to revise and consolidate existing planning policy guidance. — It is not adequately justified and is lacking in robust evidence for the approach it advocates. — The draft framework has over-simplified existing policy guidance to such an extent that a great deal of important detail is lacking in a great many areas. — There is a lack of clarity in a number of areas regarding how the NPPF relates to other aspects of Government policy. — It is inconsistent in its use of terminology in a number of areas. — It risks the creation of a period of local policy void by failing to put in place reasonable transitional arrangements between the new and old planning systems. — All of these flaws run the serious risk that, rather than clarify, simplify and speed up the planning process, it will result in greater uncertainty, frustration and delay.

1. Introduction

1.1 West Berkshire Council is supportive of the desire to simplify and rationalise the plethora of existing Government planning policy guidance. As a unitary authority which likes to see itself as “open for business” we clearly recognise the importance of economic prosperity, employment opportunity and the desire to foster and facilitate growth; particularly where this brings about regeneration. West Berkshire has accommodated signiﬁcant levels of growth over the past 30 years but this has not been accompanied by the necessary supporting infrastructure. Development should therefore only be allowed to occur where it is accompanied by the local and strategic infrastructure necessary to support it and provided that the environmental and social costs of development do not outweigh the economic beneﬁts. The desire for growth and prosperity therefore has to be balanced against other important considerations.

1.2 The planning system is concerned with the balance and resolution of competing (and often conﬂicting) interests in the development and use of land and seeks to secure the best outcome for society at large with whom it must engage in the decision making process through a political, democratically accountable system. It is therefore, by its very nature, complex, convoluted, controversial and takes time. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w92 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

1.3 It is the Council’s view that the NPPF does not adequately recognise or reflect these complexities. Instead it puts an over-emphasis on achieving economic objectives and meeting the needs of the development industry at the expense of environmental and social objectives. Furthermore it seeks to impose a one-size-fits-all policy context which over-rides consideration of local circumstances. 1.4 It is entirely possible that the NPPF as currently proposed will lead to more delay rather than a speedier system, more confusion rather than greater clarity and, ultimately, a by-passing of the plan-led system as more and more decisions are determined through the appeal process. Not only is this counter to the principles of localism but it will mean more cost and delay for the development industry and local resentment rather than mutual acceptance of the benefits of growth; the exact opposite of what Government intends to achieve with the NPPF. 1.5 Furthermore, the Impact Assessment that accompanies the NPPF suggests a further review in three years time thus introduces a further period of uncertainty with respect to policy formulation.

Response to Select Committee Questions 2. 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 over planning decisions? 2.1 The NPPF gives a very clear message. Unfortunately, however, in the Council’s view, it is a message with the wrong emphasis that will undermine localism and the long-term sustainability of communities. 2.2 The NPPF is extremely clear that sustainable development is about positive growth and that the role of the planning system is wherever possible to allow positive growth to go ahead without delay. It prioritises the need to support economic growth above all other objectives by requiring “significant weight” (13) to be accorded it. Plans should meet objectively assessed development needs in full. Planning policies should take into account market signals such as land prices, commercial rents and housing affordability (19). Development should be approved where it complies with the plan. If a plan is “absent, silent or indeterminate” development should similarly be allowed. All of this should apply unless the adverse impacts of allowing development “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits (14). 2.3 All of this is absolutely clear. However, without a suitable transition period between the old system and the new, if one consideration is given undue prominence in the decision-making process (in this case the imperative to achieve economic growth) it precludes a balanced assessment of the impacts of a development taking place. It also seems inconsistent with the localism agenda which seeks to give local communities greater control over the planning of their local areas. Both local communities and decision-makers are, effectively, given a power just to say “yes” to growth (other than in very exceptional circumstances) rather than being able to consider what is best for their areas. This is unlikely to empower local communities.

3. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 3.1 There is nothing wrong with the principle of a presumption in favour of sustainable development per se. However, whether or not it is appropriate in practice depends on how sustainable development is defined and how strictly the principle is to be adhered to in the day-to-day decision-making process. 3.2 Given the objectives of the planning system set out above any presumption should only be a starting point; a guiding principle. That provides comfort to the development industry as a context within which decisions will be taken. However, it should not be an automatic right. 3.3 The most oft-quoted definition of sustainable development is that set out in the 1987 report of the Bruntland Commission “Our Common Future”. Here sustainable development is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. In the “Easier to read summary of the draft National Planning Policy Framework” Government defines sustainable development as “What we do today to meet our needs, must not stop future generations being able to meet their own needs.” The Council believes that this is a clear and simpler definition which should be used throughout the NPPF. 3.4 Planning is concerned with reconciling competing interests in the use of land. The nature of those interests and the unique circumstances of each piece of land mean that different considerations are important in each development proposal. The same approach is followed and the same principles applied to deciding applications, but each development proposal and each site is different, both in itself and in the way it interacts with its surroundings and the impacts it has on local infrastructure, services and communities. In order to achieve successful planning outcomes practitioners must have the ability to account for these variations in the decision-making process. They should also be able to negotiate improvements to development proposals and address infrastructure deficits if these are appropriate/necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Without this ability the quality of development and the built and natural environment and quality of life for local communities will suffer immensely. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w93

3.5 Therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development, particularly in so far as it is laid out in the draft NPPF, should not be the over-riding consideration. There is some concession to this point in the NPPF where Government allows material considerations to be taken into account and weighed against the presumption in favour of sustainable development. However, this is very much secondary to the application of the presumption itself. Only where adverse impacts “would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” (14) should the presumption be over-ridden. Elsewhere the NPPF requires: — objectively assessed needs to be met (14 and 21); — plans to positively support local development (17); — planning to proactively support and derive the development the country needs (19); — full account to be taken of market and economic signals such as land prices (27); — household and population projections to be met (28); and — authorities not to over-burden development with such a scale of requirements for affordable housing, infrastructure contributions and so on so as to render it unviable even at the lowest point in the economic cycle (39, 41 and 73). 3.6 The point being that the NPPF is not, in the Council’s view, advocating a balanced approach to assessing development proposals. It is not adequately acknowledging the important local and site specific considerations that local communities consider important and require decision-makers to take into account. Rather it is stressing that development should be permitted at (almost) any cost. 3.7 It is this imbalanced approach and the way it is equated with “sustainable development” and how this over-rides local considerations which are of greatest concern to the Council.

5. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 5.1 No. The document sets out to be a self-contained planning policy statement. As such it seems to pay little regard to other Government policy objectives. In particular it is inconsistent with the localism agenda in that it prescribes that the default response local communities should make in response to development proposals is “yes” (other than in a very limited number of very exceptional circumstances). This largely prevents local communities expressing any contrary view. It is this contrary view which prevails across much of the country. 5.2 In many places, by over-simplifying existing guidance, it seeks to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. For example, PPS5 is reduced to just three lines in an area such as West Berkshire with 1,900 listed buildings this is of concern. 5.3 A significant major flaw is the lack of transitional arrangements between the existing suite of policy guidance, statements, regulations and local development frameworks and the new NPPF which is to take effect immediately and over-ride that which currently exists. The existing system has been created over a number of years through extended periods of consultation and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders and partners including local communities. To set that aside, in effect, overnight and give prominence instead to a radical and untested NPPF is wholly inconsistent with Government’s localism agenda. 5.4 West Berkshire submitted its core strategy for examination two days prior to the “revocation” of the regional strategies. We are currently still at examination 14 months later and the issue of the NPPF is being raised which might mean that the council is forced to redo its’ plan to take account of these changes with a new evidence base at considerable cost to the local community. A way must be devised of creating a period of transition between the primacy of plans based on the old suite of guidance to allow the creation of new plans based on the NPPF. If only the NPPF takes precedence in the interim this is to deny local communities any say in how the future of their communities is shaped. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w94 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

5.5 The relationship between the NPPF and local plans is far from clear. The NPPF says it will be “open to” local authorities to seek a certificate of conformity with the NPPF. Does this mean they are obliged to or not? If not, what benefit is there in obtaining a certificate? How will it be obtained and from whom? What will be the added status of a plan which has a certificate compared to one which doesn’t? What of a plan which is refused a certificate of conformity? The certification process is likely to be very time and resource consuming for both local planning authorities and Government itself. These are important matters which must be clarified.

6. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 6.1 No.

Written evidence from Voluntary Arts 1. Summary (a) Voluntary Arts believes that active participation in creative activities is a major contributing factor to social interaction and inclusive communities. (b) Voluntary Arts recommends that the policies on creating “sustainable communities” recognise that the planning system needs to deliver the right cultural facilities to meet local needs. (c) Voluntary Arts recommends that the policies which “promote the vitality and viability of town centres” make reference to allocation of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of cultural developments in town centres. At present it recognises the need for retail, leisure, commercial, community services and residential development. But not culture. (d) Voluntary Arts would be delighted to work closely with the Department of Communities and Local Government to help develop policies for the provision of suitable facilities for cultural participation.

2. About Voluntary Arts Voluntary Arts is the UK and Republic of Ireland development agency for participation in the arts and crafts. We recognise that creative participation is a key part of our culture and, as such, is absolutely vital to our health, social and economic development. Our vision is for an empowered, participative, fulﬁlled and healthy civil society, and we work to achieve this by promoting practical participation in the arts and crafts. We work closely with our extensive network of over 300 national and regional umbrella bodies, and through them, tens of thousands of grassroots voluntary arts and crafts groups and individuals.

3. Voluntary Arts’ Response Over half the UK adult population is involved in the voluntary arts and crafts—those arts and crafts that people undertake for self-improvement, social networking and leisure, but not primarily for payment. They are cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w95

wide-ranging and include folk, dance, drama, literature, media, music, visual arts, crafts and applied arts, and festivals.

The voluntary arts are vital to our health, culture, social and economic development. What's more, investing and encouraging participation in the voluntary arts offers a cost-effective way of creating social cohesion and contributing to a healthy nation.

Voluntary Arts is surprised and concerned that the proposed National Planning Policy Framework for England does not include substantial reference to culture in general and the voluntary arts in particular. Although heritage, sport and leisure are included in the draft document, culture is notable only by its absence— a gross misrepresentation of the interests and priorities of the people of England.

Formally organised voluntary and amateur arts groups are a crucially important part of civil society. There are 49,140 groups across England, with a total of 5.9 million members. An additional 3.5 million people volunteer as extras or helpers—a total of 9.4 million people taking part.96

Voluntary Arts believes that it is important to act now to ensure that there are policies to protect and plan for the cultural places and spaces that we need today and in the future. The National Planning Policy Framework needs to contain explicit references to culture. 8 September 2011

Written evidence from Rail Freight Group

1. Rail Freight Group (RFG) is pleased to submit evidence to the Communities and Local Government Committee Inquiry into the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

2. RFG is the representative body for rail freight in the UK. We campaign for a policy framework that supports a growth in the use of rail for the movement of freight where it is environmentally and economically appropriate to do so. We represent over 100 member companies who are active in all areas of the rail freight sector, including train operators, customers, suppliers, developers and support services.

General Comments 3. Traditionally, rail freight thrived in the movement of bulk commodities such as coal and stone. These sectors remain important today. However, in recent years, the rail freight sector has made signiﬁcant inroads into the movement of consumer goods, particularly in the movement of containerised imports from the UK’s deep sea ports. Rail has achieved market shares over 20% at the major locations, with growth continuing. Rail has also started to play an increased role in the movement of consumer goods within the UK, for major retailers such as M&S and Tesco. Forecasts of growth demonstrate that these areas are the most likely to expand, driven by high fuel prices, road congestion and environmental concerns.

4. To support this growth, and to underpin the existing bulk ﬂows, there is a need for new and improved rail terminals. These range in scale from small facilities, such as stone terminals or single user rail linked warehouses to large scale rail freight interchanges such as the site at Daventry in the Midlands. Terminals are the equivalent for freight of passenger stations; without them, goods cannot get onto the railway.

5. Gaining planning permission for rail linked sites has however been difﬁcult. Large scale interchanges have suffered particularly, because of their size and a lack of suitable locations which need to have excellent road and rail links. The largest such facilities, over 60Ha are therefore included in the Planning Act 2008, and we await the relevant National Policy Statement (NPS) which is due to be published by DfT later this year.

6. Smaller facilities have also had difﬁculty in getting planning permission. Rail terminals are not popular neighbours, and in many cases, housing developments have been permitted close to existing rail lines and rail freight sites which increases the problems from noise and vibration. Such facilities are not covered by the Planning Act and, as such, the NPPF will be the relevant planning document.

7. The lack of suitable facilities is a constraint on rail growth, particularly in the retail sector. It is also of note that such facilities can be signiﬁcant employment generators—for example the ﬁrst phase of the Daventry development employs around 2,500 people.

8. One of the principle difficulties faced by rail freight interchanges is that the many of the benefits of such facilities, whilst significant, are measured at a regional or national level, whilst any disbenefits are generally felt locally. It is therefore imperative that the planning framework enables planning authorities to take a “larger than local” view. This has previously been provided by Regional Spatial Strategies, and supporting documents, now abolished. The NPPF therefore has a vital role to play in filling this gap. However, it is unclear whether the duty to co-operate clause alone will fully fill this need. 96 Our Creative Talent, DCMS/ACE, 2008. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w96 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Speciﬁc Comments on NPPF

9. Overall, we consider that the NPPF is a good document for supporting the appropriate development of smaller rail freight terminals, and informing local authorities on the planning considerations for larger facilities which are formally covered by the Planning Act. We would not support signiﬁcant further changes to the document.

10. Turning to the particular questions.

11. We consider that the draft NPPF gives sufﬁcient guidance on planning principles and aims. However, we note that, with a great emphasis on the role of Local and Neighbourhood plans, it will be vital to ensure that the delivery of the aims of the NPPF is carried through into those documents in each planning authority area.

12. The transitional arrangements when Local Plans are not in place, or not compliant with NPPF may need further consideration.

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

13. We support the presumption in favour of sustainable development as an important factor in allowing rail freight facilities to gain planning permission where appropriate.

14. Rail freight is acknowledged as a more environmentally friendly mode of transport. On average, it produces around 70% less CO2 than road transport, and also contributes to reducing road congestion and road safety. Facilities which link warehousing and rail terminals help to further reduce carbon emissions by eliminating road hauls to and from the terminal.

15. As the National Policy Statement covering rail freight interchanges has not yet been published, even in draft, we cannot comment on the relationship. However, the draft NPPF appears to integrate well with the principles we would expect to see in the NPS.

16. The formal and legal relationship between the NPPF and NPSs may need to be clariﬁed speciﬁcally.

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

17. The NPPF gives a strong indication to local authorities on the need to work with neighbouring bodies in developing local plans. Diligent, pro growth, authorities are likely to take this duty seriously and to develop plans which do work on a “larger than local” basis. However we remain concerned that some bodies will play lip service to this requirement particularly where they are opposed to infrastructure which meets a sub national or national need in their area. The wording of the relevant NPSs will be important.

18. It is unclear if the NPPF and duty to co-operate clause will sufﬁciently ﬁll the need for sub national planning for transport. September 2011

Written evidence from the Kings Theatre Trust Ltd

The Kings Theatre Trust welcomes the opportunity to comment on the National Planning Policy Framework, about which we have been alerted by The Theatres Trust. We strongly endorse the response that has been sent you by The Theatres Trust at the reference, and urge you to ensure that there is proper and robust consideration of culture, the arts and theatres in the proposed framework, as outlined in their comprehensive and coherent response. Further comments are as follows: — The Kings Theatre is in the City of Portsmouth, and provides a busy regional theatre for South Hampshire, West Sussex and the Isle of Wight. Rescued from closure 10 years ago after a vocal and active campaign by the local community, it is now owned by Portsmouth City Council and leased to the Kings Theatre Trust. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w97

— The theatre is now providing a wide ranging and high quality programme of shows, events, education and heritage activities, plus a large community programme of volunteer involvement. — Over £2 million has been invested in the fabric and facilities of the building to date. Further improvements and restoration work to the building, and future growth in the show programme will see the theatre expand its activities over the next ﬁve years, to fully re-establish it as the City’s largest theatre. — The theatre is currently estimated to be providing an inward investment of £1 million each year into the local economy, and once fully restored and operational, this is expected to rise to £3 million each year. It is already clear that the theatre has had a positive and very welcome regeneration effect in its locality, which is recognised by the city.

All this progress in the last 10 years has been underpinned by the current planning guidelines for culture, the arts and theatres, as well as the support and guidance of The City Council and The Theatres Trust. The Select Committee is strongly urged to ensure such guidelines are included in the new framework to ensure theatres like the Kings can continue to provide meaningful cultural, education, heritage and regeneration effects in their areas for the beneﬁt of their communities. September 2011

Written evidence from the North West Transport Roundtable

Summary and Recommendations

The North West Transport Roundtable welcomes the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) because we believe that a sound and democratic planning system is fundamental to working within environmental limits and ensuring a high quality of life for future generations. We have serious concerns that the proposed reforms will not achieve either and will result in a built and unbuilt environment of a reduced quality. Local communities will be disenfranchised—not given extra say over their surroundings as was promised—and the UK will fail to meet its carbon reduction targets as a result of bad planning decisions. — The proposed planning reforms are moving in the opposite direction to the government’s declared “localism” agenda. Local communities would have less opportunities to have a say on planning than they have had in the past and are still not being given a right to appeal planning decisions, whilst principal authorities would have less freedoms to make their own planning judgements. — The poor definition of what is to constitute “sustainable development” and the fact that there are no specified requirements for it effectively neuters the use of the word “sustainable” in the Draft NPPF. — Open spaces, areas of countryside and the urban fringe without special designations would be particularly susceptible to development and sprawl because there is no firm requirement to adopt a sequential land use approach and no strong policy against out-of-town developments. There is also a serious risk of many Green Belts being reviewed and reduced in size, negating their prime purpose, and there is much less likelihood of investment in towns and cities desperate for regeneration. — Environmental considerations—including the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, meet carbon reduction targets and comply with the Climate Change Act—are not given equal weighting with economic considerations. This is a blinkered and flawed approach that would have repercussions ultimately on the economy and on the quality of life. It needs to be remedied. — Key principles should include reducing the need to travel, recognising environmental limits and— in tune with the Natural Environment White Paper—retaining protection of the natural environment. — The NPPF lacks specificity and balance and risks repeating planning mistakes made in the past.

Who we are, why we were established and our approach to inﬂuencing policy

The North West Transport Roundtable (NW TAR) operates under the auspices of the Campaign for Better Transport (CfBT). We are an umbrella body that promotes sustainable transport, healthier lives and low carbon lifestyles. The regional roundtables came into being in the late 1990s to represent the opinions of organisations and individuals who believe in sustainable transport and to try to bring about more environmentally friendly transport and planning policies. We engage only on policy issues (we are not a direct action organisation) and we do so at a variety of different levels. Many of our recent outputs are viewable on our website www.nwtar.org.uk. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w98 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Evidence Q1: 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 over planning decisions? A: Local planning authorities (LPAs) are being told to provide a five-year housing supply plus 20% but they are not allowed to take account of windfall sites, which can be significant, and they are not being given the tools to negotiate with developers for the most sustainable locations to be used first and to help them protect the undesignated parts of the countryside for its own right or the urban fringe from out-of-town developments that would generate unnecessary transport movements. Also, because of the direction to LPAs in the Draft NPPF to say “Yes” to development perceived as economically beneficial, there is an unwritten implication that it would be acceptable to reduce the size of Green Belts. Certainly many LPAs are already talking about reviewing their Green Belts to accommodate development. The guidance to LPAs is inadequate because it does not take sufficient account of environmental considerations including the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nor does it guard against Green Belts being reduced in size, an action that would defeat their prime purpose of separating built areas. The Planning Inspectorate’s role in respect of Local Plans was reduced under the Planning & Compulsory Purchases Bill to primarily focusing on the overall soundness of the plan. The proposal in the Draft NPPF is to re-confirm this reduced role whilst ensuring it has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Co-operate and legal procedural requirements. The guidance to the Planning Inspectorate is inadequate because it assumes that LPAs have listened to comments made to them during their consultations and have reacted to sensible, cogent suggestions and made amendments This is not always the case. Under the system that applied prior to the enactment of the Planning and Compulsory Purchases Act, it was possible for challenges to be made at the public inquiry/examination in public stage to individual policies—as a result of which they were often amended and improved. This is no longer possible. Organisations and individuals who take an interest in the process are expected to prove that the entire document is unsound. This is rarely the case but in any event such a requirement is quite beyond the limited resources of local communities and bodies which are non statutory and non commercial. Consequently, this requirement is contrary to the localism agenda.

Investors and developers are basically being given a much freer rein to build in areas which do not carry special designations. However, many such areas provide important open spaces and green lungs in built up areas and food production in the countryside. There appears to be no recognition in the Draft NPPF of the benefits that have been gleaned from directing developments to brownfield areas in the first instance or the disbenefits of removing such policies. How are towns and cities in need of redevelopment ever going to achieve the renaissance they seek if it is made easier for developers to build on greenfields?

The guidance to investors and developers is totally inadequate. Because it does not require them to focus on brownﬁeld land ﬁrst, it will result in urban sprawl and unsustainable patterns of development.

Local communities are still not being given the right under the proposed NPPF to appeal planning decisions (ie. the “third party right of appeal”) and nor would they have the right to ask at a Local Plan inquiry for an individual policy to be re-phrased and improved. They are only being offered the right to approve development, via Neighbourhood Plans, not to question it—despite pre-election promises.

Local communities’ democratic rights are being reduced. They will have less say on planning decisions because their objections to individual planning applications are less likely to receive a proper hearing at the principal authority level due to the fact the principal authority is being told to say “Yes”. It will also be even harder for local communities and NGOs to engage on major infrastructure projects than previously.

Q2 Is the deﬁnition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?

A. At the heart of a sound planning system, there needs to be genuinely sustainable development and for this to happen there needs to be a statutory definition of “sustainable development” that will help to provide greater certainty in decision-making. The definition in the Draft NPPF is not sufficiently robust and is open to widespread interpretation (and mis-interpretation). Many environmental non-governmental organisations (NGO)s, including the North West Transport Roundtable, signed up to a joint statement on the Localism Bill which proposed the following definition: “sustainable development” means development that meets the social, economic and environmental needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, including the application of the following principles: (i) living within environmental limits; (ii) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w99

(iii) achieving a sustainable economy; (iv) promoting good governance; and (v) using sound science responsibly.

The national, regional and other NGOs who signed up to this deﬁnition asked for it to be included in both the Localism Bill and the NPPF.

As far as the presumption in favour of sustainable development is concerned, it should be noted that there is no reference in the Draft NPPF of the need to meet any speciﬁed standards. The requirement is that there should be no demonstrable harm to the objectives of the NPPF as a whole. Bearing in mind that the NPPF as a whole is an economically-focussed document which does not demand a balance of the ﬁve principles listed above, the outcome it would prompt would not be a balanced one. This would have impacts on the quality of the environment and ultimately, therefore, on the economy.

Q3 Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed?

A: The core planning principles identified in the Draft NPPF are not definitive enough on the sequential use of land. They merely require that “where practical and consistent with other objectives, allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value”. Nor are they definitive enough on heritage assets or the most fertile farmland and nothing is said about ensuring the provision of local foods for local markets in order to reduce food miles. Nor are any parking standards required—a measure which can be used to control car use and help achieve modal shift.

The core principles fail to call for policies and planning decisions which recognise environmental limits or the inherent value of the countryside and which will “reduce the need to travel”. (Reducing the need to travel is only mentioned in connection with making better use of new technologies, not as an over-arching aim). Without the inclusion of these fundamental ly important criteria, LPAs will be struggling to refute planning applications that would create worse air pollution and which are clearly not in the best interests of the communities and/or the natural/ unbuilt environment for which they are responsible. There needs to be much greater emphasis on each local authority playing its part in meeting national carbon emission targets and not agreeing to developments in locations that will encourage more car use.

Q4 Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across government departments?

A. In February 2011, the Coalition Government launched “Mainstreaming Sustainable Development”, a package of measures it committed to enacting across all government departments and all emerging policies. The NPPF should be cross-hatched to the commitments made then by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment. Even more importantly, the NPPF needs to comply with the 2008 Climate Change Act and support the legally binding carbon emission reduction targets which the UK government signed up to earlier this year. It needs to explain how compliance is to be achieved. It is wholly inadequate to say: “Where practical, encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion” (para 83).

Also, the NPPF needs to take cognisance of the Natural Choice, the Natural Environment White Paper which commits to: “retain protection and improvement of the natural environment as core objectives for local planning and development management” (para 2.35). It should also be noted that the White Paper makes it quite clear open countryside, forests and farm land are included in the deﬁnition of what constitutes “the natural environment”—without any caveats or exclusions.

Q5 Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to co-operate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning?

A. Only to some extent. Local authorities do not have a good history of working in harmony with each other but NW TAR witnessed a signiﬁcant improvement during the time that regional working was mandatory. Our fear is that LAs will revert to working in their own silos, will only co-operate where essential and will not see the bigger picture or examples of best practice being carried out by other authorities.

Q6 Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based?

A. No. The Draft NPPF is particularly remiss in how it approaches infrastructure requirements. It tells LPAs to say “Yes” to planning proposals and not to place unnecessary planning conditions on permissions granted and it also tells them to take account of nationally signiﬁcant infrastructure within their areas (which local communities will have little say about) and to assess the capacity of transport to cope. The implication appears to be (because nothing is said to the contrary) that local authorities must work out how to provide whatever cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w100 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

supporting infrastructure might be necessary. As the proposed NPPF makes it easier to get permission for out- of-town developments, this could provoke demands for more highway infrastructure, whether this is road widening, bypasses or entirely new roads. The evidence already exists to show that this has happened in the past through bad planning. Lessons need to be learnt from past mistakes. Also, Campaign for Better Transport research into out-of-town developments near motorways, published this month, show that both trafﬁc movements and CO2 emissions rise by an alarming amount and place stresses on the strategic road network.

Q7 Is the Draft NPPF fit for purpose? A. As the previous responses indicate, we believe the answer to this question is “No”. It lacks specificity, it lacks the all-important balance that needs to be struck between economic, social and environmental issues, it lacks a proper definition of sustainable development and it risks repeating past mistakes. The overall effect is to move in the opposite direction to the “localism” agenda. We hope our comments are of some value and we hope the NPPF will be re-appraised. September 2011

Written evidence from Living Streets Living Streets is the national charity that stands up for pedestrians. With our supporters we work to create safe, attractive and enjoyable streets, where people want to walk. We work with professionals and politicians to make sure every community can enjoy vibrant streets and public spaces. We started life in 1929 as the Pedestrians Association and have been the national voice for pedestrians throughout our history. In the early years, our campaigning led to the introduction of the driving test, pedestrian crossings and 30mph speed limits. Since then our ambition has grown. Today we influence decision makers nationally and locally, run successful projects to encourage people to walk and provide specialist consultancy services to help reduce congestion and carbon emissions, improve public health, and make sure every community can enjoy vibrant streets and public spaces. Living Streets has taken an active interest in the progress of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), including meeting with Department of Communities and Local Government officials, together with representatives of the Campaign for Real Ale, to highlight the importance of access to local shops and services and the crucial need for active promotion of walking-friendly streets and neighbourhoods within the NPPF. We have also been engaged in discussion with a range of other third sector stakeholders on the issues. As expressed in our response to the initial call for thoughts on the NPPF, Living Streets called on the Government in our manifesto in 2010 to “set a simpler national framework of planning guidance that is navigable and easy to use”. We welcome the idea of a localist, integrated and concise National Planning Policy Framework that makes it easier and less intimidating for local communities, and civically minded groups such as our own Local Groups, to understand the ways in which they can work with local authorities and other local stakeholders to secure lasting and meaningful improvements to their streets and neighbourhoods. However, we have some substantial concerns with the provisions of the current draft document and advocate that significant changes are made, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders and experts, before the NPPF is finalised. We would refer the Committee to our consultation response, to be submitted in October, for more detail, but would wish to make a few brief points in response to the Committee’s lines of inquiry.

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 over planning decisions? The NPPF as it stands does not provide either sufficient guidance or sufficient power for local communities. It is often vaguely worded: at several points the draft document contains statements that are supportive of environmentally and socially sustainable development, but these are often caveated with phrases such as “where possible” and “where practical”, undermining the importance of elements such as sustainable transport provision and accessibility of local services. If the NPPF is intended to “set out national economic, environmental and social priorities” (Clark, 2010) and to provide a clear direction of travel to local planning authorities, these caveats are unhelpful and should be removed. Other elements such as quality public realm are scarcely mentioned at all. The presumption in favour of sustainable development, and the stipulation that development should be permitted “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” is likely in practice to result in permission being given to development that is unsustainable, with local authorities constantly wary of exposing themselves to the considerable financial and other costs of appeals. This would severely undermine the ability of local communities to influence the shape of their areas through engagement in the planning process, hindering rather than furthering the Government’s worthy ambition of more such engagement. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w101

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? Living Streets does not believe that the definition of sustainable development is appropriate and has supported calls for a robust definition of sustainable development to be included within both the NPPF and the Localism Bill. The Brundtland definition included at Point 9 of the current draft of the NPPF is a useful starting point but difficult to apply in practice, and totally at odds with the stipulation expressed in the draft document that development should, by default, be permitted. More insidiously, the document continually conflates the physical definition of “development” meaning the improvement of land with the broader policy goal of sustainable development. To avoid confusion, ensure consistency and identify a common purpose for planning, Living Streets advocates the inclusion of a credible statutory definition of sustainable development, including, for example, the five principles published by DEFRA: — Living Within Environmental Limits Respecting the limits of the planet’s environment, resources and biodiversity—to improve our environment and ensure that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations. — Ensuring a Strong, Healthy and Just Society Meeting the diverse needs of all people in existing and future communities, promoting personal wellbeing, social cohesion and inclusion, and creating equal opportunity for all. — Achieving a Sustainable Economy Building a strong, stable and sustainable economy which provides prosperity and opportunities for all, and in which environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them (polluter pays), and efficient resource use is incentivised. — Using Sound Science Responsibly Ensuring policy is developed and implemented on the basis of strong scientific evidence, whilst taking into account scientific uncertainty (through the precautionary principle) as well as public attitudes and values. — Promoting Good Governance Actively promoting effective, participative systems of governance in all levels of society—engaging people’s creativity, energy, and diversity. We would also draw attention to DEFRA’s statement that “Any trade-offs [between these principles] should be explicit and transparent”. Living Streets is concerned that the presumption in favour of development, as currently phrased, will work to undermine rather than to promote sustainable development by any credible definition of the term. In particular, we are concerned that this will effectively negate provisions elsewhere in the document for the promotion of sustainable transport, the protection of open spaces and the creation of quality, well-designed places, and will undermine the ability of communities to shape the areas in which they live and work.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? Living Streets would advocate that several of the core principles go further, as detailed in our consultation response. However, the principle that the default answer to development should be “yes” (as well as implying that the default answer is currently “no”, which RTPI ﬁgures have shown to be untrue) further undermines the credibility of the document’s commitment to “sustainable development”. Economically, socially and environmentally sustainable development is a positive outcome that should be the key aspiration for local planning authorities, developers and other stakeholders, rather than a catch-all term for any and all physical development. This point does not relate to any credible “sustainable development principles” and is likely to undermine the other core principles unless radically revised.”

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? The NPPF should strive for closer integration with health and transport policy in particular in order to provide a framework for healthy, well-connected places where active travel is the norm. It should be unafraid to signpost established, key documents such as Manual for Streets and Manual for Streets 2 in order to ensure their prominence without lengthening the document.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based? Some policies are not sufﬁciently evidence-based. A key example is the stipulation that “development should not be prevented or refused on transport grounds unless the residual impacts of development are severe, and the need to encourage increased delivery of homes and sustainable economic development should be taken into account”. This will increase pressure on infrastructure, increase carbon emissions and pollution, worsen the negative social and health-related effects of car use and undermine the ability of local decision-makers to ensure that residents and workers are able to travel sustainably. However, the Government has put forward cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w102 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

only anecdotal evidence that the current system has seen a signiﬁcant number of genuinely sustainable schemes being wrongly refused on transport grounds. The onus is on Government to make proper evidence available, particularly as on the converse side of the argument a large body of robust evidence exists, for example on the impact of congestion and inadequate transport infrastructure on businesses. The Eddington Transport Study (2006) quotes a 2004 British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) survey in which “three quarters of businesses said that transport delays had caused them to incur increased operating costs in the form of penalties for late deliveries, overtime costs, missed meetings affecting contract negotiations and lower productivity”,i as well as lost person-hours. These problems have continued to escalate: the BCC reported in 2008 that over 85% of businesses considered congestion to be a problem that has a material impact on their livelihoods.ii The costs per year, as estimated by businesses, of problems with the UK’s transport infrastructure stood at £17,350 per business on average in 2008iii and had gone up to £19,080iv by the time of a comparable BCC survey in 2010, an increase of 10%. Throughout these surveys, a lack of alternatives to the car has increasingly been reported by businesses as a key reason for congestion. Effectively removing a lack of sustainable access as a factor in refusing a scheme, as the document as drafted seeks to do, will see this problem worsen further. Living Streets would be pleased to engage further with the inquiry process. 9 September 2011

References i British Chambers of Commerce. 2004. Getting Business Moving. Quoted in HM Treasury and Department for Transport, 2006. The Eddington Transport Study, p 92 para 2.77. ii British Chambers of Commerce. 2008. The Congestion Question, p 10. Available at www.britishchambers.org.uk/6798219244790033732/Transport_Survey_2008.pdf iii British Chambers of Commerce. 2008. The Congestion Question, p 22. Available at www.britishchambers.org.uk/6798219244790033732/Transport_Survey_2008.pdf iv British Chambers of Commerce. 2010. Reconnecting Britain: A Business Infrastructure Survey, p 12. Available at www.britishchambers.org.uk/6798219246885060772/BCC%20Infrastructure%20Survey.pdf

Written evidence from the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire, Quality Place Delivery Panel Summary The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire PUSH , Quality Place Delivery Panel, is pleased to be given the opportunity to respond to the committee’s call for evidence Our response focuses on question 2 the definition of sustainable development. In our view the failure of the framework to explicitly include culture in its definition of sustainable development risks making the definition unbalanced and unworkable.

1. Introduction 1.1 The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) is made up of 11 Local Authorities: Hampshire County Council, The Isle of Wight, and the Cities and districts of Portsmouth, Southampton, Eastleigh, East Hampshire, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Test Valley and Winchester. 1.2 Our Councils are working with the business community, through the Solent LEP, and a range of local and national organisations to secure sustainable economic development in our sub-region. From the start PUSH recognised the importance of character or quality of place as a vital component of securing future prosperity and enriching the quality of our communities—building places people wanted to live or work in, to invest in and to visit.. Central to that quality of place is culture, sport and recreation, design and the management of the historic and natural environment. 1.3 In 2008 the Quality Place Delivery Panel was established as a part of PUSH’s governance and delivery structure. The Panel is chaired by Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson (Leader of Portsmouth City Council), and reports directly into the Joint Committee of Council Leaders which steers the work of the Partnership. 1.4 The priorities of the Quality Place Delivery Panel are identiﬁed in their business plan and include: — Promoting the identity of South Hampshire, and building the reputation of the area as an excellent place to live, work, and invest. — Promoting cultural and sporting engagement and participation. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w103

— Supporting the development of the cultural and creative economy. — Promoting tourism and the visitor economy. — Encouraging the highest standards of design in the built environment, and stewardship of the historic and natural environment.

2. Response to the Select Committee Call The PUSH Quality Place Delivery Panel welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Select Committee’s Call for Evidence on the National Planning Policy Framework, NPPF. Our response focuses on question 2 the definition of sustainable development. In our view the failure of the framework to explicitly include culture in its definition of sustainable development risks making the definition unbalanced and unworkable. The NPPF stresses the contribution planning can make to the economy, community wellbeing and the environment. We welcome the acknowledgement in the framework of the contribution that sport, leisure, recreation and open space can make building sustainable communities. Equally, recognition of the importance of the natural environment, the historic environment, and design in the built environment is welcomed. However, it is disappointing that the NPPF however does not make any specific reference to the contribution culture—the arts, theatres, galleries, museums or libraries—make to ensuring that communities thrive. The failure to make explicit mention of culture means that the NPPF’s treatment of the types of provision which are championed by the Department for Culture Media and Sport DCMS is unbalanced. Without explicit mention of culture, there is a risk that, at the local level planners and developers overlook the contribution culture can make to the vibrancy of communities.

Why this matters There is much evidence that cultural provision in its many forms is valued and contributes to vibrant and sustainable communities. The closure of a theatre, library or arts centre will always elicit a strong response from the public. Businesses choose to locate where there are real communities, not soulless estates. Cultural facilities self evidently contribute to the type of vibrant communities the NPPF wishes to encourage. Whilst the slimming down of planning policy is welcome, it is essential that the new Framework draws attention to all the key components which contribute to socially and economically successful places, and that includes cultural provision. Failure to identify the contribution of culture in the NPPF appears illogical given the prominence given to other aspects of community life cited in framework. A community’s cultural facilities such as theatres, libraries and museums rarely generate a direct commercial return, although indirect economic or social returns are significant. However, they occupy valuable sites, and there is a risk that if planners and others are not encouraged to recognise their value, if their plans are “silent” on culture, facilities could succumb to development pressures and be demolished or converted into restaurants, shops, or housing. Further, if the value of cultural facilities is not simply acknowledged in the NPPF, alongside sports and other comparable assets, it is likely that at least some councils will feel they are not in a position to press for new developments to include cultural provision. The lack of cultural provision within these developments may reduce opportunities for social activity, hinder social cohesion and inhibit the growth of a community. Enhanced cultural provision is frequently identified by communities in neighbourhood plans as a reason for supporting development. The failure of the NPPF to identify the ways development can enrich the cultural life of a community may therefore make it harder to sell the benefits of development to existing residents.

3. The Planning Context Planning for culture is, by implication, clearly within the remit of planning as defined in the draft National Planning Policy Framework. For example, the definition of sustainable development in the draft NPPF includes “…the need to create a good quality built environment with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and supports its health and wellbeing” [para 10, bullet 3]. Also, the NPPF states the need to “…plan positively for the provision and integration of community facilities”, referring to local meeting places and public houses [but not cultural facilities such as theatres; para 126, bullet 1]. We believe there is a need to strengthen the guidance by making explicit reference to culture at appropriate points in the text. At present leisure, sport and heritage are explicitly recognised in the draft NPPF. Culture, the arts and theatres are not. The reduction of policy guidance, particularly in relation to PPS4 in the new NPPF is in principle welcomed, but has meant that there is a lack of clarity surrounding culture and the role it has to play in achieving sustainable development. If culture is not recognised local plans we may find ourselves unable to meet communities cultural needs. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w104 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

4. Surgested Textual Changes in the NPPF 4.1 Key changes We would like to see the framework include a deﬁnition of cultural infrastructure which was inclusive of Theatres, Arts Facilities, Community Cinemas, Galleries, Museums, Archives, and Libraries We believe that reference should be also be made to culture where community facilities or infrastructure are referred to in the NPPF. We would like to see the following list of textual changes incorporated into the NPPF: In particular we propose that Para 23, bullet 4 should be amended to read “Local Plans should….. include strategic policies to deliver cultural and community infrastructure”; and Also para 31; bullet 1 should be amended to refer to working with other authorities to “…assess the quality and capacity of cultural and community infrastructure”.

4.2 Other Proposed Textual Changes in the NPPF Para 19, bullet 9; should include reference to “…taking account of and supporting local strategies for cultural provision”, as part of attempts to improve health and well being. Para 23, bullet 2; should read “...retail, leisure, cultural and other commercial development”. Para 30, bullet 1; should read “...retail, leisure and cultural development”. Para 38; cultural provision is an important part of provision for wellbeing, and this could be referred to here. Para 73, bullet 4; reference should be made to clusters of cultural as well as creative industries in this section. Para 73, bullet 6; affordable artists workspace/studios are an example of live/work provision that could be given here. Para 76, bullet 1; this should refer to policies to support the viability, vitality and cultural vigour of town centres. Para 76, bullet 5; this should refer to “...retail, leisure, cultural, commercial and community services …. thereby allocating suitable numbers of sites for cultural uses, including theatres. Para 76, bullet 7; this section should refer “...retail, leisure and cultural proposals” thereby ensuring there is provision for cultural uses. Para 77; this section should refer to “…retail, leisure and cultural uses”. Para78; this section should refer to “…retail, leisure and cultural uses”. Para 79; this section should refer to “…retail, leisure and cultural development”. Para 80; this section should refer to “…the impact of retail, leisure and cultural proposals”. Para 91; this section should refer to “…employment, shopping, leisure, cultural, educational and other activities”. Para 124, bullet 2; this section should refer to delivering “…the right cultural and community facilities… ” etc. Para 126; bullet 1; this section could refer to “cultural facilities” as one of the examples within the brackets. Para 126, bullet 2; this section could include reference to theatres as an example of a facility which should not be lost. Para 126; bullet 4; this section should refer to “…suitable locations which offer a range of cultural and community facilities”. September 2011

Written evidence from Oxford City Council Brief Summary of Key Points — The absence of detail will make the implementation of national policy advice much more difficult and potentially subject to a greater degree of interpretation; such as in the case of the town centre first policy. — Localism is important and will encourage a more active involvement by local people in the plan- making system through the new Neighbourhood Plans and decisions on planning applications. The new NPPF advice should however recognise the important role that Local Plans play in identifying local needs and allocating housing and employment growth and developing local policies that reflect local circumstances. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w105

— The Core principles listed all appear reasonable; the difficulty however will come when these principles need to be tested and implemented in relation to a policy and or particular proposal. — Protection given to the green belt in the NPPF is excessive and damaging to sustainability in its environmental, economic and social dimensions. — The need to approve many new Local Plans and potentially “certify” others as being in conformity with the NPPF could greatly increase the workload of the Planning Inspectorate which is likely to be under increased pressure due to the “Planning Guarantee”. — To require LPAs to review Core Strategies would be likely to delay much needed housing and economic growth. — In the absence of national guidance new Local Plans may develop into larger policy documents incorporating both strategic and local policy advice. — It will be important for clear guidance to be included to set out the “transitional arrangements” and the requirements for existing plans to be in conformity with new national policy advice. Recently adopted Core Strategies should be recognised as being in conformity, since they were prepared in the context of existing national policy advice; which is summarised in the core principles of the new NPPF. — Only 53% of LPAs have published Core Strategies the remainder rely solely on national planning guidance for advice to inform their policy decisions. LPAs and Planning Inspectors rely on this advice to provide clarity on planning issues which may not be clear cut at the local level. — The new LEPs were set up to fill the sub-regional policy vacuum, however these will not be an appropriate vehicle to resolve disagreements where conflicts exist between different authorities. Duty to co-operate assumes agreement can be reached; if not there seems no effective mechanism for resolving conflicts. — There is clear tension between the presumption in favour of development in the NPPF and the importance attached to a Core Strategy/Local Plan. Clarity is required to inform the decision maker.

1. Does the NPPF give sufﬁcient guidance to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others, including investors and developers? No, whilst the proposed new guidance includes many of the key principles already established in national policy advice it lacks the detail necessary to support its implementation. This is one of the few cases where normally the argument is that “the devil is in the detail”, but in this instance “there is no detail”. In order to understand the draft NPPF, still need to refer to previous PPS’s. For example, the sequential and exceptions test for ﬂooding only makes sense if you know the different zones categories of land-use vulnerability.

Policy vacuum With the impending abolition of regional spatial strategies (RSS’s) which provided an important over-arching framework for resolving some of the key issues, not least housing growth requirements, there is now a policy vacuum. The Coalition Government have responded by encouraging the formation of Local Enterprise Partnerships at the sub-regional level, but these will not be an appropriate vehicle to resolve disagreements, in particular where conﬂict exists between different local authorities in a LEP area; moreover, LEPs do not cover the whole country. There is intended to be a “duty to co-operate” between local authorities but this does appear to assume that an agreement can be reached. In some cases there will be differing views that cannot be reconciled, but no advice on what happens next and how these can be resolved at the sub-regional level.

Plan-making system We understand that only 53% of all local authorities in the country have Core Strategies published. It is however still not clear how the “transitional arrangements” will work even for authorities, such as Oxford, that already have adopted Core Strategies; it is to be hoped that these will automatically receive Certificates of Conformity with the new NPPF. There is however no guarantee that this will be the policy approach adopted. What would happen for example if a Local Authority with an adopted Core Strategy applied for a Certificate of Conformity but was then found not to comply? Would it be made a compulsory requirement that all adopted Development Plans need to apply for conformity or left to be voluntary? The procedure needs to be made clear and confirm that any adopted Core Strategies are in compliance, at the very least for a reasonable period of time until the next review, say five years. An alternative approach would be to dispense with the requirement to achieve conformity, and assume that plans conformed, read the NPPF in such a way that it did conform, and then apply the NPPF rather than the Core Strategy/Local Plan only when there was a clear conflict between the two; such a judgement would be made with reference to individual applications and would not require a re-examination of the whole Core Strategy/Local Plan. For Local Planning Authorities with no published Core Strategy, being 47% of the country, these are left having to rely solely on national planning policy guidance for advice to inform their policy decisions. This will make it difficult for Local Planning Authorities or other decision makers such as the Planning Inspectorate in the case of appeals to turn to NPPF guidance to support their decisions; since the lack of detail will make cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w106 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

it increasingly hard to rely on. In this case the default position for the decision maker is that unless “the adverse impacts of allowing development would signiﬁcantly and demonstrably outweigh the beneﬁts” then planning permission should be granted. A further concern is that the Planning Inspectorate will face enormous pressure to examine a vast number of planning documents within a short time-frame, at the same time as delivering a “planning guarantee”. There could well be major resourcing pressures.

New Local Plans In the absence of planning policy detail being provided at national level together with the threat that if a plan is “silent” on an issue there will be a presumption in favour of development; the likelihood is that the preparation of new style Local Plans will need to include much more detail. The Government seem quite keen on reducing the suite of Development Plan documents to largely one Local Plan. The difference being that it will need to include the strategic over-arching spatial strategy together with the level of detail set out in the old style Local Plan.

Green Belt We are concerned that excessive protection is given to the Green Belt in the NPPF, contrary to the suggestions of, for instance, the Barker Review of Land Use Planning. There is in fact strong evidence to support targeted reviews of the Green Belt, allowing tightly-conﬁned urban areas which are major employment locations, such as Oxford, to expand, rather than putting new development in other locations and encouraging further road transport to employment locations.

Town centre first policy It is important to retain the principle of the town centre first policy, which is welcomed. However its implementation and effectiveness over recent years has relied on the necessary tests, such as the sequential test and impact test to achieve the objective of promoting the vitality and viability of town centres. It is therefore to be hoped that some additional explanatory information will be provided which can briefly summarise the approach that should be followed. We suggest at the very least there are references made to further advice on the methodology that is already available in supplementary best practice. In the absence of this information it is difficult to see how the principle of promoting a town centre first policy can be successfully implemented and the necessary economic investment and regeneration of town centres can be encouraged.

2. Does the NPPF give local communities sufﬁcient power over planning decisions? The importance of Localism is recognised and will encourage a more active involvement by local people in the plan-making system through the new Neighbourhood Plans and decisions on planning applications. However in cases where there is no Core Strategy or the plan is “silent” on a particular issue a proposed development will only need to meet the limited criteria for “sustainable development” set out in the NPPF to be acceptable. It is likely therefore that Local Planning Authorities will be under considerable pressure to refuse proposals. Local peoples’ expectations will be raised and in cases where there is strong opposition to a proposal elected members will be lobbied to refuse particular schemes, whilst conversely there will be strong pressure from developers to approve new development that meets NPPF broad advice on “sustainable development.” At appeal however the Planning Inspectorate will have little guidance or advice at national policy level to inform its decision.

Sustainable development The present planning system promotes both sustainable development and a “spatial” approach to planning which recognises its role in bringing together environmental, social and economic issues. The requirements of a Sustainability Appraisal in assessing the preparation of Planning Documents make this an essential and integral part of the process. The new national advice needs to reinforce and articulate this fundamental role with clear guidance for the decision maker.

“Presumption in favour of development” versus a “plan-led approach” There is a clear tension between the presumption in favour of development being put forward in the new guidance and the importance attached to a Core Strategy/Local Plan. The Core Strategy is prepared and adopted by a Local Planning Authority to reﬂect and plan for the needs of local people, both residents and the business community. It therefore needs to be made clear that an up-to-date Local Plan that recently adopted should be assumed to be compliant with the NPPF unless there is a clear and obvious contradiction. It would be extremely dangerous for a “presumption in favour of sustainable development” to render all adopted Local Plans obsolete: then the planning system as we know it being a “plan-led system” would carry little weight in practise if decisions are made purely in relation to national guidance. It is therefore important for the advice to explain how the “transitional arrangements”, conformity procedure and sequential approach to decision making should be made. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w107

Evidence base In the event of planning permissions being refused this can only be undertaken on the basis of clear evidence being produced by the Local Planning Authority and local objectors to support their case. Whilst in practise this does not differ signiﬁcantly from the present position it does mean that local people believing that a particular scheme does not properly comply with for example a Neighbourhood Plan proposal will need to ensure that there is a sufﬁcient amount of evidence to support their plan. In some cases this could be an onerous requirement.

Viability issue This viability issue appears to be solely linked to an economic justification to show a scheme is unviable. The burden of proof should rest with the developer to make a case and for it to be tested by the LPA; whereas the new advice appears to be suggesting that by merely stating that a scheme could be made unviable is sufficient to warrant its approval without providing supporting evidence. The issue of viability does need to be seen in its wider perspective involving environmental and social issues as well as economic. In a similar way to which the Government and the Treasury appraise major projects through the “Green Book” approach, which properly assesses schemes looking at the costs and benefits of including aspects relating to environmental, social and economic matters. It has to be clear that until a scheme is sustainable, encompassing social and environmental as well as economic dimensions, it will be refused—it should not be acceptable to approve schemes which are not “sustainable” on grounds that to make them “sustainable” would, at the same time, render them unviable.

3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? It is unfortunate that there is no real mention of the economic, social and environmental benefits that “regeneration” can bring to an area. Surely national policy should say something about this important aspect that should be supported at national level and then left to the Local Plan to highlight where best this should take place to bring the greatest benefits. Regeneration and spatial planning do play a key role in balancing the housing and economic growth of a city; and identifying where future growth should be promoted. These aspects can be particularly significant in helping to focus future investment and drive forward economic prosperity. One particular concern to many local authorities is on housing numbers. It is clear that sites need to be identified to meet need + 20%; however, no methodology is set out to calculate this, so local authorities will be “in the dark”, and there is a risk of local authorities opposed to development seeking to choose whatever methodology will give the lowest number of homes, while still meeting with the approval of PINs. There is therefore a strong case for setting out a common methodology to assess housing need. Whilst the core planning principles listed all appear reasonable. The difficulty however will come when these principles need to be tested and implemented in relation to a particular scheme. For example, the first principle states that “planning should be genuinely plan-led”, which is supported; however in the absence of details explaining the “transition arrangements, conformity requirements and weight to be attached to adopted Core Strategy policies as opposed to NPPF approach it will be difficult for decision makers to be clear which should take precedence. If the default answer to new development is yes and reliance is placed on new national guidance and a proposal complies with NPPF advice it is hard to see how the planning system will still be genuinely plan-led. The adopted Core Strategies or Local Plans should be assumed to be compliant with the NPPF unless there is clear evidence that they are not, since these reflect the economic, social and environmental priorities of the local area; and will allow “Localism” to be expressed.

4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? The guidance would beneﬁt from further explanation of the over-arching nature of planning and how it should continue to play a “spatial” role; in terms of bringing together a range of social, economic and environmental issues. We believe a good example of different government departments needing to work together towards a single goal would be in seeking to encourage the regeneration of an area. In Oxford an analogy would be the work of the Physical and Economic Regeneration Board in working towards a range of projects that will seek to “break the cycle of deprivation”.

5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? To a degree this matter has already been discussed earlier in answer to the ﬁrst question, where points were raised on the creation of a spatial “planning vacuum.” The formation of regional spatial planning was largely to allow the opportunity to look at the needs of the region as a whole and independently determine which areas were best able to absorb future housing and employment growth; and resolve spatial issues of contention. There will now be serious problems if a consensus cannot be reached, as there will be no effective mechanism for resolving them. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w108 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based? The policies themselves are reasonably based on existing evidence. The incorporation of these principles supported by local evidence will take time for local authorities to integrate them into their local plans and to inform planning decisions.

7. Transition This is an important element of the new process, but has already been discussed in detail earlier in this note. September 2011

Written evidence from the Residential Landlords Association Summary (1) Our concerns relate to general principles and housing. (2) The RLA is extremely supportive of the draft Framework although improvements could be made to drafting. (3) In particular, more work needs to be done to ensure that local plans become a delivery vehicle to make sure that the principles set out in the Framework are carried into effect. (4) A cultural change is needed. (5) The planning system at present is not fit for purpose and is affected by a number of problems. (6) The planning system has failed to meet housing need and demand. (7) Because of the housing crisis we must have an increased supply of housing overall and lack of supply and increasing rent levels are not in anyone’s interest. (8) We need to look at the purpose of the planning system. (9) The planning system is often driven by nimbyism. (10) The Framework needs to settle the argument under which the National Policies as set out in the Framework trump localism. There is a national imperative for growth. (11) When we talk of the community what do we mean anyway? (12) Generally, we are content with the length of the proposed guidance and agree to the idea of shortening National Planning Policies. Further terms may need to be defined. (13) Changes need to be made to clarify the role of local planners so that they deliver what is required under the National Planning Framework. (14) There needs to be a different attitude towards decision making. (15) Critics of the Plan are wrong and the Government should hold firm in its proposals. (16) We agree to the proposal for the presumption in favour of sustainable development although feel that there needs to be some more explanation as to what exactly is involved in this concept. (17) Core Planning Principles need to be adjusted so that precedence is given to brown field sites but there is a recognition of the need to use green field sites (outside the Green Belt). (18) Accommodation for all sectors of the community should be treated on the following footing. Families should not be favoured and the needs of young single people need to be addressed just as much. (19) We are concerned about the hostility towards developments comprising housing in multiple occupation. The planning system should not be used as a vehicle for social engineering to decide who can live where. (20) It should not be the requirement for the owner/occupied or private rented sector to subsidise the social sector to provide affordable housing. (21) Existing planning statements should be cancelled. (22) We do not believe that the duty to co-operate suffices for cross border issues. (23) We believe that the case for change as proposed by the Government is amply made out. (24) Therefore, the RLA is pleased to support the whole thrust of the proposed Framework but with suggestions for some changes to strengthen what is currently intended.

About the Residential Landlords Association (RLA) 1. The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) is one of the two direct membership national landlords associations operating in England and Wales. We have some 10,000 subscribers representing a membership of around 15,000. Our members own or control over 150000 units of accommodation. Primarily our members are landlords in their own right but a number are managing and letting agents, some of whom are also landlords. Our members operate in all sub-sectors of the Private Rented Sector (PRS). Properties are rented out to families, working people, young professionals, the elderly, students and beneﬁt customers, including single people. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w109

Scope of the RLA Evidence 2. As a representative body for landlords in the PRS our primary focus is on the general approach to and principles which would underpin the proposed Framework and the housing related issues. One of our particular concerns in the Housing context is the issue of houses in multiple occupation and the need to ensure that single people are adequately catered for.

General Overview 3. Generally, the Association is extremely supportive of the draft Framework as it stands. We do, however, believe that the drafting of the Framework needs to further strengthened to ensure that local and neighbourhood plans are in conformity with national policies as adopted in the Framework and that neither these plans nor local decision making is able to frustrate proper implementation of national policies as currently set out in the draft. We consider that there needs to be a complete change of culture as to the approach to planning decisions throughout the planning system.

The State of the Planning System 4. In our view, the planning system is not fit for purpose; it needlessly frustrates necessary development; it shackles economic growth at a time when we face a massive financial crisis; it fails to meet the housing needs and demands of the nation, particularly as the population is expanding; it is afflicted by rampant nimbyism; it is obsessed with detail; it second guesses and tries to control designers; there is byzantine complexity in terms of a plethora of legislation and planning policies; there is in practice a presumption that development is usually a bad thing; it is infected by local politics; there needs to be a sea change in the culture of planning officials; it is costly; and it is over bureaucratic and slow. 5. Furthermore, it has abjectly failed because it has both failed to meet housing need and demand and even when it has permitted development it has allowed housing developments of the wrong kind, eg too many apartments prior to the Credit Crunch and the dreadful concrete monstrosities of the 60s (often built by local planning authorities themselves) a number of which have since had to be either demolished or refurbished at huge expense. Demand for high densities has skewed the type of housing which has been built over the last decade.

The Need for Housing Development 6. We have a looming housing crisis on our hands. The RLA believe that this message has now been heard. We have an increasing population particularly due to immigration from the EU (as recent net migration figures again demonstrate). We have smaller and smaller household sizes with more single people needing accommodation thus fuelling the demand for more units. The supply of affordable housing at public expense is radically reduced because of the current financial crisis. Owner/occupation is falling back particularly due to lack of mortgage funding and significantly due to lack of confidence. The PRS is having to step into the breach. Increasingly, local authorities are looking to the PRS to house those who would in the past live in the social sector. Those who cannot afford to buy, or who choose not to buy as a lifestyle choice, need provision in the PRS. 7. What we currently have, however, is jostling between the different sectors with existing accommodation moving between one and the other. What we need is a significant ongoing increase in the overall housing supply. This is absolutely vital. We need the right accommodation in the right places and it needs to be such that it is affordable by all income groups. All types of occupants need to be accommodated equally whether they are families, single people or the young, students and so on. They need and deserve a decent home. 8. One might expect a landlords organisation to support a situation where we have rising rents and increasing house prices. You would be wrong because this is clearly not in the national interest and is unsustainable for everyone in the long run. The ever increasing prices particularly in the South East and London as well as increasing rent levels help no one and promote discord. They are symptomatic of the shortage of supply. We approach the draft Framework from this perspective. The current situation importantly adversely impacts on labour mobility.

The Function of Planning 9. Perhaps fundamental questions needs to be asked about the planning system. At the moment it seems to be an opportunity for the articulate middle classes to block necessary development and growth by shouting the loudest. With low turnouts at local elections they are perceived to be the people who inﬂuence local politicians who, ultimately, play a huge part in the current system. They are looking to the next local elections and not the long term national interest. 10. We also have a major disconnect in the public mind. The nimbies themselves live in houses which stand on former green ﬁelds which used to be someone else’s view. They are frequently motivated by is a desire to preserve their own property values and their own way of life and the rest can “go hang”. We appreciate that these are strong sentiments but the Framework must make it abundantly clear, and ensure, that the national cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w110 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

imperative in terms of economic growth is met and to ensure that the whole population has decent and sufficient housing which they can afford to buy or rent. These two factors must trump other considerations. 11. It also needs to be recognised that architecture and design and often matters of taste and what may be disapproved of at the time is seen by history to be a triumph. No doubt officiandos of the baroque were horrified by the clean simpler lines of Georgian architecture. Fussy Victorian architecture and the Gothic Revival superseded the Georgian style. Then the Victorian went out of fashion but is now much admired eg St. Pancras Station and Hotel. Even some of the 1960s architecture is now admired! However, admittedly not all. Thus, there is a great danger of the planning system not only being used to try to thwart development altogether but also to inhibit particular developments which may not appeal to current taste but which history may subsequently embrace. Prior to 1947 in this country we manage to achieve a huge world class built heritage. This has emerged prior to the planning system ever being brought into being. Nowadays you achieve success despite the planning system; not because of it.

National Policies-v-Localism 12. In its terms of reference the Committee ask the question whether there is sufficient guidance for those involved “while at the same time giving local communities sufficient power over planning decisions”. Our reading of the draft is that the intention is that these decisions have to be in line with the Framework. We strongly believe that this issue has to be resolved in favour of a national imperative for growth in particular to deal with the issue and housing supply to which we have already referred. The PRS needs new accommodation to meet growing demand and this should not be at the expense of other sectors so there must be an overall increase in provision. The reality is that this is incompatible with the Government’s localism agenda which is fast falling apart, in our view. 13. Power over local decisions for many means the right to stop much needed development, particularly new housing. We regularly encounter ingenious attempts like the latest appearance of Great Crested Newts or bats on sites, or applications for town or village green status. Alongside these there is outright objection to the various supposed planning grounds put forward. A careful reading of the draft does seem to clearly infer that the national imperative has to be carried forward in local or neighbourhood plans but, in our view, this needs to be made more explicit. We return to the conformity issue below. 14. One concern in all of this in any case is what is meant by “community”. We have made the point elsewhere about strong opposition from those who could be termed nimbies. Are they necessarily “the community”. We believe not. Local politicians must take a much broader and mature view uninfluenced by short term considerations

Format of the Guidance 15. The length is about right. The approach to significantly shorten the Framework is very welcome. We very much hope that the existing planning policy statements which are supplanted will be cancelled. There may, however, be scope, as in Wales for the publication subsequently of clarification notes. One issue we are concerned about is that certain important expressions used in the document are not necessarily defined or sufficiently defined. The glossary of terms should be expanded to contain appropriate definitions including in relation to the concept of sustainable development, to which we return later. In the housing field issues definitions such as mixed developments in our view need additional clarification. We have a particular issue over the concept of “a balanced community” which appears commonplace which we look at later in houses in multiple occupation.

Conformity of Local and Neighbourhood Plans with the Framework 16. As indicated above, in our view, this is a key issue for reasons which we have already explained. We believe that paragraph 20 in particular should make it clearer that, as with the Framework itself, the purpose of local (and neighbourhood) plans is to deliver sustainable development, i.e. their purpose should be as a delivery vehicle. We are concerned with the ﬁrst sentence of paragraph 20 in particular which refers simply to “achieve the objective of sustainable development”. Actual delivery on the ground is the key. Likewise, the emphasis on delivery needs to be set out in paragraph 8 to ensure that the objective growth is achieved and likewise in paragraph 24. Furthermore, in paragraph 48 it should refer to local plans having to achieve delivery; otherwise it would not be sound. Likewise, in respect of neighbourhood plans. Hopefully these matters would be dealt with on the Examination of the plan but if it should be found subsequently for any other reason that an adopted local and neighbourhood plan did not comply with the Framework then there should be a requirement to deal with an application in accordance with the Framework as opposed to the development plan. It is vital that local and neighbourhood plans cannot be used to inhibit development. Where there is a conﬂict the Framework should take precedence unless there is good reason to the contrary.

Decision Making 17. Our concern, additionally, is that in future there needs to be a change of attitude throughout the planning system so that matters are examined properly according to their merits in order to achieve growth without being interfered with because of local politics. Our members have considerable experience because of frequent cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w111

local hostility to accommodation of houses in multiple occupation where due to local prejudice local politicians refuse such applications, irrespective of the terms of existing development plans. This is why we highlight the need for a culture change.

Opposition to the Draft Framework 18. Very considerable opposition has been voiced to the proposed Framework by bodies such as the National Trust. In our view the Government must hold ﬁrm. We are on the brink of a further economic disaster. The long term trend is the rise of the East. The West is in decline. We have to reinvigorate our economy. We have to provide the housing to meet the needs of the population in particular. We have to make sure that this housing is linked to new employment opportunities. To put the opposition’s case into context it is important to stress that depending on statistics and which area you look at overall no more than around 10% of the land space is urbanised even though this country is one of the most densely populated in the world. Take a trip on a train from Newcastle to Kings Cross and see how rural the journey is. Likewise, go to East Anglia. We are in grave danger if we listen to the arguments of those opposed to the proposed Framework of having marginally improved views but in a much poorer country. Those who want their views will not then have the public services available to them to support them when they need them particularly in an aging population. This is a major challenge and we support the Government’s attempts to deal with it.

Sustainable Development 19. We welcome the presumption in favour of sustainable development in principle, but do have concerns as to whether the concept of sustainability is always understood. This is one of our points about deﬁnitions. There is an attempt to deﬁne it in general terms in paragraph 9. However, in a report in the Daily Telegraph on 2 September the Planning Minister, Greg Clark, is reported as saying “The presumption in favour of sustainable development means very simply that in writing their plans Councils should ensure that proposals that don’t present problems should be approved promptly”. It is a little worrying that the Minister is having to put this kind of gloss on the expression. This perhaps supports our view that it is not widely understood or necessarily quite as clearly expressed. We therefore feel that either in the glossary or paragraph 9 there is an expansion of the Government’s views on exactly what this means. Paragraph 10 does provide some help.

Core Planning Principles 20. It may be helpful if an additional core planning principle were introduced in paragraph 9 to say that where practicable preference should be given to redeveloping brown field sites as opposed to green field sites. We are concerned, in particular, regarding the fourth bullet point in paragraph 9 which does suggest stepping away from the generally accepted principle that if a site is already developed then, there is effectively a presumption in favour of it being redeveloped. We are therefore concerned about the wording of this bullet point. Likewise, a new core planning principle should be introduced in our view which recognises the need, subject to appropriate safeguards, have to look to develop green field sites in appropriate locations (outside the green belt normally) to meet the demand for housing where there is insufficient appropriate brown field land available.

HMOs/Single/Family Accommodation 21. Moving on to speciﬁc housing issues, one of our concerns is the favouritism which has hitherto been expressed in the planning system in relation to families. They must of course be properly catered for but so equally must single people. The needs and demands of all sectors of the community have to be looked at. This is particularly important at a time when households are becoming smaller and more people are living on their own, especially the elderly. Housing market assessments do contain a requirement already to look at all the needs and this needs to be incorporated into the Framework rather than simply a bias to families.

Houses in Multiple Occupation 22. We are particularly concerned about the hostility against developments of houses in multiple occupation exemplified by the introduction of Class C4 of the Use Classes Order (small houses in multiple occupation). This leads on to the so called issue of mixed or balanced communities, expressions which are mentioned in the draft. They are not defined and they should be in our view, if necessary. 23. What we are particularly concerned about is any suggestion that the planning system should be used as a vehicle for social engineering. We have a clear contradiction in terms. A significant number of local planning authorities (at least 30 and mainly in the major built up areas) are setting planning policies even at street level stipulating that no more than 10, 15 or 20% of the properties must be occupied by single people in houses in multiple occupation. It is our strong view that this is not a function of the planning system. Surely, therefore, to achieve this so called but imaginary concept of a balanced community we should also be stipulating that in the leafy suburbs of our towns and cities at least 20% of their residents should be young single people to achieve this supposed balance. There is no attempt so far other than by anti HMO lobbies to define what is a balanced community. This particular expression should not, in our view, be incorporated in the Framework, at all. The planning system is about land use and not in our view people who actually use the land. Whilst cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w112 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

restrictions may be justiﬁable in certain speciﬁc situations eg agricultural occupancy conditions, there should not be this blanket use of the planning system to determine who may live where. This is an example where the planning system tries to look at matters in too much detail.

Affordable Housing 24. Again, this may not be within the remit of this enquiry, but we do wish to place on record our concern that the owner/occupier sector or the PRS should be required to underwrite affordable housing. Placing an obligation on developers to provide affordable housing is a “stealth tax”. It is reﬂected in the prices which are in turn paid by young people in particular struggling to get on the housing ladder. This backdoor subsidy is, in our view, wrong in principle and should cease.

Inter-relationship between the Framework and Other National Statements of Planning Related Policy 25. Our understanding, although it is suggested otherwise elsewhere, is that the existing planning policy statements should by and large be cancelled. As already indicated should certainly be the case in the interests of simpliﬁcation. We do consider that the Framework does sufﬁciently integrate national planning policy subject to our reservations about the linkage between the Framework itself and development plans.

Duty to Co-operate 26. In earlier evidence to this Committee in relation to the abolition of regional spatial strategies we have expressed very considerable reservations about their abolition. We supported the continuation of some form of “targeted” approach as a vital vehicle to ensure delivery of sufﬁcient housing provision. If the Framework is implemented as drafted (and hopefully strengthened) it should go a considerable way, hopefully, towards bringing this about, provided the Planning Inspectorate nationally act in such a way as to ensure that this happens (using costs awards as a sanction if need be). Nevertheless, we still have serious reservations as to whether a more nebulous duty to co-operate is sufﬁcient for these purposes. One cannot look at many developments, including larger scale housing developments in isolation. Furthermore, one often has to approach housing on a wider basis than a single local authority, with people prepared to commute longer distances to work

Evidence Base 27. In our view the policies set out are sufﬁciently evidence based. The grave problems that we currently face cry out for a solution. The defects in the planning system as it stands to which we have already referred are clear and long standing. They get worse all the time. Firm action is needed through the new Framework to alter the whole approach to the planning system in the overriding national interest.

Car Parking 28. Excessive requirements for car parking provision can stop otherwise desirable development. One recent example is a requirement by a local planning authority where a large property was to be split into two semis. Six spaces are needed even though there is ample unrestricted street parking available. As a result on extra dwelling is lost.

Conclusion 29. The RLA is pleased to support the whole thrust of the proposed Framework and although we have some detailed suggestions for improvements and criticisms we do believe that it is a key element in restoring the economic fortunes of the country without losing control over our environment, contrary to what opponents are saying. September 2011

Written evidence from Rochford District Council Rochford District Council is concerned with how sustainable development is defined within the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the reasons set out below. The definition of sustainable development within the draft NPPF appears to deviate from the long accepted definition set out in the Report of the Brundtland Commission published in 1987. Whilst accepting that the term is somewhat vague and open to interpretation, the Brundtland definition that sustainable development is concerned with meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, is generally accepted as reflecting an appropriate balance between environment, social and economic factors. However, the definition within the NPPF appears to place greater weight on economic issues, abandoning this balance. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w113

The definition within the NPPF appears to favour additional development ad infinitum—specifically through the incorporation of “increasing housing supply” within the definition. Instead “providing sufficient accommodation to meet the needs of present and future generations” would be a more appropriate definition and would also account for the fact that not all sections of the community’s accommodation needs can be met through housing.

As a coastal District, Rochford is significantly constrained in terms of the environmental sensitivity of the area. Much of the land mass to the east of the District has European designations including Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Ramsar sites, Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation. Amongst other significant designations such as Ancient Woodland and Special Landscape areas, the District is also predominantly Green Belt.

Whilst individual developments may not directly impact on such designations, there is concern over the cumulative effects, including indirect impact from multiple developments within proximity to environmentally sensitive areas.

This deﬁnition of sustainable development, combined with proposed national planning policy which places a presumption in favour of planning applications which meet this deﬁnition, raises concerns for the long-term future impact on Districts such as Rochford, and the cumulative impact of future development that it promotes within areas home, or in close proximity, to environmentally sensitive areas.

Given the above, and the fact that the NPPF clearly states that economic growth should be given signiﬁcant weight when making decisions, this poses a considerable challenge for areas such as Rochford which are heavily constrained by environmental and landscape designations but appreciate the need to balance this against meeting housing need and supporting local economic growth.

The definition as worded within the NPPF means that local authorities will find it very difficult to strike the appropriate balance between economic, social and environmental development to best meet local needs.

The NPPF deﬁnition of sustainable development and the presumption in favour of sustainable development generates a potential contradiction with the Natural Environment White Paper. It does not fully take into account the economic value of the natural environment and the contribution it can make towards sustainable economic growth. Although the NPPF is referred to in the White Paper, stating that it has been “made clear that our top priority for the NPPF will be to support long-term sustainable economic growth, with a new presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF will provide communities with the tools they need to achieve an improved and healthy natural environment as part of sustainable growth, taking account of the objectives set out in this White Paper.” (page 22), it is not considered to take a positive enough approach to environmental considerations to reﬂect the objectives of the White Paper. The White Paper acknowledges that “Economic growth and the natural environment are mutually compatible. Sustainable economic growth relies on services provided by the natural environment, often referred to as ‘ecosystem services’.” (page 4). The Government does, however, recognise the importance of the natural environment and the valuable direct and indirect functions that it can provide (such as food and climate regulation respectively).

The intention is to move towards a green economy where the value of the natural environment is appropriately accounted for, and it is acknowledged that “Too many of the benefits we derive from nature are not properly valued …When nature is undervalued, bad choices can be made.” (page 4). The Government also aspires to make this “the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than it inherited.” (page 3), generally through moving from net biodiversity loss to a net gain and improving the connectivity of habitats. There is concern that the definition of sustainable development within the NPPF will undermine this objective. September 2011

Written evidence from the Sport and Recreation Alliance

1. The Sport and Recreation Alliance is the national alliance of governing and representative bodies of sport and recreation in the UK. Our 320 members represent 150,000 clubs across the country and some eight million regular participants. The Alliance exists to promote the role of sport and recreation in healthy and active lifestyles, to encourage a policy and regulatory environment in which sport from grassroots through to elite level can ﬂourish, and to provide high quality services to help its members continually improve and progress.

2. Our members include the FA, the Rugby Football Union, UK Athletics, the Ramblers, British Rowing, British Gliding Association and the Royal Academy of Dance. From playing ﬁelds to rivers and leisure centres to landing strips, community clubs rely on securing sustainable access to good quality facilities for their activity.

3. This submission will principally focus on the question posed by the Committee which asks: Is the deﬁnition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w114 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

4. This submission will argue that the deﬁnition of “sustainable development” is the right one but that the subsequent policy in relation to delivering open space, sports and recreational facilities does not support the principle it aims to achieve.

Background 5. Current planning policy for open space, sport and recreation facilities is set out in “Planning Policy Guidance 17” (PPG 17).97 It requires local planning authorities to (1) carry out an assessment of needs and opportunities, (2) set local standards, (3) maintain an adequate supply of open space, sports and recreational facilities, (4) plan for new open space, sports and recreational facilities and (5) use planning obligations to remedy local deﬁciencies. 6. Paragraph 10 sets out the conditions for allowing development on sport and recreation facilities: Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space or the buildings and land to be surplus to requirements. For open space, “surplus to requirements” should include consideration of all the functions that open space can perform. Not all open space, sport and recreational land and buildings are of equal merit and some may be available for alternative uses. In the absence of a robust and up-to-date assessment by a local authority, an applicant for planning permission may seek to demonstrate through an independent assessment that the land or buildings are surplus to requirements. Developers will need to consult the local community and demonstrate that their proposals are widely supported by them. Paragraph 15 below applies in respect of any planning applications involving playing ﬁelds. 7. Paragraph 13 sets out how the planning authorities should aim to achieve improvements to the accessibility of sport and recreation facilities: Equally, development may provide the opportunity to exchange the use of one site for another to substitute for any loss of open space, or sports or recreational facility. The new land and facility should be at least as accessible to current and potential new users, and at least equivalent in terms of size, usefulness, attractiveness and quality. Wherever possible, the aim should be to achieve qualitative improvements to open spaces, sports and recreational facilities. Local authorities should use planning obligations or conditions to secure the exchange land, ensure any necessary works are undertaken and that the new facilities are capable of being maintained adequately through management and maintenance agreements. 8. The overall aim of PPG 17 is to ensure that the stock of valued sport and recreation facilities is not diminished and, if necessary, improve the accessibility of sport and recreation facilities where it does not meet the needs of communities.

“Sustainable Development” 9. Paragraph 9 of the draft NPPF states that: The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Sustainable development means the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 10. One of the “needs” identiﬁed in paragraph 10 is that sustainable development should support communities “health and wellbeing”. The Alliance believes this approach is sensible not only from a social perspective but also from an economic one. According to research by the Department of Health the cost of physical inactivity to the nation is estimated at £8.3 billion. This does not include the cost of overweight and obesity, which is estimated at £7 billion.98 By 2050, it is estimated that obesity will cost £49.9 billion if current trends continue.99

Deliver Open Spaces, Sports and Recreational Facilities 11. In relation to the delivery of open space, sports and recreational facilities paragraph 128 retains many of the policy requirements contained in PPG 17 with emphasis meeting the “health and wellbeing” needs of communities. Is states that: Access to good quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. The planning system has a role in helping to create an environment where activities are made easier and public health can be improved. Planning policies should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses 97 Department for Communities and Local Government (2002) Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open space, Sport and Recreation. ODPM. Accessed online at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpolicyguidance17 98 Department of Health (2004) At Least Five a Week: Evidence on the Impact of Physical Activity and its Relationship to Health, A Report from the Chief Medical Officer, London, Department of Health. Accessed online at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/ Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4080994 99 Foresight (2007) Tackling Obesities: Future Choices, London, Government Office for Science. Accessed online at: http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Obesity/obesity_final/17.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w115

of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. The information gained from this assessment of needs and opportunities should be used to set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities. Planning policies should protect and enhance rights of way and access. 12. Paragraph 128 goes on to state the conditions for when to allow sport and recreation facilities to be built on. They should not be built on unless: — an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or — the need for and beneﬁts of the development clearly outweigh the loss. 13. The ﬁrst bullet point supports sustainable development as it is based on the needs of the community. The second bullet goes against the spirit of sustainable development because it will promote the erosion of valued sport and recreation facilities and the reduction of replacement facilities being provided by developers. 14. Current planning policy allows sport and recreation facilities to be built in certain circumstances but also require the substitution of one site for another (see paragraph 7). This approach ensures that the needs of communities are not neglected and the stock of valued facilities is not eroded.

Critical Times for Community Sport 15. Open space, sport and recreation facilities have traditionally been given stronger protection by planning policy to reflect the public benefits they provide. Yet community sport is in a perilous state—a shift away from the protection of local facilities could be fatal. The Sports Clubs Survey 2011 (to be released, 14 September 2011)100 shows how vulnerable community sports clubs are to external pressures. — A quarter of sports clubs use a public space to play their sport (down from a third in 2009); only one in five clubs own a facility. — The average club’s annual surplus has fallen by almost half in three years to £1,091. — Average income is falling, and more than a quarter of clubs are running at a loss. 95% of clubs operate on a not-for-profit basis. — Membership fees account for a third of a typical club’s income, but there is real possibility that the trend in declining adult membership will continue. — Local authority and educational establishments currently provide half of all playing facilities.

Conclusion 16. The draft NPPF aims to promote sustainable development but gets the balance wrong in its aim to deliver open space, sport and recreation facilities to meet the needs of communities. The Alliance asks the committee to recommend looking again at the balance in favour of sustainable development in relation to open space, sport and recreation facilities, to protect clubs who can not compete in pure economic terms with other forms of development. Increased emphasis on protecting and providing valued facilities to enable increased levels of physical activity would allow community clubs a ﬁghting chance of growing their sport. In particular we ask the Committee to recommend that the national planning policy framework states that, if community sports facilities or public space are developed, then an equivalent or better provision is provided elsewhere as part of the development. September 2011

Written evidence submitted by ixia ixia welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s questions regarding the NPPF and would be pleased to provide evidence at any meetings. ixia is England’s public art think tank. We promote and influence the development and implementation of public art policies, strategies and projects by creating and distributing knowledge. We work with arts and non- arts policy makers and delivery organisations within the public and private sectors, curators, artists and the public. ixia is a charity and a regularly funded organisation of Arts Council England (ACE).101 ixia defines public art as the process of artists engaging with the public realm. In practice this includes: artists creating high profile artworks as one-offs or as part of ongoing public art programmes or festivals (for example the Angel of the North102 and Folkestone Triennial);103 the involvement of artists in the design of 100 Downer J & Talbot N (2011). Survey of Sports Clubs 2011, Sportswise (released 14 September 2011). The results presented in the 2011 survey are based upon responses received from 1,942 sports clubs across over 40 different sports. The data has been weighted to deliver a representative sample of the estimated 150,000 clubs that operate in community sport in the UK. Available online at: www.sportandrecreation.org.uk 101 www.ixia-info.com 102 www.gateshead.gov.uk/Leisure%20and%20Culture/attractions/Angel/Home.aspx 103 www.folkestonetriennial.org.uk/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w116 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

new buildings and public spaces (for example at Cabot Circus in Bristol104 and Centenary Square in Birmingham);105 and artists working with community groups and individuals to produce artworks which celebrate and/or investigate local identity and/or local issues (for example in Cumbria via Grizedale Arts and Creative Egremont: A Public Art Strategy for Egremont).106 At present, public art is commissioned by local authorities, the health sector, the education sector, arts organisations, private sector organisations and community groups. They commission public art for a variety of reasons, which range from a belief in the intrinsic value of art to the use of art as a tool for achieving social, economic and environmental aims and objectives. The culture and sport evidence programme (CASE), which is led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), has a database of over 3000 research studies relating to the delivery and impact of the arts within a variety of contexts.107 Central to the provision and funding of public art by many of the commissioners listed above is the relationship between public art and the planning system. During February 2011, ixia submitted a response to the Department of Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) invitation to organisations and individuals to offer suggestions on the priorities and policies which should be included within the NPPF. ixia’s response requested that the NPPF made reference to public art, either independently or as part of a definition of culture, cultural infrastructure and cultural activities.108 ixia is currently preparing its response to DCLG’s Draft National Planning Policy Framework: Consultation.109 In its response ixia will repeat its request from February 2011. ixia’s request is supported by background information regarding the provision and funding of public art via the planning system. In summary, this includes: — The adoption of Advice by Robert Carnwath QC by Local Planning Authorities (LPA). The Advice was given during 1988 and stated that LPA could, via local plans, encourage the provision on new works of art as part of a development and have regard to the contribution made by any such works to the appearance of the development or to the amenities of the area.110 During 2006, ixia found that approximately 61% of LPA made reference to public art in documents relating to the planning system. Furthermore, guidance111 and research on planning obligations commissioned by the last Government,112 in addition to ixia’s own review,113 showed that when a developer and a LPA agreed on the provision of public art, then planning conditions and planning obligations were used to secure its development and delivery on and/or off development sites. Indeed, the last Government’s research identified that public art was the most common planning obligation within major urban centres,114 and its guidance provided advice to LPA on the wording of planning obligations for public art.115 — The promotion of public art as part of place-making by national organisations that advised national, regional and local government, other public sector organisations, and the private sector on art, architecture, urban design and public space. For example, ACE, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (now the Design Council CABE)116, English Partnerships and The Housing Corporation (now the Homes and Communities Agency).117 — The impact of the last Government’s changes to the planning system on the funding and provision of public art in support of the social, economic and environmental development of places (the Sustainable Communities Agenda).118 This led to ixia asking Ian Dove QC to provide new Advice during 2009. The Advice stated that: both permanent and temporary public artworks located on and off development sites are capable of amounting to a material consideration in the planning system; public art can be required by a LPA and, if it is not provided, can be the reason for refusing planning permission for a development; and for the above to happen a LPA must explicitly embed the details of the provision of public art within their development frameworks, supplementary planning documents and specific design briefs.119 104 www.cabotcircus.com/website/ 105 www.birminghamuk.com/centenary.htm 106 www.creative-egremont.org/ 107 www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/research_and_statistics/5698.aspx 108 http://ixia-info.com/files/2009/01/Final-ixia-NPPF-response-24-Feb-2011.pdf 109 www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/draftframeworkconsultation 110 Robert Carnwath QC, In the matter of: Arts Council of Great Britain: Percent for Art. Advice (Arts Council of Great Britain, 1988) 111 The Law Society, Model planning obligation (section 106) agreement (DCLG, 2006), p.17 112 University of Sheffield and the Halcrow Group Limited, Valuing Planning Obligations in England: Final Report (DCLG, 2006), p.49, 50, 51 113 ixia, Public Art and the planning system and process in England. Guidance on a Supplementary Planning Document for Public Art (ixia, 2007) 114 University of Sheffield and the Halcrow Group Limited, Valuing Planning Obligations in England: Final Report p.50 115 The Law Society, Model planning obligation, p.17 116 http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-work/cabe/ 117 http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ 118 Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), Planning Policy Statement 12: creating strong safe and prosperous communities through Local Spatial Planning (DCLG, 2008) 119 Ian Dove QC, Public Art and the Planning System, Advice (No5 Chambers, 2009) cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w117

— DCLG’s publication of The Community Infrastructure Levy: An overview during November 2010 and May 2011. This document stated that the deﬁnition of community infrastructure in The Planning Act 2008 allows the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to be used to fund cultural infrastructure.120

Summary of Responses — ixia does not believe that the NPPF gives sufficient guidance or power regarding planning decisions relating to cultural activities, including public art. This is because these activities are not included in the NPPF. Therefore, ixia’s key concerns are that: planners at all levels, investors, developers, local communities and others will overlook the role of cultural activities, including public art, in supporting sustainable development; and if cultural activities, including public art, are supported at a local level then there is insufficient guidance or power to enable stakeholders to secure provision and funding via the planning system. — ixia believes that the inclusion of cultural activities, including public art, within the definition of sustainable development would make the definition appropriate and would make the presumption in favour of sustainable development balanced and workable. It will provide clarity at national and local levels regarding the status of cultural activities, including public art, within the planning system. This will contribute to achieving a less complex and a more balanced and accessible planning system. — ixia does not consider that the core planning principles are clearly and appropriately expressed and requests that they include references to the role of cultural activities, including public art, in supporting sustainable development. — ixia considers the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy to be mixed in its clarity. The NPPF should reflect the reference to cultural activities included in DCLG’s list of infrastructure types that can be funded by CIL. The NPPF should include the references to cultural facilities contained within Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS 4). The NPPF’s references to design, social interaction, inclusive communities and community engagement should include public art. — The NPPF does not integrate national planning policy across all the activities supported by DCMS and its national arts development agency, ACE. They support a wide range of cultural activities, including public art, which have a role in supporting sustainable development. — ixia does not believe that the NPPF, together with the duty to cooperate, provides a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning relating to cultural activities, including public art. This is because the NPPF does not recognise the role of these activities in supporting sustainable development at any level. DCMS and ACE’s funding of arts organisations and artists is based on an understanding of national, regional, sub-regional and local cultural identity and needs. — ixia does not believe that the policies contained within the NPPF are sufficiently evidence-based. If they were, they would clearly reflect the support given by the Government via DCMS and ACE to cultural activities, including public art, and the role that these activities have in supporting sustainable development.

Full Responses 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 over planning decisions? ixia does not believe that the NPPF gives sufficient guidance or power regarding planning decisions relating to cultural activities, including public art. The NPPF includes the contributions to “planning for prosperity (an economic role)”, “planning for people (a social role)” and “planning for places (an environmental role)” made by the creative industries, vibrant town centres, community activities, tourism, architecture, open space and recreational facilities, the natural environment and the historic environment. But it does not make any specific references to the role that cultural activities, including public art, directly have in supporting economic, social and environmental aims and objectives. Furthermore, the NPPF does not recognise the contribution that cultural activities, including public art, make to the development of the creative industries, vibrant town centres, community activities, tourism and architecture and the use of open space and recreational facilities, the natural environment and the historic environment. Therefore, ixia’s key concerns are that: planners at all levels, investors, developers, local communities and others will overlook the role of cultural activities, including public art, in supporting sustainable development; and if cultural activities, including public art, are supported at a local level then there is insufficient guidance or power to enable stakeholders to secure provision and funding via the planning system. 120 Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), The Community Infrastructure Levy: An overview (DCLG, 2010 and 2011), p.6 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w118 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Is the definition of sustainable development contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? ixia believes that the inclusion of cultural activities, including public art, within the definition of sustainable development would make the definition appropriate and would make the presumption in favour of sustainable development balanced and workable. It will provide clarity at national and local levels regarding the status of cultural activities, including public art, within the planning system. This will contribute to achieving a less complex and a more balanced and accessible planning system.

Are the core planning principles clearly and appropriately expressed? ixia does not consider that the core planning principles are clearly and appropriately expressed and requests that they include references to the role of cultural activities, including public art, in supporting sustainable development.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? ixia considers the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy to be mixed in its clarity: — The omission of references to cultural activities in the NPPF does not reflect the guidance given by DCLG in The Community Infrastructure Levy: An overview during November 2010 and May 2011. DCLG included a reference to cultural activities within the list of infrastructure types that can be funded by CIL. ixia requests that cultural activities, including public art, are included in the NPPF to reflect DCLG’s guidance on CIL. — The NPPF does not contain the references to cultural facilities (theatres, museums, galleries, etc) included in Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4). Therefore, ixia believes that the roles and needs of cultural facilities in supporting sustainable development will be overlooked. ixia requests that the NPPF includes the references to cultural facilities contained within PPS4. — ixia welcomes the references to good design, social interaction, inclusive communities and community engagement within the NPPF, which reflect the content of existing Planning Policy Statements (PPS). However, ixia requests the inclusion of public art as part of good design, social interaction, inclusive communities and community engagement within the NPPF. The NPPF does not integrate national planning policy across all the activities supported by DCMS and its national arts development agency, ACE. They support a wide range of cultural activities, including public art, which have a role in supporting sustainable development.

Does the NPPF, together with the duty to cooperate, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? ixia does not believe that the NPPF, together with the duty to cooperate, provides a sufﬁcient basis for larger- than-local strategic planning relating to cultural activities, including public art. This is because the NPPF does not recognise the role of these activities in supporting sustainable development at any level. DCMS and ACE’s funding of arts organisations and artists is based on an understanding of national, regional, sub-regional and local cultural identity and needs.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? ixia does not believe that the policies contained within the NPPF are sufficiently evidence-based. If they were, they would clearly reflect the support given by the Government via DCMS and ACE to cultural activities, including public art, and the role that these activities have in supporting sustainable development. September 2011

Written evidence from Alan Butland, Theatre Researcher Summary I do not believe that the NPPF gives sufficient guidance or gives local communities sufficient power over planning decisions in matters relating to culture, the arts and theatres. Without national guidance, at a local level, planners may overlook the contribution theatres and the performing arts make to the wellbeing and vibrancy of communities within their local plans. The NPPF is silent on culture. My concern is that Inspectors will not consider the need for specific policies on culture, the arts and theatres in local plans, as they do currently. Theatres are vulnerable facilities and as the presumption will be in favour of those uses that are covered within the NPPF, no matter how valued they are by the local community. Their protection and use will only cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w119

be properly considered and protected if there is guidance on culture within the NPPF, which will give culture the same status as other uses. The definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document needs to be clearer on culture. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is not balanced or workable. The “United Cities and Local Governments” (UCLG) approved in 2010 a policy statement recognising culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development, next to economic growth, social inclusion and environmental balance. At present leisure, sport and heritage are explicitly recognised within the draft NPPF. Culture, the arts and theatres are not. The reduction of policy guidance, particularly in relation to PPS4 in the new NPPF has meant that there is a lack of clarity surrounding culture, the arts and theatres and the role they play in achieving balanced sustainable development. The core planning principles are not clearly and appropriately expressed. Culture is a core planning principle. It keeps the spirit of places alive, is essential to our wellbeing and currently has its own policies distinct from leisure and sport in existing local planning policies and other national and regional plans. Culture must be included in the NPPF. The relationship between the NPPF to other national statements of planning-related policy is not sufficiently clear. PPS4 states that the main uses to which the town centre policies in the PPS apply are for “arts, culture and tourism development (including theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities).” The same strength of this policy is not carried forward into the NPPF. The NPPF does not integrate national planning policy in respect of the Government’s commitment to culture and the arts and the sectors supported by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The DCMS works with the Department of Health on ways that the arts can help improve wellbeing in the UK. Yet culture is not referred to within the NPPF under health and wellbeing. The DCMS works with DCLG on using the arts to regenerate local communities and recognises the important contribution that the arts make to the UK economy but there is no consideration of policies to support culture’s contribution to economic development within the NPPF. The NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate” does not provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning on culture. Theatre buildings not-in-theatre-use are at the greatest risk. I have recently moved to the north of England and am already concerned at the number of theatre buildings, which are facing closure and demolition. Without concise NPPF policies that establish culture’s contribution to sustainable development I fear the loss of theatre buildings in towns which already have little else in the way of cultural facilities. Good strategic spatial planning is vital to national interests. There is a case for inclusion of culture in the NPPF. Planning for culture is indeed of national interest. The NPPF is not sufficiently evidence-based. September 2011

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 over planning decisions? (1) I do not believe that the NPPF gives sufficient guidance or gives local communities sufficient power over planning decisions in matters relating to culture, the arts and theatres. (2) The NPPF stresses the contribution planning can make to the economy, community wellbeing and the environment. But it does not make any specific reference to the contribution that culture, the arts and theatres make to ensuring that communities thrive. (3) The failure to make explicit mention of culture means that the NPPF’s treatment of the types of provision which are championed by the DCMS is unequal. Cultural facilities such as theatres, galleries, libraries, museums and archives have been viewed in the past by the planning system as public services, education facilities and community provision. The prominence and clarity given to sport and the historic environment in the draft NPPF and the failure to explicitly mention and define culture means that in relation to the DCMS sector the definition of sustainable development used in the framework is unbalanced. (4) My major concern, therefore, is that at a local level, planners may overlook the need to consider the contribution theatres and the performing arts make to the vibrancy of communities and local centres within their local plan. An arts facility (for example, one supporting young people in productive cultural activities that deters them from crime) that does not fall easily into existing use classes or a theatre which is not statutory listed, could be demolished to make way for shops, offices and housing, leisure or sports facilities. Campaigners could try to argue a case for the building as an “asset of community value” (which will come in with the new cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w120 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Localism Bill), but this would be a hard argument to make as within the local plan there will be no protection for such facilities. (5) Furthermore, because the NPPF does not deﬁne cultural uses as explicitly promoting sustainable development, other uses that the NPPF does promote will have a far stronger policy basis upon which to argue their case. (6) At an Inspectorate level, as the NPPF is silent on culture. My fear is that Inspectors will not insist on speciﬁc policy for culture, the arts and theatres in local plans. (7) Theatres are vulnerable facilities and as the presumption will be in favour of those uses that are covered within the NPPF, no matter how valued they are by the local community, their protection and use can only be properly considered and protected if there is guidance on culture within the NPPF which will give culture the same status as other uses.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? (8) While the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document is appropriate, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not balanced or workable. Although the definition of sustainable development in the draft NPPF includes, for example “…the need to create a good quality built environment with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and supports its health and wellbeing” [para 10, bullet 3] I believe there is a need to strengthen the guidance by making explicit reference to culture at appropriate points in the text. (9) At present leisure, sport and heritage are explicitly recognised in the draft NPPF. Culture, the arts and theatres are not. The reduction of policy guidance, particularly in relation to PPS4 in the new NPPF has meant that there is a lack of clarity surrounding culture, the arts and theatres, and the role they play in achieving balanced sustainable development. This is particularly the case for theatres which are sui generis. (10) Across the world, local authorities recognise that culture is the fourth pillar of sustainable development, next to economic growth, social inclusion and environmental balance. The “United Cities and Local Governments” (UCLG), which represent over 1,000 cities across 95 countries, and includes the Local Government Group in England, approved in 2010 a policy statement recognising this,

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? (11) The core planning principles are not clearly and appropriately expressed; bullet 9 should include reference to “…taking account of and supporting local strategies for cultural provision”, as part of attempts to improve health and well being. (12) Culture needs to be considered as a core planning principle. Culture keeps the spirit of places alive and is essential to our wellbeing. It enhances and improves the places in which we live and the quality of the lives of communities. The performing arts, in the broadest sense, contribute to people’s happiness and wellbeing. Theatre’s ability to entertain, engage and involve is beyond doubt. Theatres also enable young people to demonstrate their skills and potential, and together with external partners help develop diverse programmes of arts activity that support individuals to develop an understanding of their responsibilities in society and moral compass regardless of background and personal circumstance. (13) Performing arts projects uniquely placed to provide sustainable beneﬁts across society. The need for national policy on planning to include culture is, in my view, essential if we are to achieve sustainable communities and enable them to expand and develop.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? (14) No, the relationship between the NPPF to other national statements of planning-related policy is not sufﬁciently clear. The chapter within the NPPF on “Business and Economic Development” incorporates the current policies within Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4). PPS4 importantly makes a distinction between leisure, and arts and culture. However the NPPF has lost all the references to culture, the arts and theatres. PPS4 contains important policies that help to promote and protect theatres in towns and cities. (15) At paragraph 7.4 (page 3) PPS4 states that the main uses to which the town centre policies in the PPS apply are for “arts, culture and tourism development (including theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities).” More explicitly, Policy EC4.2 (page 10) states: “Local planning authorities should manage the evening and night-time economy in centres.” Policies should: “encourage a diverse range of complementary evening and night-time uses which appeal to a wide range of age and social groups, making provision, where appropriate, for leisure, cultural and tourism activities such as cinemas, theatres, restaurants, public houses, bars, nightclubs and cafes”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w121

(16) In Kingston upon Thames I was involved with promoting Purple Flag. The Rose theatre was at the heart of this project locally. Purple Flag has been designed as an objective assessment that will help improve town and city centres at night. Most signiﬁcantly it is designed to provide recognition that the centre is managing its night time experience and thus help overcome any negative public perceptions that may exist. Purple Flag provides the opportunity for successful centres to present themselves in their true colours and in a positive light to town centre users, including operators, residents, tourists and visitors. It is therefore a core policy for community support and should be further encouraged and promoted. It is through culture that we facilitate social interaction and inclusive communities. (17) The NPPF does not integrate national planning policy in respect of the Government’s commitment to culture and the arts and the sectors supported by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The DCMS works closely with other Government departments and agencies to make sure that there is an appropriate level of support available for the creative industries. As stated in the Arts Council England’s 2011 paper on “Supporting growth in the arts economy”, “…our best arts and cultural infrastructure (the most open theatres, connected media centres and interdisciplinary art spaces) have become the ‘spikes’ and ‘intersections’ for creative exchange, operating at once as places (and digital spaces) of creative business transaction, inspirational cultural experience, education, and cross-sector innovation”. Yet the NPPF provides no policies on culture that match the DCMS’s ambitions. (18) The DCMS works with Department for Communities and Local Government on using the arts to regenerate local communities and recognises the important contribution that the arts make to the UK economy. It identiﬁes issues that limit economic and artistic growth and works with the industry to overcome them. But there is no consideration of policies to support culture’s contribution to economic development within the NPPF.

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

(19) The NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate” does not provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than- local strategic planning on culture. Without any reference to culture, the arts or theatres in the NPPF it is not explicit that the duty-to-cooperate would cover these sectors, particularly where the future of national and regional theatre provision was at stake. Cuts in local government will impact upon their capacity to cooperate with community groups who are seeking assurance that theatre provision with national, regional or local signiﬁcance is included in neighbourhood and local plans. (20) Theatre buildings not-in-theatre-use are at the greatest risk. I have recently moved to the north of England and am already concerned at the number of theatre buildings, which are facing closure and demolition by local authorities that feel unwilling or unable to maintain them. The Palace Theatre in Nelson was demolished in 2009, while North Tyneside Council spent a considerable sum demolishing the Borough Theatre, Wallsend in 2010, and redeveloping it for commercial and residential uses, despite the efforts of local residents to save the building for cultural use. (21) Clear and concise NPPF policies are essential to establish culture’s contribution to sustainable development. Without them I fear the loss of theatre buildings in towns which already have little else in the way of cultural facilities. The Opera House in Workington is the latest example where a local group is campaigning to see the theatre re-opened as an arts facility. The former theatre already has permission for demolition for a commercial development. (22) A strategic approach to good spatial planning is vital to national interests. There is a strong case for inclusion of culture in the NPPF, since planning for culture is in the national interest.

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

(23) The NPPF is NOT sufﬁciently evidence-based. It omits, and needs to clearly reﬂect, existing government policy supporting and promoting culture and the arts, as well as business development, the environment and community infrastructure.

Written evidence from Banbury Civic Society

Summary — The Banbury Civic Society is not averse to the NPPF in principle. Having a succinct, overarching national planning policy makes good sense and would bring England into line with Wales and Scotland. — In Wales and Scotland the overarching planning policy document is supported by Circulars (which interpret Statute) and Technical Advice Notes (TANs—Wales) or Planning Advice Notes (PANs— Scotland), which provide more detailed guidance on the application of planning policy and statute law. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w122 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— Our concern is that the NPPF attempts to combine overarching planning policy and the interpretation of statute in a single short document. With the rhetoric of the “presumption in favour of development” contained in the NPPF, this sends out unclear signals at least, which will result in uncertainty and chaotic decision-making. The uncertainty and will undoubtedly result in damage to statutorily protected heritage assets and a series of challenges through the courts. — There has been a long-standing consensus that “The purpose of the planning system is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest”. The NPPF and recent exhortations of the SoS and others has been to redefine the purpose of the planning system to be the de-regulation the development and use of land in the economic interest. — Does planning deter development? A system that approves 87% of applications, generally within 8 weeks of registration, can hardly be described as a major deterrent to development. — Will de-regulation result in an increase in housing supply? With 1,300,000 homes or potential homes being available immediately and thousands more in the pipeline, the planning system cannot be held responsible for the shortfall in housing supply. Private sector house builders rely on a rising market and will never build out to the point where house prices fall. When house prices fall, they simply stop building, as the present situation so painfully reveals. — Will de-regulation produce sustainable economic growth? As Spain and the Republic of Ireland show, development as an economic driver relies on speculation and easy finance. The idea that development can lead to a sustainable, construction-led recovery is clearly deeply and fundamentally flawed. — The NPPF does not reflect the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy. It rewrites more than two decades of intense discussion and redefines the very meaning of sustainable development in terms that misconstrue the term as equivalent to “sustainable economic growth”. — The NPPF requires Local Plans and Core Strategies to be based on an assumption that development should be permitted wherever possible and that “significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth”. — The NPPF leaves an unlawful policy vacuum with regard to the historic environment. It is said that policy on the determination of applications affecting Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (as well as undesignated heritage assets) should be determined locally. This flies in the face of the Government’s duty to uphold the protection of heritage assets protected under statute. Locally our Draft Core Strategy has not one single policy on the historic environment. The adoption of both the NPPF and Draft Core Strategy will leave an almost complete historic environment policy vacuum.

The Concept of a National Planning Policy Framework

The Banbury Civic Society is not averse to the NPPF in principle. The Welsh have their overarching “Planning Policy Wales”, the Scots have “Planning Policy Scotland”. Having a succinct, overarching national planning policy for England, which may be amended as times and economic circumstances change, makes good sense and would bring England into line with Wales and Scotland.

The difference is that in Wales and Scotland the overarching planning policy document is supported by: — a series of Government Circulars (which interpret Statute), and — Technical Advice Notes (TANs—Wales) or Planning Advice Notes (PANs—Scotland), which provide more detailed guidance on the application of planning policy and statute law.

All of these Circulars and PANs/TANs are published and “owned” by the Scottish or Welsh governments, giving all the suite of documents signiﬁcant weight as highly material consideration in the determination of planning applications, appeals and enforcement actions.

Our concern is that the NPPF attempts to combine overarching planning policy and the interpretation of statute in a single short document. We understand that (eventually) the NPPF will be supported by a series of “good practice guides”, to be “owned” not by the Government (as in Wales or Scotland), but by other interested non-governmental bodies. For example, the “good practice guide” that will provide guidance on development and the historic environment (including statutorily-protected Listed buildings and Conservation Areas) will be drafted and “owned” by “The Heritage Alliance”, a body which very few people outside of the heritage community have ever heard of. With the rhetoric of the “presumption in favour of development” contained in the NPPF, the fear is that a historic environment “good practice” guidance produced by an unknown non- governmental body will be seen as nothing more than its name implies—guidance on good practice (ie nice, but not essential or particularly material), rather than what it should be seen as, viz. legal interpretation of the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act and the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act and guidance on how these statutory instruments should inﬂuence planning policy and decision- making. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w123

The replacement of Circular 8/1987 (“Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas—Policy and Procedures”) by PPG15 (“Planning and The Historic Environment”) (a Planning Policy Guidance Note) clouded matters, as did the subsequent introduction of the replacement PPS5 (“Planning for the Historic Environment”). Replacing a Circular with “Planning Policy Guidance” had be a dodgy step as it clouded the distinction between “guidance” and the interpretation of Statute, but at least PPG 15 and PPS 5 were substantial, detailed documents, published by a government department. The prospect of combining PPS5 and Circular 01/2001 in a “good practice guide” “owned” by a non-Governmental body (the Heritage Alliance) has to be a very grave mistake that must send out unclear signals at least, which will result in uncertainty and chaotic decision- making. The uncertainty and will undoubtedly result in damage to statutorily protected heritage assets and a series of challenges through the courts.

The Presumption in Favour of “Sustainable Development” There has been a long-standing consensus that “The purpose of the planning system is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest”. The NPPF and recent exhortations of the SoS and others has been to redefine the purpose of the planning system to be the de-regulation the development and use of land in the economic interest. Following the recent directive issued by the Secretary of State, this change of orientation is already deemed to be “a material consideration” in all new planning applications, enforcement actions and and appeals, despite it never having been a manifesto commitment of either Coalition partner and despite the consultation on the NPPF still being ongoing. This change in the understanding of the purpose of the planning system is based on the premises that: (1) Planning deters development; (2) De-regulation will end the housing crisis and lower house-prices; and (3) Development inevitably produces sustainable economic growth. To take these in turn: (1) Does planning deter development? The purpose of planning is to deter the wrong sort of development in the wrong place. This it does relatively well. Otherwise, 80% of planning applications are approved, normally inside of eight weeks. Of the remaining 20%, another 30% is approved on appeal. As system that approves 87% of applications, generally within 8 weeks of registration, can hardly be described as a major deterrent to development. (2) Will de-regulation result in an increase in housing supply? In the UK there are 700,000 empty homes. A further 300,000 homes are consented, but have not been built. Sites are already allocated in adopted Local Plans and LDF Core Strategies for a further 300,000 homes, whilst sites for hundreds of thousand more will be allocated as local planning authorities complete their LDF Core Strategies. With 1,300,000 homes or potential homes being available immediately and thousands more in the pipeline, the planning system cannot be held responsible for the shortfall in housing supply. Building more houses when 700,000 houses stand empty cannot be remotely sustainable. As the consented-but- not-commenced houses show, the reasons for the current shortfall in new starts is entirely due to economic factors: developers cannot borrow construction capital in a falling market, the buy-to-let bubble has burst and potential landlords and first-time buyers cannot raise mortgages. Houses are simply not being built because private-sector demand is at an unprecedented all time low. It is of course absurd to believe that more planning consents will make houses more affordable. Private sector house builders rely on a rising market and will never build out to the point where house prices fall. When house prices fall, they simply stop building, as the present situation so painfully reveals. (3) Will de-regulation produce sustainable economic growth? There is absolutely no evidence that development produces sustainable economic growth. In a market economy development is instead a by-product a economic growth. Spain and the Republic of Ireland have both been through periods of unfettered house-building and built development that have had short-term benefits in terms of employment. The resultant “development bubble” has left the towns and countryside of both countries irredeemably ruined physically and left both countries economically ruined, to the point where they may still force the rest of us into a very serious double-dip recession. As development as an economic driver relies on speculation and easy finance, the idea that development can lead to a sustainable, construction-led recovery is clearly deeply and fundamentally flawed.

Sustainability The principles of sustainable development have been a focus of international discussion for 25 years and the concept was introduced into national planning policy in 1992, shortly after the Rio Earth Summit. Planning has been dealing with sustainable development for nearly 20 years. The principles agreed in DEFRA’s Securing the future—delivering UK sustainable development strategy (2005) were widely praised among a wide variety of stakeholders: — Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society. — Achieving a sustainable economy. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w124 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— Promoting good governance. — Using sound science responsibly. — Living within environmental limits. Critically, sustainable development is about ensuring these principles are integrated and achieved together. The Government has indicated it supports the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy but this is not reflected in the NPPF. This rewrites more than two decades of intense discussion and redefines the very meaning of sustainable development in terms that misconstrue the term as equivalent to “sustainable economic growth”. The overall effect is to introduce what is in effect a double presumption in favour of development. There is already a legal presumption in favour of planning applications being determined “in accordance with” the development plan (which Ministers have described in terms of the plan being “sovereign”). This is very welcome but only insofar as development plans are themselves prepared in an unbiased way. Instead, the draft NPPF requires them to be based on an assumption that development should be permitted wherever possible and that “significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth”.

Historic Environment The Banbury Civic Society is particularly concerned about the protection of the historic environment—a priceless and irreplaceable resource that not only provides local identity and sense of place, but which is also a key driver for sustainable regeneration. The leaked draft of the NPPF stated that “the protection of the historic environment is of ‘overarching importance’”. This introductory sentence has now disappeared entirely from the consultation draft of the NPPF. With the exception of a few overarching platitudes discouraging substantial harm to statutorily designated heritage assets, the NPPF directs local planning authorities (local communities’) to use their Core Strategies to inform developers and householders how applications affecting the historic environment will be determined locally. In the absence of an up to date Local Plan or Core Strategy, the “presumption in favour of development” will take precedence in all cases. As a way of administering and interpreting statute law, this seems utterly perverse. In Cherwell District, we do not yet have an adopted Core Strategy. When existing Local Plan policies were “saved”, we lost most of our Local Plan policies on the protection of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, because the Government Inspector found that “they simply repeated PPG15”. PPG15 was subsequently replaced by PPS5, which will now be subsumed into the NPPF. We do have a Draft Core Strategy, but because of the direction that Core Strategies should not repeat national policy, the Draft Core Strategy has not one single policy on the historic environment. It is, in reality, little more than a site-allocation policy document, responding to where the District’s quota of houses and employment land would go. The adoption of both the NPPF and Draft Core Strategy will leave an almost complete historic environment policy vacuum. To conclude, as an illustration of what we have to look forward to and what we are up against with our local policy-makers, we submit recent correspondence with Cherwell’s Head of Planning over a matter of plastic windows in a Conservation Area. Despite trying to use the leaked draft of the NPPF, we failed to move the Head of Planning, who believed that the claimed “economic fragility” of the development and the “exhortations of the SoS” to support economic development took precedence over PPS5 and the provisions of the adopted Conservation Area Appraisal. September 2011

Written evidence from Staffordshire County Council Response to the Select Committee’s question—Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to co-operate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning?

Summary — Support the requirement and guidance in the NPPF relating to cooperation on strategic priorities which includes the provision of minerals and the development of new facilities to manage wastes; — Agree with the guidance in the NPPF to encourage early cooperation so that cross border issues that need to be addressed through local planning are identified at the beginning of the plan making process and that options to resolve those issues can be fully tested and subject to public scrutiny; — Agree to Aggregate Working Parties as advisory bodies supporting a system whereby the level of provision for aggregate minerals is determined through the local plan process by Mineral Planning Authorities; — Requirements for cooperation on determining levels of mineral provision should not prejudice the ability of a Mineral Planning Authority to choose alternative figures; — In relation to the provision of nationally or regionally important minerals, cooperation between Mineral Planning Authorities beyond immediate neighbouring authorities will be necessary; and — Future review of national waste policies should consider the benefits of replacing Regional Technical Advisory Groups to support cooperation on strategic waste planning issues. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w125

Comments

My response relates to cooperation between local planning authorities in matters relating to the provision of minerals and the development of facilities for sustainable waste management. In these matters, the Select Committee has recognised that these matters reside well with upper tier local authorities and recommends retention of partnership forums such as the Aggregates Working Parties. In response to the Committee’s report on the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies, the Government has conﬁrmed the role of Mineral Planning Authorities to plan for aggregate minerals and has indicated that it is reviewing arrangements for long term aggregates mineral planning.

Referring to the response made to the Committee on behalf of Staffordshire County Council in relation to the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies, cooperation for the purposes of local planning is supported and it is recognised that cooperation between local planning authorities could be assisted by the establishment of technical groups that could offer advice, particularly in relation to cross border issues, to local planning authorities in determining provision for minerals and waste management facilities.

In relation to co-operation on minerals planning matters, paragraph 101 of the draft NPPF provides policy guidance in relation to planning for ﬁrstly, aggregate minerals and secondly, industrial and energy minerals. The draft policy provides opportunity for local planning of minerals and in respect of this guidance I wish to comment as follows:

The County Council proposes an approach to planning for aggregate minerals whereby targets for the level of provision are set locally by the Mineral Planning Authority (MPA) and would encourage the Government to endorse this approach avoiding the imposition of targets on MPAs by groups such as Aggregate Working Parties.

To assist MPAs, however, an advisory role for Aggregate Working Parties is considered appropriate on the basis that they would provide technical advice and information to MPAs. To some extent participation of neighbouring local authorities with the relevant Aggregates Working Party would help to meet responsibilities under the duty to co-operate and would provide a forum by which relevant evidence could be agreed. I contend, however, that participation with such a body should not prejudice the ability of a MPA to choose alternative ﬁgures for the level of provision of aggregates which is an option recognised in the NPPF.

In view of the duty to co-operate, it would be important that Aggregate Working Parties are seen to work openly and that subject to respecting commercially sensitive information, evidence provided by such parties should be made publicly available.

For aggregates planning, co-operation between planning authorities will take place at a relatively local level in most cases involving neighbouring authorities but in relation to industrial and energy minerals, there may be a need for wider co-operation. For example, brick clays and minerals used for the manufacture of cement will have either a national or regional signiﬁcance and assessing the economic importance of these minerals will extend beyond the evidence that can be ascertained by local MPAs. In circumstances whereby a shortfall in the production of a nationally important industrial mineral occurs in one part of the country, pressures for the development of similar resources elsewhere in the country could arise and there would be a need for MPAs to liaise with other MPAs beyond adjoining boundaries. In relation to specialist minerals and the need to assess economic importance, there will be a requirement for the continuing support of the British Geological Society to provide independent veriﬁcation of economic circumstances.

Referring to waste planning, the draft NPPF indicates that national waste planning policies will be reviewed and published alongside the National Waste Management Plan for England. Previously, cooperation on waste planning matters has been promoted through the Regional Technical Advisory Bodies. I would support the replacement of these groups with bodies to support cooperation on strategic waste management issues.

The following paragraph was appended to the submission from Staffordshire County Council at a later date: Referring to paragraph 101 of the NPPF, there is an associated footnote stating that “Local planning authorities can choose alternative ﬁgures for preparing their plans if they have new or different information and a robust evidence base”. County Council Members support this guidance and consider that the footnote should be included in the main body of the text under paragraph 101. The footnote is consistent with guidance provided in a letter121 recently received by Councillor Winnington from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Bob Neill MP. September 2011

121 Not published cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w126 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from ARUP Executive Summary (i) We welcome the concept of bringing national planning policy together succinctly as long as it is accompanied by technical guidance to ensure clear and consistent application, and to promote high design and operational standards. We make constructive suggestions for improving some of the weaknesses that we perceive in the draft NPPF. (ii) We suggest: — ways of restoring a more balanced interpretation of sustainable development (our paragraphs 2.2–2.3, 2.7); — mechanisms to avoid potential weaknesses in the draft NPPF being exploited at inquiry (our 2.10) and in local plan examinations (our 5.7); — ways of giving the NPPF a stronger spatial dimension (our 2.2, 3.2); and — a need for a clearer decision-making framework for development ancillary to nationally signiﬁcant infrastructure projects included in the National Policy Statements (our 4.2–4.3). (iii) Finally we consider that the NPPF should be seen as only one element in the government’s strategy to improve house building levels and to facilitate economic growth. We therefore hope that the Committee will take a long-term view when examining the underlying philosophy of the draft NPPF.

Introduction 0.1 Over the past few years Arup planners have supported both developers and local authorities on some of the country’s most significant development proposals en route through the planning system. These include: — three of the new nuclear powers station proposals; — major new settlements near Bedford and Cambridge; — major mixed use development in London, such as King’s Cross; — major transport infrastructure including Crossrail and Thameslink; — the London Olympics; and — major retail, waste and leisure development. 0.2 Based on this experience, and on our policy research, we consider ourselves to be at the leading edge of planning and have a track record of innovation. 0.3 We welcome the principle of bringing national policy together succinctly. But our experience in helping the Welsh Assembly Government to produce Planning Policy Wales and its subsequent update confirms that it needs very careful drafting such that inconsistencies and uncertainties are not exploited at inquiry or in local plan examinations. We also have concerns that some of the technical guidance on which we rely to advise on high design and operational standards when working as part of development teams may be swept away in the rush to simplify planning policy. 0.4 Whilst we understand that the draft is largely intended to simplify and consolidate existing policy, we are most disappointed by the lack of forward thinking within it. Much of the prescribed policy appears, somewhat selectively, to draw on thinking developed several decades ago. This is reflected in the debates it has already sparked which are rather reminiscent of the 1980s. We consider it unlikely that without a more fundamental review of actions needed to ease the housing crisis, the objectives of the NPPF and Government will be met. 0.5 Our intention is to comment constructively mostly within the terms of the draft, having thought through how the proposed framework might be applied in practice. We hope that the Committee will consider the risk of unforeseen consequences as a result of often subtle policy changes and omissions from previous PPSs— hence the Committee needs to be aware of what is in, and what is out of, the draft NPPF. 0.6 Our response to the Committee’s questions is selective, focusing on those where we have the most technical expertise.

Question 2: Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach Is the definition appropriate? 2.1 The definition of sustainable development, as contained in paragraph 10, covers the three main issues: economic, social and environmental. The subsuming of the fourth element of prudent use of natural resources (as contained in PPS1) under the environmental heading means that the concept of limited resources (including of land) is demoted. The inclusion under this environmental heading, since the Practitioners Advisory Group version, of mitigation and adaptation to climate change and of moving to a low carbon economy are both welcomed, but this positioning makes them seem to be less central than their overarching role in PPS1. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w127

2.2 The mention in paragraph 11 that the planning system must play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions could be enhanced by clarifying what these solutions could include in terms for example of locations well served by public transport. This could indeed be an appropriate place for listing the key sustainable development principles which are referred to in paragraph 19 point 2 but not collated together anywhere in the document. 2.3 We do have a major concern that, having provided a definition in paragraphs 10 and 11, paragraph 12 states that what constitutes sustainable development in practice is set out in the NPPF “taken as a whole”. There are significant problems in placing the onus on a document which as it stands has serious shortcomings: — There is no overall vision of what constitutes the successful sustainable development whose implementation the NPPF is seeking to achieve—there are only fragmentary mentions in for instance the section on sustainable communities (paragraph 124). — There is no provision for testing the extent to which sustainable development is actually achieved over time—indicators or targets are only mentioned in relation to biodiversity (paragraph 168), not for instance in relation to carbon emissions. — There are elements from the previous PPGs and PPSs that have played an important role in defining sustainable development that are missing from the current draft—for instance the provision for a consistent set of maximum parking standards for non-residential development to influence car use. Recommendation 2.1: That the Select Committee takes the opportunity to stand back and examine the text of the NPPF as a whole to ensure that there is clarity and consistency in the vision of what can be achieved, on the full range of measures that are advocated, and on the indicators or targets that will help to assess performance.

Is the presumption balanced? 2.4 The concept that the planning system is based on judging the needs of development against potential adverse impacts is well established. However, it is clear from the draft NPPF that the emphasis is now being placed on supporting economic growth (paragraph 13). This is sometimes referred to as supporting “sustainable” economic growth (as in the first sentence of the paragraph)—but not consistently. 2.5 The first difficulty is that the text conflates the concept of economic growth mentioned in paragraph 13 with sustainable development in paragraph 14. This means that what is being discussed in the following paragraphs are development proposals providing for economic growth, not proposals for sustainable development. The presumption is therefore in favour of development, not of development that could be considered sustainable. 2.6 There are then two statements that seek to encapsulate what is expected of the planning system: — Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development and approve proposals unless the adverse impacts “would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” (paragraph 14). — The default answer to development proposals is “yes”, “except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in this Framework” (paragraph 19 point 2). 2.7 The difficulty here is that there is no assistance provided on how the new concept of “demonstrability” is to be addressed; and there is no coordinated list of key sustainable development principles. Recommendation 2.2: That the Select Committee seeks an understanding of the key sustainable development principles and the extent to which they can be brought together in one place within the NPPF to aid decision making; clarifies that the presumption is in favour of development that addresses the sustainable development principles; and asks for guidance to be provided on the work needed and the factors involved in demonstrating adverse impacts.

Is the presumption workable? 2.8 One of the more innovative aspects of the NPPF is the proposal that permission is granted for development if the local plan is “absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date” and it meets the criteria assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole (paragraph 14). 2.9 The aim of this change in procedure is to encourage LPAs to make progress with their local plans, and meanwhile prevent the holding up of development applications (because of the uncertainty of local authority intentions) and enable a higher proportion of permissions to be granted. There are several risks involved in this new process: — It is likely that the drop in applications described in the Impact Assessment accompanying the NPPF (pages 20–23) is substantially related to economic factors; while the proportion of approvals has been rising rather than falling—so that the change may have very little impact. — There may be more refusals and appeals in the context of uncertainty created by this approach (as recognised by the Impact Assessment page 30), so that the main aim of increased development and economic growth may not be achieved. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w128 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— There could be increased pressure from developers in the short term to create land banks and gain permissions in the context of an NPPF that may be less clear on what is expected in terms of sustainability (see our paragraph 2.3). — There will be a loss of inﬂuence of the local community and of local context in any decision making undertaken during the interim period, and there may be resentment of the process leading to the removal of the decision making context to national level. 2.10 It would therefore seem appropriate to examine whether the inclusion of point 3 under paragraph 14 is likely to be helpful in achieving short term economic growth or long term sustainability. If it remains, we suggest that clariﬁcation is given to introducing a mechanism to save key strategy principles from the last adopted local plan, even if all elements do not comply with the NPPF, to avoid a policy vacuum being created in many authority areas. Recommendation 2.3: That the Select Committee give priority to examining the evidence on whether this part of the presumption is likely to achieve its aims, or lead to adverse effects that could undermine the long term aims of the planning system as set out in the key sustainable development principles.

Question 3: Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 3.1 The 10 core planning principles set out in paragraph 19 are a useful attempt to bring together in one place the fundamentals of what planning should aim to achieve. However as currently expressed they fail to give a clear steer on the locational aspects of sustainable development. This is all the more worrying because: — There is no mention in the core planning principles of planning’s role in the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. — The concept of accessibility within both existing and new development in order to promote social inclusion appears to be downplayed in the document as a whole. 3.2 Accepting, somewhat regrettably, that the Government has turned its back on including any form of national spatial vision in the NPPF, there are several locational principles that are buried in the later topic sections that could usefully be included in paragraph 19, namely: — “plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions” (paragraph 150); — “support the pattern of development which ……..facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport” (paragraph 83, note deliberate omission of the words “where reasonable to do so” which weakens the principle); and — “recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support the viability and vitality of town centres” (paragraph 76). 3.3 This clear expression of locational principles is crucial to avoid the unintended consequences of allowing more dispersed development through the planning system in response to short term economics. 3.4 We support the opening phrase of the bullet point 1 that “planning should be genuinely plan-led”, but are worried that local authorities may be constrained in setting out a “positive long-term vision” for their area by other elements in the draft NPPF eg: — a tension with the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 20); and — wording such as “In preparing plans to meet development requirements ……” (paragraph 165). Plans should be about more than this. 3.5 We consider that the core planning principles would be clearer if they focus on what planning aspires to in terms of outcomes rather than interspersing them with process issues on “how” these principles might be achieved, eg in point 2 last part. 3.6 The relationship between these core planning principles and the intended key sustainability principles referred to in point 2 should also be clariﬁed. Recommendation 3.1: That the Committee probes the missing locational dimension within the core planning principles; and considers ways of strengthening the focus on what planning should aim to achieve.

Question 4: Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 4.1 The relationship between the NPPF and the National Policy Statements (NPSs) for major infrastructure is not clear. Both are important elements of national planning policy but are currently unconnected. Our experience is that this is already an area of intense and unresolved legal debate which is proving costly for local authorities. 4.2 In particular, the intended influence of the NPPF on decision making on development consent orders (DCO) within the major infrastructure regime is unspecified. This gap is most evident in relation to ancillary off-site development which is included within a DCO. Specifically the guidance needs to make clear the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w129

material relevance of both the NPPF and local plan to development including accommodation, construction sites and transport infrastructure (such as park and ride sides) which are ancillary to the main infrastructure project.

4.3 This comment relates to our experience on the Hinkley Nuclear Power Station proposal where the developer has been suggesting that National Planning Policy (in the existing PPS and the PPG series) and in the local plan is not material to the ancillary development or is superseded by NPS considerations.

4.4 A related challenge of DCOs is the inability of the proposer to amend submitted schemes when the only decision options for Commissioners are to make or dismiss the Order. This is being exploited by proposers in relation to ancillary development. This is because, given national policy considerations, the promoters perceive that Commissioners are unlikely to refuse to make the Order. This seems to allow developers to promote off- site ancillary developments which are both unsustainable and do not meet the normal requirements of national or local planning policy.

Recommendation 4.1: That the Committee consider ways of making the relationship between the NPPF and NPSs explicit to provide a decision making framework for development ancillary to nationally signiﬁcant infrastructure that conforms to sustainable development principles.

Question 5: Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than- local strategic planning?

5.1 Although the draft NPPF has provided some welcome elaboration of the duty to cooperate included in minimalistic form in the Localism Bill, our answer to the question is still No, for the reasons below.

5.2 We welcome the indication of the topics on which “strategic priorities” should be set out in the local plan (paragraph 23) and their link with putting the duty to cooperate into action (paragraph 44). However it is questionable whether local authorities individually or in groupings will have the necessary evidence, in all parts of the country, on which to make reasoned judgements on issues operating at a sub-regional, regional, or inter-regional scale. This relates to the concerns expressed by the Committee in its recent report on RSS abolition about the dismantling of regionally based monitoring systems.122 Of particular concern is intelligence about migration patterns, the need for specialised waste facilities, coastal change, achievement of renewable energy generation, and the level of CO2 reductions in relation to international obligations.

5.3 This shows that the duty to cooperate needs to be thought of in a wider context, as appears to have been accepted in relation to minerals with the continuation of the Aggregates Working Parties and the national coordinating group, but not for other topics. Consideration should therefore be given to re-establishing coordinated intelligence systems as a partnership between government, its agencies, local government experts, and industry as appropriate. Without this evidence it will be difﬁcult for Inspectors to test that necessary development is accommodated within individual local plans, including waste local plans.

5.4 We welcome the additional suggestions about ways in which groups of neighbouring authorities can apply the duty to cooperate in practical terms, including joint committees and/or a memorandum of understanding (paragraph 46). These are tried and tested processes within which joint core strategies have been and are being prepared. This works well where: — they are built on historical working relationships and cultures; — there are common interests between local authorities; and — there is strong local political leadership, and especially where the composition of Councils and hence value systems is the same or similar.

5.5 However there is still no mechanism for dealing with disputes between neighbouring authorities, eg where a more rural local authority may be reluctant to take unmet housing requirements, ie overspill, from an adjoining under-bounded city or historic town—witness the current impasse between Stevenage and North Hertfordshire.

5.6 It is questionable in such circumstances as to how easy an Inspector would find it to apply the newly formulated soundness tests (paragraph 48) when he/she has only one plan before them at a time. To illustrate this using the above example: — In examining the urban plan, if that is submitted first, how far would an Inspector be expected to examine the impacts of accommodating unmet requirements in neighbouring districts, having first tested capacity issues in the urban area? and — In examining the plan(s) within the rural hinterland if this is submitted first, how would an Inspector measure unmet housing requirements without testing land capacity in the exporting authority, and options for accommodating the unmet requirement in all nearby authorities? 122 CLG Committee (March 2011) Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: a planning vacuum? 2nd report of session 2010–11, HC517, London: TSO. Chapter 6 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w130 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

5.7 One option would be for the Planning Inspectorate to require the simultaneous examination of adjoining local plans for local authorities who had failed to agree on the scale and accommodation of unmet housing requirements. In the medium term, but probably requiring new primary legislation, there could be a new reserve power for the Secretary of State to impose a joint strategy area in which local authorities could choose to produce either: — a joint Local Plan strategy and key diagram, or — coordinated Local Plan strategies and key diagrams to be examined simultaneously. Recommendation 5.1: That the Committee consider how coordinated evidence and monitoring systems should be re-established as a context for joint working on strategic priorities, particularly in terms of accommodating essential but unpopular infrastructure; and consider whether the duty to cooperate needs to be strengthened in respect of dispute resolution between neighbouring authorities, eg in accommodating unmet housing requirements.

Question 6: Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? 6.1 Our major concern is that an inadequate interpretation of the evidence base on housing policy has been used to flavour key messages in the NPPF. In particular there is an implicit assumption that the slowdown in housing construction is due solely to the planning system, and that planning policy should be orientated to give a short term impetus to growth. This has led to polarised reactions to the NPPF in the press advocating the supremacy of either economics or the environment. The draft NPPF seems to be based on the same flawed assumption as to the role of planning in the housing supply process as in past policy, and a lack of understanding of the actual workings of the housing market. This represents a missed opportunity for more innovative thinking, and parallel actions to open up the housing market to a wider range of suppliers. 6.2 In particular, our interpretation of the evidence is as follows: — The planning system has been making sufficient provision in relation to the allocation of land and the granting of permissions. At the current time there are large numbers of outstanding permissions for new dwellings, which the RTPI estimate at around 300,000 units. Over the past 20 years completions have generally fallen short of allocations. — Local planning authorities are unable to influence the implementation of permissions and the failure to implement is a huge source of frustration to them. — The downturn in housing supply is largely a result of the reduction in funding for affordable housing and in the difficulties of securing new mortgages for homebuyers. — The market power exercised by the major players in the house building industry is resulting in a sub-optimal supply of new housing. — The system of obligations and contributions for infrastructure and affordable housing requires reform so that the these requirements may respond to market conditions and avoid current problems where many much needed and consented housing developments have become unviable as a result of the downturn in the market. Recommendation 6.1: That the Committee takes a long-term view when examining the underlying philosophy of the NPPF, seeking a more balanced approach to sustainable development, and recommending a more fundamental review of actions needed to resolve the housing crisis. September 2011

Written evidence from the Renewable Energy Association The Renewable Energy Association (REA) represents a wide variety of organisations, including generators, project developers, fuel and power suppliers, investors, equipment producers and service providers. Members range in size from major multinationals to sole traders. There are over 650 corporate members of the REA, making it the largest renewable energy trade association in the UK. The REA’s main objective is to secure the best legislative and regulatory framework for expanding renewable energy production in the UK. The Association undertakes policy development and provides input to government departments, agencies, regulators and NGOs.

1. 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 over planning decisions? The REA welcomes the draft NPPF’s clear statements of support for sustainable development. However we fear that the lack of detailed guidance on how to translate this aspiration practically into development plans and planning decisions could result in uncertainty and ultimately delay, rather than accelerate, the deployment of many renewable energy projects. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w131

2. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? We regret the fact that the draft NPPF fails to make use of the excellent work performed by the Sustainable Development Commission and others over recent years producing carefully considered definitions of “sustainable development”. The draft NPPF’s definition is quite general and unlikely to provide authorities with the clear guidance they require when drafting development plans and making planning decisions.

3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? The REA welcomes the NPPF’s mention that development plan policies should “encourage, rather than restrict, the ... development of renewable energy”. However we believe that energy is such an important element of the economy that it deserves its own clear bullet point. In particular the UK’s legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050 (and 50% by 2027) should underpin the whole of the NPPF and therefore be a key “core planning principle”.

4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? The information released to date by DCLG is not explicit concerning the fate of guidance contained in the Planning Policy Statements, but our assumption is that the NPPF is intended to supersede it. We are concerned about the loss of some of the very helpful guidance for renewable energy contained in PPS 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and PPS 22 (Renewable Energy). We are also concerned that the change of emphasis from criteria based policies in PPS 22 to opportunity mapping in the NPPF will prove a retrograde step for renewable energy, based on the fact that opportunity mapping has very limited relevance for most renewable energy technologies. In addition it is highly unlikely that planning departments will be able to devote the resources, nor will they have the internal expertise, to undertake a meaningful opportunity mapping assessment. We would like to see a much more explicit link between the NPPF and the National Planning Statements for energy and a clear statement that the NPSs will be a material consideration for the smaller scale projects dealt with by local authorities (which provide the majority of renewable energy deployment).

5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? The REA is concerned that deployment of renewable energy requires a more strategic and larger scale approach than can be provided by many planning authorities. We therefore regret the disappearance of Regional Spatial Strategies and we are not convinced that the “duty to cooperate” will provide a sufficient impetus to produce the required level of cooperation between neighbouring authorities, especially as many of these will be short of staff qualified to undertake this task.

6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? It is unclear to what extent the policies in the draft NPPF are evidence based. The REA welcomes some clear statements of support for the deployment of renewable energy but would like to see these as part of a much stronger, better defined sustainable development agenda. Given the UK’s legal target to achieve 80% greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2050, we would expect this to underpin the entire development plan process on the basis of clear evidence. Unless this target is enshrined in the heart of the nation’s planning processes, it is difficult to see how it will be achieved—the publication of the NPPF provides a unique opportunity to do so. The deployment of renewable energy will play a key role in meeting the target and must be an integral part of this process. However renewables face an even more challenging shorter-term legal target to contribute 15% of the UK’s energy consumption in 2020 (from our current 3%), requiring an urgent and concerted approach by all concerned. September 2011

Written evidence from Neil Blackshaw In this brief submission I would like to focus simultaneously on the three questions on which the Select Committee is seeking evidence that relate to the “integrative” role of the NPPF, that is: — Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statement sufﬁciently clear? — Does the NNPF serve to integrate national planning policy? — Does the NPPF provide a sufﬁcient basis for “larger than local planning”?

Summary — The NPPF fails to articulate and adopt a truly spatial approach. — The NPPF does not provide a national and sub-national spatial framework to guide local decision making. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w132 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— The NPPF does not provide a framework for identifying the spatial implications of and for the better integration of public and private policy making and investment. — An alternative approach, in the shape of a national spatial plan as exempliﬁed by practice in Europe and the devolved administrations would provide a much more effective set of tools to address urgent challenges of rebalancing the economy and of delivering sustainable development.

The Submission 1. The title, National Planning Policy Framework, can be interpreted, as the government has largely done, merely as the list of planning policies that it expects councils to follow. In this sense it will have much the same function as the sum total of the Planning Policy Statements, albeit as the government never ceases to remind us, in a much shorter format. But I would like the Committee to consider what the NPPF could have been and to put forward an alternative vision that addresses the above questions. 2. Planning is a quintessentially spatial activity. However, the NPPF uses the word just once and the government in getting to this point has consistently sought to avoid the phrase spatial planning. Spatial planning under the current policy regime, PPS 1, “goes much further than traditional land use planning”. One is led to conclude that in some way this government wishes to get back to traditional land use planning. I will argue that this is a retrograde step. 3. The country faces a complex hierarchy of issues many of which have a spatial dimension. The global economy and climate change are supra national challenges, the imbalance in our economy is an intra- or sub- national problem. The most effective role for a NPPF is to provide a strategic policy context so that local action can be aligned and synergized to achieve national aims. On the contrary, the NPPF fails to provide such a context. The European dimension of growth and the regional imbalances in the UK get no mention. There is no clear exposition of how local climate change action on mitigation or adaptation can contribute to global action. . 4. The government rightly acknowledges the need to “rebalance the economy”. This too has a clear spatial dimension. The variation in economic performance and of social conditions has bedeviled the UK economy for many years and is still ensuring that our potential is not being fulfilled. The recession and fiscal crisis will inevitably add to those disparities. Yet the NPPF has nothing to say about how these spatial disparities can be addressed through the planning system. 5. The government places great emphasis on localism, which I n principle is entirely appropriate. However it is clear that this emphasis has been at the expense of a coherent national and sub national framework. The aversion to “top-down” targets is in danger of abrogating the natural role of government in this arena that is unquestioned in other spheres. One of the first acts of the government was to throw away the by now well- established tools for sub national spatial planning, the Regional Spatial Strategies. It is inconceivable that the ad hoc collaboration of councils and LEPs will fill the vacuum that has been created and would in any case take a great deal of time when time is of the essence. It is simply not credible that the sum total of “local plans”, modified in an ad hoc way through sporadic co-operation will amount to a national spatial plan. There is in reality no contradiction and need not be any conflict between localism and a national planning framework, quite the opposite. The one gives meaning and direction to the other and a clear national spatial plan will enable localism to flourish. The NPPF as it stands lacks, in cybernetic terms, requisite variety. It is not adequate to support the weight of expectations that the government places on it. The tensions that this will create with localism will generate great problems unless resolved. 6. The government may aver from a national spatial plan. But it is the clear implication of a national spatial planning policy. The NPPF would be strengthened and the government’s aims facilitated if it articulated such a spatial plan. This would address the key issues of sustainable development and of improved economic performance and inform the need to provide for more and better homes. In part this national framework has been articulated in so far as major infrastructure is concerned. This needs to be extended and brought back within an integrated planning regime. The key is strengthening the planning regime i.e. making it more effective and fit for purpose in order to deliver the governments priorities. Without this national spatial framework the government is denying itself a powerful tool. 7. The potential for spatial development frameworks has been demonstrated in the European context and it is essential that the English NPPF draws on that good practice. The aims set out in the second National Planning Framework for Scotland for instance are very much in line with the concept of a NPPF that is being suggested here. A NPPF of this nature would provide a spatial framework for integrating a wide range of significant policy, development and infrastructure decisions, public and private. A spatial dimension has been lacking from decision making many spheres and this has resulted in a lack of coordinated or joined up policy and implementation, which has been clearly identified as a national weakness in many authoritative reports in the past. The NPPF offers a unique opportunity to imbue public and private policy and investment decisions with a spatial dimension. The integrative potential of such a framework would be entirely positive. The private sector in particular would welcome such a clear statement of spatial priorities and would invest with greater confidence. Public sector policy and investment would benefit too. The NHS for instance has a demonstrably poor record in integrating a spatial perspective with the result that major hospital investment has been made in the sub optimal locations and a postcode lottery has operated in healthcare generally. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w133

8. The NPPF as its stands represents, above all, a gigantic missed opportunity. The question that should have been asked to how can national priorities best be delivered through the planning system not how can planning be manipulated so as to conform to political priorities. That way it is being set up to fail. Hopefully this paper has sketched a powerful alternative vision. September 2011

Written evidence from the Confederation of UK Coal Producers (CoalPro) CoalPro strongly supports the general thrust of the draft NPPF in the form of a general presumption in favour of sustainable development. CoalPro also supports the Government’s objectives in reducing the number and volume of planning policy and guidance statements but has some reservations. These reservations relate to the need to use the new Framework to minimise areas of conﬂict and the potential for misinterpretation as far as possible and are detailed in the responses to the Committee’s questions set out below.

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 over planning decisions? In general terms, the guidance is sufficient and local communities will still have at least the same power as they do now. However, there remains a lack of clarity in respect of some of the detail. For example, the relationship between neighbourhood plans and local plans, and the extent to which the former can over-ride the latter, or indeed over-ride the Framework itself, is unclear. Neighbourhood plans offer the prospect of greater power to local communities but this must be exercised in a positive and responsible way. Neighbourhood plans cannot be allowed to simply block certain types of sustainable development such that it either does not take place or is merely moved elsewhere with no good reason. It is unclear whether neighbourhood plans can have any role in minerals planning and, if so, what it is.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? Taking the second part of the question first, if a development is “sustainable”, then there is no reason why it should not take place and balance and workability are effectively ensured. The key, therefore, lies in the first part of the question as to whether the definition in the document is appropriate. The definition is fairly comprehensive. It would, however, benefit from the addition of the proximity principle, ie that activity should take place as close to its market as possible, other things being equal, to avoid unnecessary cost and emissions associated with transport. CoalPro is concerned about one aspect of the draft Framework where there appears to be a contradiction. Para. 106 refers to a presumption against the extraction of coal. This is a legacy from previous guidance. However, placed in the context of a general presumption in favour of sustainable development, this does not sit easily and it might be read that coal extraction is not sustainable development. When well over half the coal used in the UK is imported, it is clear that coal extraction in the UK complies fully with the definition of sustainable development. Para. 106 should therefore be redrafted, for example, along the lines of “the extraction of coal should only take place if…..”.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? Yes. The issue is whether the rest of the document adheres to these provisions. CoalPro has concerns that the ﬁfth bullet point, related to the appropriate protection of environmental and heritage assets, is not properly followed elsewhere. The document refers in a number of places to the Birds and Habitats Directives (eg para. 16, para. 170) and states that development affecting sites protected by these Directives would not be sustainable. However, both of these Directives expressly do not prohibit development and the references should be redrafted in line with these Directives to avoid gold plating.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? CoalPro is unclear as to what this question relates to. If it relates to major infrastructure projects under National Planning Policy Statements, the relationship is clear but would perhaps beneﬁt from being spelled out further. On related matters, we are concerned that it is unclear in the draft Framework as to what is policy (ie “shall”) and what is guidance (ie “should”) and feels that this distinction needs to be made more clearly throughout. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w134 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Whilst welcoming the doing away with voluminous guidance, we are concerned that there is not a resulting vacuum in certain areas. Where guidance provides specific well-founded, technical advice, which has come to be relied on, its absence could create an area of conflict that does not presently exist. An example is the specific technical advice on dust, noise, slope stability, etc in MPS2. Government should consider the need for specific technical supplementary guidance of this kind.

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? We are not certain that this is sufﬁciently robust in the case of minerals. First the section on minerals (para. 100 et seq) should contain a statement that minerals can only be extracted where they are found. This is a fundamental determinant of spatial planning for minerals. It follows from this that minerals, which are widely used everywhere and essential for sustainable development, have to be extracted in limited locations and transported to the points of use. We feel that the “duty to cooperate” will not adequately deal with this fundamental issue.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based? We can only speak for our area of expertise. Generally, we feel that the policies do properly reﬂect the available evidence. September 2011

Written evidence from Sport England 1. Sport England Investment into Sport 1.1 Sport England is the NDPB responsible for creating a world-leading community sport system of clubs, coaches, facilities and volunteers. We invest both National Lottery and Exchequer funding in national partners and community projects to build the sporting infrastructure that will grow and sustain participation in grassroots sport and create opportunities for people to excel at their chosen sport. Since 1995, the National Lottery has invested £1.74 billion in 5,400 awards to sports facilities with a total project value of £3.85 billion. 1.2 Over the next three years we will invest over £800 million into sport in England. The new decade offers unrivalled opportunity to grow participation in sport and physical activity inspired by high proﬁle international events—London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games; 2013 Rugby League World Cup; 2015 Rugby World Cup; and 2019 Cricket World Cup. In addition, we will roll out the Olympic Legacy Pan—Places People Play; the facility element of these programmes comprises an investment of over £90 million, which will help to stimulate community sport and increase participation. The programmes are Protecting Playing Fields (£10 million), Iconic Facilities (£30 million) and Inspired Facilities (£50 million) In addition to this investment, Sport England works with local authorities, key investors in local sporting opportunities, to support them deliver these opportunities in the current economic climate where they face challenging choices about local priorities and investment, including rationalisation and asset transfer of sport and recreation facilities. 1.3 It is essential that this investment in the “decade of sport” is underpinned by a planning system that positively contributes to providing and protecting a legacy of sustainable, local community based sports facilities in which people are encouraged to participate.

Sport England—and the planning system 1.4 Sport England continues to play an active role in today’s planning system through its role as a statutory consultee on planning applications that affect playing fields and advising local authorities on other developments that effect sport facilities. We have also helped to shape planning guidance for sport and recreation by contributing to the drafting of PPG17 in 1991 and 2002. 1.5 Sport England has been a statutory consultee for planning applications affecting playing fields since 1996, after concerns by Government about the unchecked loss of playing fields. Sport England has adopted a policy which opposes the loss of playing field land unless the proposal meets one of five exceptions.123 This policy has allowed Sport England to check the loss of playing fields whilst ensuring improvements, replacements and increasing opportunities to sport and recreation. In 2008–09, 1,181 out of 1239 (95%) concluded planning applications affecting playing fields resulted in improved or safeguarded sports provision.124 This policy has shown that development can be accommodated whilst protecting and improving sports provision. 1.6 Sport England has been able to utilise the strong Government policy position to minimise the losses of areas of playing field very effectively. It must be stressed, however, that although current policy is strong and 123 These exceptions were included in the 2002 PPG17 (para15) 124 http://www.sportengland.org/media_centre/press_releases/08–09_playing_field_stats.aspx cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w135

rigorously applied, most developments are not delayed, as they meet one of the exceptions of Sport England’s playing ﬁeld policy,125 Where Sport England initially objects, we typically manage to negotiate a better deal for sport in 50% of cases, allowing us to withdraw our initial objection. 1.7 We continue to believe that in order to ensure that the current and future sport and recreational needs of their communities are fully met, local authorities must have a strong needs and evidence base on which they can plan properly. 1.8 Sport England has developed a range of advice, resources and tools to help local authorities achieve this. These include, the Active Places facilities data base, the Active People Participation survey, Market Segmentation tool, Planning Kitbag, Sport Facilities Calculator, Facilities Planning Model, Playing Pitch Strategy methodology, Facilities Improvement Service and the Active Design Guide.

2. The National Planning Policy Framework Consultation 2.1 Sport England considers that the proposed consultation document, significantly weakens the current protection on sports facilities and undermines Sport England’s Playing Field policy; should be stronger at promoting the need for a strong evidence base to underpin infrastructure planning for sport; and, provide far greater recognition of the wider benefits that sport brings to society. 2.2 Sport England believes that the current draft NPPF would create a planning system that would not protect sports facilities from being lost to development and also provide no guarantee that sports facilities that are needed to meet the sport and recreational needs generated by future generations would be secured. Ultimately, this will lead to the reduction in the stock of sports facilities. 2.3 Three principal changes that should be made to the NPPF are: (a) Protection and Enhancement—To continue the current strong policy statements supporting the protection and enhancement of sports facilities. (b) Planning for Community Infrastructure Needs—To continue the current requirement for a robust needs and evidence base to underpin policy and plans to securing communities sport and recreational needs. (c) Recognition of the wider benefits of Sport—Increased recognition of the wider benefits that sport and recreation play in delivering economic and social objectives.

(a) Protection and Enhancement Sport England believes that the draft NPPF significantly weakens the current protection afforded to sports facilities, including playing fields, as currently set out in PPG17, and undermines Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee on developments affecting playing fields.

Issue with the draft NPPF 2.4 The proposed policy (Draft NPPF paras 128 and 129) only requires that a) specific needs and deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreation facilities in the local area should be identified and b) this assessment should be used to set local standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreational facilities. 2.5 There is a presumption that no building should be allowed that would affect these facilities (including playing fields) unless an assessment has shown them to be surplus to requirements. However, even where a surplus has not been identified and a deficiency exists, the NPPF would now not require any replacement provision to be provide if “the need for and benefits of the development clearly outweigh the loss” (para129, second bullet). 2.6 Between 2001 and 2009, 15% of all applications which Sport England were consulted on as a statutory consultee, and were subsequently approved by the LPA, resulted in replacement playing field provision being secured. As currently worded, the NPPF would not guarantee that this replacement provision would be secured and would lead to a net loss of playing fields in these cases. 2.7 The proposed wording raises a major concern that, where development opportunities are limited, developers will argue that the need for development eg housing outweighs the loss of sports facilities. This will especially apply in densely developed areas such as, London, where demand for housing will always outstrip supply. 2.8 This situation could also be exacerbated in the current economic climate where local authorities are looking to maximise returns from their assets. Those sports that rely on local authority or education owned sites, will be particularly vulnerable to loss. For example, 84% of all football pitches in the country are in education or local authority ownership.126 125 A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England—Policy on planning applications for development on playing fields—Sport England. 126 Active Places data base—January 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w136 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2.9 Sport England considers that as the wording of the draft NPPF currently stands, it will lead to a steady erosion of sports facilities without a requirement for providing any replacement or compensatory facilities to mitigate the loss. This will have the impact of undermining past, current and future investment into sports facilities, including the current Olympic Legacy programmes.

Proposed Change to NPPF 2.10 The policy in paragraph 129 should be amended to provide clear protection of facilities for sport and active recreation. The revised wording for paragraph should become: Paragraph 129 Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing ﬁelds, should not be built on unless: — an assessment has been undertaken which clearly shows there to be surplus; or — the loss as a result of the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision, in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or — the need for the alternative open space, sports and recreation development clearly out weighs the loss.

(b) Planning for Community Infrastructure Needs Sport England believes that the draft NPPF needs to have greater clarity on how the planning system will plan for community infrastructure.

Issues with NPPF 2.11 Community infrastructure—Sport England supports the approach of local authorities setting out their strategic approach for community infrastructure, as set out in the Plan-making section of the draft NPPF. However, the draft NPPF needs to have greater clarity on what is included within community infrastructure, being explicit that sport and recreation forms part of community infrastructure. For instance, paragraph 31 should be made clear that infrastructure requirements also includes community infrastructure. The current wording of paragraph 31 is confusing, as it includes other physical site infrastructure together with some social infrastructure, such as health and social care, which overlaps with paragraph 38. 2.12 Evidence base—The draft NPPF has watered down the need for a strong evidence base to underpin policy making. Paragraph 27 of the draft NPPF asks local authorities to base their Local Plans on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence, where the previous PPG17 required robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sport and recreation. Sport England believes that the standard and robustness of the evidence base should not be reduced, and the better the evidence is, the more informed and ultimately better policy and planning decisions will be achieved. Decisions made on minimal information can be extremely costly in both losing facilities that are needed, and allowing investment to take place in the wrong location. 2.13 Standards Approach—Paragraph 128 states that the information gained from the assessment of needs and opportunities should be used to set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sport and recreation. Local assessments will provide the basis on which local delivery infrastructure plans can be produced. This approach would accord with the requirements of the CIL which should use the infrastructure planning underpinning the development plan to identify specific infrastructure projects. However, the use of assessments of need to set standards, as proposed by the NPPF in paragraph 128 for sport and recreational provision, will not provide the more detailed infrastructure planning that is required for CIL that is promoted in by the NPPF for other types of provision. 2.14 Sport England is concerned that any approach to set strategic policies for community infrastructure for an area, using evidence from assessments of need to calculate standards or carry out more detailed infrastructure planning, could be undermined by the draft NPPF’s priorities towards development. 2.15 Economic Priority—Paragraph 41 of the draft NPPF states that in order to be appropriate the cumulative impact of these standards and policies should not put the implementation of the development plan at serious risk, and should facilitate development throughout the economic cycle. 2.16 This effectively means that even where community infrastructure priorities have been identified within a local area through a robust evidence base, to support the development plan, these may be dropped if they are likely to impact on the viability of economic development. This presents the risk that future developments will not be supported by the level of associated community infrastructure which given the wide benefits of such provision will undermine the development of successful and sustainable communities.

Changes to NPPF 2.17 Community infrastructure should be more explicitly deﬁned within the NPPF, and should include sport and active recreation. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w137

2.18 Paragraph 31 should be more clearly deﬁned, with either the inclusion of community infrastructure, or community infrastructure requirements are added as a separate heading within the evidence base section. 2.19 Paragraph 27 should require that all evidence should be robust and comprehensive. 2.20 Paragraph 128 should be amended to read: “The information gained from this assessment of needs and opportunities should be used to produce locally derived infrastructure delivery plans”.

(c) Wider beneﬁts of sport Sport England believes that the draft NPPF should be stronger in recognising the wider beneﬁts sport and physical activity can bring to society and the role sport plays in meeting government agendas.

Issues with the draft NPPF 2.21 Sport England welcomes the reference the NPPF makes to the contribution sport and recreation makes to the health and well-being of communities (NPPF para 128). In addition, sport brings wider benefits to communities and individuals, which along with improving health and well being, also contributes to: increasing skills, employment and economic growth; increasing community cohesion and providing new opportunities for children and young people. 2.22 In its current drafting, the NPPF does not recognise these wider benefits that sport brings, many of which were included in the current PPG17. When developing planning policies and determining applications, the wider benefits that sport brings need to be adequately taken into account. For example, this would be particularly important when considering proposals against the current wording of paragraph 129 of the draft NPPF.

Changes to the draft NPPF 2.23 Sport England considers that the core planning principles should include an additional core principle that ensures development should promote a sense of place and neighbourhood and building cohesive and inclusive communities. 2.24 Sport has a significant role to play in helping to achieve this additional principle, by contributing to a wide range of government agendas, including health and well-being, building strong communities and neighbourhoods as well as contributing to economic growth of the country. 2.25 Paragraph 128 should also include the wider benefits that sport can bring to society, alongside health and well being. 2.26 The NPPF needs to give greater recognition to the wider benefits sport and physical activity can bring to society and the role sport plays in meeting cross government agendas. (See appendix for more details on the wider benefits of sport)

3. Committee Questions 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 over planning decisions?

3.1 Reducing around 25 Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPG) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS) into one single document will mean that there is a reduction in detailed guidance. Although the streamlining is welcome in some areas, it is likely to lead to reducing consistency in planning decisions with the potential of increasing the number of planning appeals, as applicants and local authorities strive to interpret areas of the NPPF. This in turn may defeat one of the objectives of the streamlining of guidance by slowing down the planning process through an increase in appeals. 3.2 Sport England considers that the detailed guidance contained in PPG17 has been essential in supporting Sport England’s playing ﬁeld policy, through its role as a statutory consultee for developments affecting playing ﬁelds, and also to ensure local needs assessments for sport and recreation are carried out by local authorities. 3.3 Sport England believes that it would be useful for CLG to issue a statement to clarify whether it will produce good practice to accompany certain elements of the NPPF or encourage other national bodies to do so. This could help bridge the gap in relation to the lack of detailed guidance in the NPPF. Sport England would welcome the opportunity to work with CLG to help produce such a guide. However, this will need clear policy presumptions concerning the protection and enhancement of sports facilities to be in the NPPF. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w138 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 3.4 Sport England does not believe that as worded the NPFF gives a balanced approach to sustainable development and therefore does not meet the concept as defined in the Bruntland report. 3.5 Although paragraph 10 suggests that sustainable development means planning in terms of economic, social and environmental role, the thrust of the document is that the economic goals override the social and environmental ones. Examples of this include: — Para 13—“significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system”. — Para 14—Promotes a pro-development agenda, without any counterbalance in relation to its impacts. This is demonstrated by bullet point 4 “grant permission where the plan is absent” and the final paragraph which states that “all of these policies should apply unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”. This last statement would suggest that developments that do have adverse impacts on local communities (social and environmental) will be allowed, with only those being deemed “significant” being questioned. — Para 17—This suggests that neighbourhoods should support objectives which seek to promote growth, but is silent on setting out policies to protect and enhance locally important facilities which meet environmental and social objectives; — Para 129—This suggests that even where a deficiency of open space, or sports facilities has been identified (social and environmental) the need for a development (economic) can outweigh the loss of the open space, or sports facilities.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 3.6 Sport England considers that the core planning principles should include an additional core principle that ensures development should promote a sense of place and neighbourhood and build cohesive and inclusive communities. Sport has a signiﬁcant role to play in helping to achieve this additional principle, by contributing to a wide range of government agenda’s, including health and well-being, building vibrant communities and neighbourhoods as well as contributing to economic growth of the country.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? No comment.

Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 3.7 Sport England does not believe that the NPPF sufﬁciently seeks to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments. An example of this is with Sport England’s parent department DCMS, in that aside from sport and heritage there is a lack of reference to policies in relation to the arts, libraries etc. There is also no recognition of the wider beneﬁts that sport brings to communities improving health and community cohesion, increasing skills, employment and economic growth, and providing new opportunities for children and young people. 3.8 With regard to sport, Sport England is concerned that the Olympic Legacy and investment in new sports facilities via the lottery will be undermined by a lack of protection for existing facilities through the planning system.

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? No comment.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based? 3.9 Sport England believes that robust policies and planning decisions should be built on a sound and robust evidence base, so ensuring that the right development takes place in the right location. As a result of this, we have developed a number of tools and techniques over the years, such as the Facilities Planning Model, Sport Facilities Calculator, Facilities Improvement Service and Playing Pitch Methodology to achieve this. The current PPG 17 supported this in paragraph 1 by stating that “Local authorities should undertake robust assessments of the existing and future needs to their communities for open space, sports and recreational facilities”. 3.10 Sport England believes that this approach has been fundamentally undermined within the new NPPF. The need for “robust” assessments has been removed in Paragraph 128, whilst Paragraph 129 seeks to undermine the assessment of needs in Paragraph 128 by allowing for the needs of new development to override cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w139

such assessments even if a deficit has been identified. In addition, there is now no requirement to provide any like for like replacement or compensatory provision for the loss of any sports facilities. 3.11 The use of assessments, development of standards and priorities via an evidence based approach is further undermined in Paragraph 41 which states that “In order to be appropriate the cumulative impact of these standards and policies should not put implementation of the development plan at serious risk, and should facilitate development throughout the economic cycle”. This effectively means that even if local priorities have been identified for funding via CIL, based on an evidence based approach, they may have to be dropped if they are likely to reduce economic development. The result of which will be that the future communities will be developed without the required associated community infrastructure that makes development into cohesive and healthy communities. 3.12 Sport England is therefore concerned that the approach to downgrade the importance of evidence based planning will not only mean that existing facilities will be lost but also reduce the potential for much needed new facilities and social infrastructure to be funded and delivered through CIL. September 2011

APPENDIX Wider Beneﬁts of Sport These beneﬁts include: (a) Building communities through local pride and success/improving social cohesion. (b) Improved health of communities. (c) Value to the economy.

(a) Building communities through local pride and success/improving social cohesion Ensuring communities, families and young people have good quality places to play sport is important for the pride and sense of place felt by people in their communities. Sport, through its many clubs and volunteers, has a contribution to make to the Big Society and a community’s sense of place. Sport is the number one choice for volunteering with 52% of adults who volunteer doing so in sport. For some communities this may mean getting involved in running their own facilities as part of a community asset transfer scheme or as a social enterprise. Sport has the ability to bring different groups together and build strong relationships and networks, creating happier more tolerant communities. A vibrant club or sporting group can help diverse groups of people come together with all the beneﬁts that working as a team can bring. Nationally, the cost of responding to incidents of anti-social behaviour is £3.4 billion per year.127 It is widely accepted that to achieve a reduction in anti-social behaviour and in the fear of crime a combination of factors is required. Within this sport is recognised as having an important part to play. Sports activities and competitions, sports volunteering, sports leadership, sports training and sport employment schemes help develop individuals and communities, encourage healthier and more productive lifestyles and create inclusive communities and neighbourhoods that provide a shared identity and sense of place. Research128 has found that the activities young people engaged in had a signiﬁcant additional association with their chances of later adult social exclusion. It concluded that to reduce the likelihood of exclusion in later years young people should be engaged in a combination of activities, within which sport makes an important contribution.

(b) Sport’s role in improving the health of the nation Many studies have shown that physical activity and sport save, extend and improve the quality of lives. Those who are physically active have reduced risk of heart disease, strokes, type II diabetes and different forms of cancer.129 There is also compelling international evidence that demonstrates the impact of exercise as a treatment as well as a preventer of ill health130 reducing the need for expensive drugs, and potentially adding years to life. Physical activity and sport can also be a powerful enabler for those with physical disabilities, offering them opportunities to be more mobile and to build their confidence, which as well as improving health and quality of life, can reduce the need for carers and support. 127 National Audit Office 2006 128 Leisure contexts in adolescence and their associations with adult outcomes: a more complete picture. 129 Chief Medical Officer’s Report, 2004; Breast cancer, the second biggest cause of death from cancer for women in the UK, has also been proven to combat through exercise. 130 EXGENESIS 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w140 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Mental wellbeing may also be enhanced through increased physical activity and sports participation. The reduction of anxiety and depression, counteraction of loneliness through the promotion of social contact, and increased conﬁdence and self-esteem, reduce what is currently a signiﬁcant burden on mental health budgets.131

Not only does physical activity and sport deliver signiﬁcant public health beneﬁts, it also has the potential to save the tax payer over £3 billion a year in avoided healthcare costs132. Research has shown that a million more people across the country playing sport each week would save the taxpayer £22.5 billion in health and associated costs. For example, the health gains associated with a 30–49-year-old who plays football are valued at £27,600 (over the lifetime of the individual).133

Growth in the sport sector has outstripped the English economy as a whole over the past two decades, according to research published in August 2010.

The sport economy’s annual contribution has reached £16.668 billion134—up 140% in real terms between 1985 and 2008.

The research was commissioned by Sport England and carried out by the Sport Industry Research Centre at Shefﬁeld Hallam University. The researchers found that growth between 2005 and 2008 was “driven by investment directed towards the London Olympics and a long-term Sport England policy to increase sport participation”. They argue that sport’s resilience reﬂects the growing number of people who “consider sports participation as being more a basic need than a luxury”.

Other key ﬁndings of the report, The Economic Value of Sport in England include: — Consumer spend on sport in England was £17.384 billion in 2008—up 138% since 1985.135 — The number of people with sport-related jobs has also grown, reaching 441,000—that’s 1.8% of all employment in England.136 — Over three-quarters of these jobs are in the commercial sector, with 13% working in the public sector.137

The report also compares the value of the sport sector across the country. It ﬁnds that London makes the largest contribution, reﬂecting the size of the capital’s economy. However, per capita spending on sport is greatest in the east of England at £404.

Written evidence from Greener Journeys

About Greener Journeys — Launched in 2009, Greener Journeys came into being as a response to the UK’s imperative to reduce carbon emissions from transport. — Greener Journeys is a coalition of Britain’s leading bus companies (Arriva, FirstGroup, Go-Ahead, National Express and Stagecoach) and other supporters committed to encouraging people to travel more sustainably. It aims to reduce CO2 emissions from transport by encouraging people to switch some of their car journeys to bus or coach instead. Its key objective is to take one billion car journeys off the UK’s roads by 2014. Switching from car to bus for just one journey in 25 could save two million tonnes of CO2, and would deliver 50% more CO2 savings from transport than planned by Government over the same period. — Major stakeholders are represented on the Greener Journeys Advisory Board including: Transport for London, RAC Foundation, Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT), Passenger Transport Executive Group (PTEG), and Campaign for Better Transport. Greener Journeys is also a member of the Climate Clinic along with organisations demanding political action on climate change including WWF, Greenpeace and Green Alliance. 131 Mental Health Foundation 2005 “Up and Running?” 132 Based on 80% of the one million made up of adults moving from doing some sport to doing sport three times a week of moderate intensity and 20% move from doing no sport to three times a week the long term total economic value of direct health costs saved to the NHS and quality life years gained is estimated at £22.5 billion. Taken alone the direct savings to the health service is estimated at £3.5 billion. Based on values derived from the Culture and Sport Evidence programme research Understanding the drivers , impact and value of engagement in culture and sport—July 2010 133 See footnote above 134 This ﬁgure is the gross value added (GVA) by the sport sector in 2008, based on current prices. GVA is calculated as the sum of wages and proﬁts generated in the sector. GVA in 1985 was £3.358 billion, and in 2003 it was £13.649 billion. 135 Real term growth. Sport-related consumer spending accounts for 2.3% of overall consumer spending in England 136 Sport-related employment in England has grown from 304,000 in 1985 to 441,000 in 2008. 137 339,000 (76%) of sport-related employment was in the commercial sector in 2008. The voluntary sector accounted for 11% and the public sector for 13%. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w141

The Draft NPPF and Sustainable Transport Patterns — Greener Journeys would like to submit to the Committee a brief statement on the draft National Planning Policy Framework. It welcomes the opportunity to do so given the NPPF’s potential to shape the fabric of our communities for many years to come. — The draft NPPF is clearly aimed at boosting economic growth by encouraging new development. Greener Journeys acknowledges the NPPF’s need to adopt a pro-growth agenda at this time of economic challenge. However, Greener Journeys believes this growth should be more closely aligned to sustainable patterns of transport than is currently envisaged in by the Government. Indeed, the most successful city economies in the world are those with the highest percentage of public transport users. In order for any economy to grow it needs a large and skilled labour market. It naturally follows that cities with transport capacity constraints and high levels of car dependency lack access to this vital resource, which in turns acts as a constraint on growth.

The Dominance of the Car — Previous land-use planning policies have helped to cement the dominance of the car as the default mode of choice through its delivery of car-based developments. Such developments have been located in areas that have either been unsuitable for access by sustainable transport, or that there has been a failure to plan for the inclusion of sustainable transport infrastructure as part of the development. Both access and infrastructure is almost impossible to deliver retrospectively. — Modal choice is also currently skewed by pro-car measures offered at these car-based developments, particularly by the provision of “free” parking to car drivers, which effectively becomes a subsidy from non-car drivers to car drivers. This “free” parking does not take account of the opportunity cost of the land nor the maintenance costs of car parks and skews modal choice towards solo car. Free parking is in fact a cost paid by those who do not drive, and this is economically inefﬁcient and inequitable.138 The incentive of free-parking for car drivers is not currently matched by any similar incentive for public transport users, for example, tax incentives for travelling by bus (bus season tickets / salary sacriﬁce schemes etc). — As a result of the lack of integration between land use and transport planning, the UK uses cars for a far higher percentage of journeys than most other European countries. This dependence on the private car has also unsurprisingly led to the UK also being one of the most congested countries in Europe. — The economic consequences of congestion well documented accounting for a third of the measurable costs of transport in urban areas.139 Not only is excess delay is costing our urban economies £11 billion per annum but carbon emissions impose a cost to society equivalent of up to £4 billion a year.

Modal Shift — Modal shift from car to sustainable transport modes is the key to reducing these wasteful costs to the economy. A shift would provide quantifiable benefits in terms of reduction in car use, congestion and CO2. — Diverting a single five mile journey from car to bus will deliver average decongestion benefits of £5.50 in urban areas,140 which is equivalent to benefits of around £2,350 per annum if this is represents a commuting trip. — Around 40% of all transport carbon emissions is generated by trips under ten miles, with trips in the 2 to 5 mile category contributing 40% of these emissions. Key opportunities lie in making alternative modes more attractive when it comes to these shorter trips.141 — Research shows that consumers place journey times and reliability high up on their agenda when considering whether to convert a car journey to one by public transport. Evidence clearly shows the speed and reliability of bus services, for example, can be improved through bus priority measures142 and that bus use can dramatically increase when bus priority measures as part of a package of measures is implemented.143 This allocation of road space is something that must be considered in the planning of new developments or the extension of major developments. — Integrated land-use and transport planning is the key to this shift. Well planned developments in themselves reduce the demand for travel and encourage a high mode share of sustainable modes. 138 Urban Transport Analysis, Cabinet Office, DfT et al 2009 139 Urban Transport Analysis, Cabinet Office, DfT et al 2009 140 SU Analysis of WebTAG 3.9.5—2010 prices and values 141 Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen, 2011 Department for Transport 142 Bus Priority: The Way Ahead, DfT 2004 143 On the Move: Passengers, partnerships and growth, CPT 2006 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w142 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Recommendations — Greener Journeys would like to see transport impacts to be fully accounted for in all land-use planning decisions and that patterns of development should always facilitate the use of sustainable transport, rather than “where practical”, or “where reasonable to do so” as the draft NPPF currently suggests. — All new development and expanded major developments should be based around existing transport hubs and around networks of small, local retail and leisure facilities linked to centralised services. — Any new developments on green ﬁeld sites should be matched by the provision of comprehensive public transport services and infrastructure which themselves must be underpinned by green travel planning to promote public transport use. Travel plans should include targets for mode share. — These planning conditions should be made a speciﬁc requirement of the Local Enterprise Partnerships. — Greener Journeys believes if these recommendations are properly incorporated in to the draft NPPF then the planning system can play its full part in helping to create a growing, sustainable, low carbon economy. September 2011

Written evidence from Business in Sport and Leisure Summary — Business In Sport and Leisure (BISL) is the strategic body representing the private sector in the sport and leisure industry. — BISL has welcomes the proposal for a new National Planning Policy Framework and fully understands the government’s commitment to consolidate the former raft of policy statements, circulars and guidance in to one accessible document. — However BISL remains concerned that the “sustainable” caveat remains so subjective in definition that it will be continue to be used by anti-development parties to stifle any new development. — BISL is also concerned at the lack of reference to sport, tourism and other specific types of “leisure”, the “lumping together” of all such uses whether they are urban, fringe or rural uses, and the emphasis on meeting needs led by current use and demand, rather than any aspiration to grow sporting participation or the contribution of sport, leisure and tourism business to the economy in accordance with other ministerial statements and government policy. — BISL further believes that there are some inherent conflicts within the NPPF ain particular it encourages sustainable communities at paragraphs 124–132, but there are some inevitable conflicts and tensions with the sequential policies in paragraphs 76–80 that require all retail and leisure uses (including sport and tourism) to be located in town centres. — This is simply not possible in all cases and runs counter to achieving a sustainable, balanced and mix use community in a new residential suburb or an edge of town business area. Both would benefit from the integration of tourism and leisure (pubs, restaurants, hotels, health & fitness, sports fields) facilities to achieve the desired “work, live and play” of paragraph 125. — BISL doubts whether such a relatively slim document could ever be sufficiently evidenced based is questionable and whether the planning system can ever anticipate all future business needs and innovations. — The planning system needs to provide a framework for sustainable economic growth but needs to be flexible and responsive to economic change and innovation. The NPPF goes a long way to achieving that, subject to the changes we suggest, but it’s implementation to address the government’s objectives may require a shift in interpretation and culture among decision-makers which cannot be achieved by the written word alone

Introduction 1. Business In Sport and Leisure (BISL) is the strategic body representing the private sector in the sport and leisure industry with a uniquely broad range of members from sport and recreation to gaming and hospitality BISL can take and express a strategic view across the sector. 2. BISL has worked successfully with Government, on a range of policy issues in licensing, sport, property and planning and has responded on a regular basis to DCLG consultations on planning White Papers, Planning Policy Guidance and other planning and valuation matters. BISL’s 25 year history has established a reputation for expertise, balance and professionalism as we seek to grow and protect the sport and leisure Industry. 3. BISL develops policy through a range working groups including property and land-use planning, sport and other specialist leisure ﬁelds including gaming, hospitality, sports retailing and the visitor economy. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w143

Overview of the National Planning Policy Framework 4. BISL has welcomed the proposal for a new National Planning Policy Framework and fully understands the government’s commitment to consolidate the former raft of policy statements, circulars and guidance in to one user friendly accessible document. 5. BISL was already encouraged by much of what was contained in the Plan for Growth with the emphasis on a presumption in favour of sustainable growth and development that created jobs and a role for the commercial sector in a simplified planning system which was subsequently reflected in the practioners first draft NPFF and in the present consultation document. However, we remain concerned that the “sustainable” caveat remains so subjective in definition that it will be continue to be used by anti-development parties to continue to stifle any new development. 6. BISL is further encouraged by the overall holistic approach to planning in terms of the economic, social and environmental roles. In particular we support the emphasis throughout the document on positive planning— helping applicants to bring together an acceptable scheme rather than seeking ways to prevent it. We also support the various references to the need to be practical and flexible in the application of policies. This is a particular issue when it comes to the ever expanding use of the sequential test to less and less appropriate types of development, and the increasingly draconian application of transport policies which seek to prevent any development where there is a possibility users might use their cars. 7. Our main concerns relate to the lack of reference to sport, tourism and other specific types of “leisure”, the “lumping together” of all such uses under the leisure banner whether they are urban, fringe or rural uses, and the emphasis on meeting needs led by current use and demand, rather than any aspiration to grow sporting participation or the contribution of sport, leisure and tourism business to the economy in accordance with other ministerial statements and government policy. 8. BISL has some very specific comments on the detail of the text where both policy and process impact on the commercial leisure industry but overall supports strongly the proposal for a planning system that “delivers the homes. Business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving places that the country needs”. We address each of the select committee’s questions below:

Does the NPFF give sufficient guidance to planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others, including investors and developers, while at the same time giving local communities sufficient power over planning decisions? 9. BISL has seen the emergence of some excellent guidance from DCLG in recent years with the recent unpublished work on the review of PPG17 and the published Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism and particularly the efforts to ensure an understanding and implementation of the guidance throughout the country. This has ensured that operators in the sector have had a level playing field throughout the country in which to undertake development that is essential to future economic growth. 10. Whilst BISL is encouraged by the high level holistic policy guidance in the NPFF it would have wished to see a much more explicit reference to sport, physical activity, leisure and tourism embedded in the roles of planning for prosperity and people from the start of the document. In this connection we suggest that the second and fourth bullets in paragraph 23 are amended to read: — the provision of retail, leisure, tourism and other commercial development; and — the provision of health, sport, security, community infrastructure and other local facilities: and (amendments in italics). 11. It is already clear that even with the current explicit guidance within documents such as PPG17 many local authorities fail to recognise the economic, health and socially important contribution of the sport, recreation and leisure industry and fail to undertake the type of needs assessments referred to in paragraph 128. Whilst BISL would be the last to seek a disproportionate level of national guidance it believes that the sectors contribution to the nation’s health, wealth and well being merits greater emphasis. 12. Moreover, BISL is concerned that paragraph 128 only requires planning authorities to undertake an assessment of needs which will inevitably be based on the existing or projected resident population’s current levels of participation. Given that government policy seeks to markedly increase sports participation rates that are among the lowest in Europe, to address weight and obesity levels that are among the highest, we believe that this paragraph should place much greater emphasis on enabling sporting facilities that will provide for a significant increase in participation rates.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 13. The definition of sustainable development is welcomed by BISL which provided a similar view to the DCMS, based on the definition used by The World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 when discussing the drafting of the then proposed Heritage Reform Bill. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w144 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

14. Although BISL can see that the proposals within the NPPF are intended to provide a balance that positively encourages the opportunity for development that contributes to economic growth, jobs, homes and social wellbeing we remain concerned that many authorities will continue to reduce the interpretation of sustainability down to whether a proposed development is located in the town centre and whether people are likely to visit the development site by car, irrespective of attempts to provide or improve public transport provision. It is not always a simple case that it is less sustainable to provide sport, leisure or tourism facilities at the edge of a settlement than the town centre. There are many more complexities involved; such facilities will be closer to where residents live reducing the need for travel, they help to provide balanced communities rather than mono-use suburbia, and often they cannot be provided in town centres due to space requirements and the high cost of land. 15. BISL would therefore like to see some greater clariﬁcation in the NPPF that sustainability is more than just transport, the provision of jobs, social facilities and environmental improvements may outweigh any car use considerations while those considerations may be less adverse than ﬁrst appear. We would certainly be very concerned to see any changes that weaken the presumption in favour of such “real” sustainable development.

Are the core planning principles clearly and appropriately expressed? 16. As we have said there is a concern in the second and eighth bullet points of paragraph 19 that decision- makers must consider sustainability in the round and not reduce it to just town centric/anti-car considerations. Not all business development can physically be accommodated within, is appropriate within, viable within, or necessarily most sustainable within town centres. We do not think that this point is clear enough in the core planning principles. 17. BISL also has a concern in the third bullet, that in taking account of the needs of the business community, plan-makers need to take account not only of the needs of existing local businesses, but of national business growth trends and innovations that may lead to future demand for business space, including that for sport, leisure and tourism, that may not be acknowledged or even supported by existing local businesses. 18. We believe that “quality of life” should be added to the core planning principle in the ninth bullet, and that “sport” should be added to the tenth.

Is the relationship between the NPFF and other national statements of planning related policy sufficiently clear? 19. We believe that there are some inherent conflicts within the NPPF and between it and other statements. The NPPF encourages sustainable communities at paragraphs 124–132, but there are some inevitable conflicts and tensions with the sequential policies in paragraphs 76–80. The latter require all retail and leisure uses (including sport and tourism) to be located in town centres. But this is simply not possible in all cases and runs counter to achieving a sustainable, balanced and mix use community in a new residential suburb or an edge of town business area. Both would benefit from the integration of tourism and leisure (pubs, restaurants, hotels, health & fitness, sports fields) facilities to achieve the “work, live and play” of paragraph 125. 20. The Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism advises plan makers and decision makers that they must consider the type of tourist accommodation being offered with regard to location. In this regard, accommodation for walkers is cited as being appropriate in rural areas. However, the NPPF provides no such exemption. All leisure uses (including sport and tourism) are required to suffer a sequential test that is meaningless in terms of the market being addressed and an unnecessary financial burden on the developer.

Does the NPFF and the proposed Duty to Cooperate provide sufﬁcient basis for larger than local strategic planning? 21. BISL welcomes the emphasis placed by government on the duty to cooperate but is concerned that there are no teeth to this requirement without any national guidelines on an aspirational level of sport, leisure and tourism provision at a sub-regional/more than local level.

Are the policies in the NPFF sufficiently evidenced based? 22. BISL has certainly welcomed the extensive consultation on the planning system; however, whether such a relatively slim document could ever be sufficiently evidenced based is questionable. In fact it is questionable whether the planning system can ever anticipate all future business needs and innovations any more than King Canute could turn the tide. The planning system needs to provide a framework for sustainable economic growth but needs to be flexible and responsive to economic change and innovation. The NPPF goes a long way to achieving that, subject to the changes we suggest, but its implementation to address the government’s objectives may require a shift in interpretation and culture among decision-makers which cannot be achieved by the written word alone. September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w145

Written evidence from Michael Holden A Major Omission—Culture and Cultural Facilities The word culture is not used in the proposed document except in relation to heritage conservation (section 178). This is a gross omission of a major element of community life in which Planning has a large role to play. The arts and its concomitant creative industries are a major revenue earner for the United Kingdom in world markets, international tourism and internal tourism. They are the essential meeting places for the community and are catalysts in community development and bonding. They populate town and village centres in the evenings and promote ancillary revenues in restaurants, hotels, and in retail generally. The majority of such facilities are in town centres but they can also make significant changes to the image and vitality of rural areas. It is essential that when the Minister speaks in his forward of the importance of ensuring that “the spirit of place thrives” the document that follows recognises the major role of culture in our town and village centres. I shall advance the argument in respect of performances spaces for this is my field of expertise but it can be paralleled in art galleries and museums. Performance spaces are defined for this purpose as theatres, concert halls, arenas and cinemas, village halls and open air theatres. Attendance at cultural events is recorded in the DCMS Taking Part Survey 2010–11 as being 67.1% of all adults of 16 or more years of age. The survey identifies that the Cinema attracts 21 million individuals aged 16+ each year, theatres 27 million, concert halls and music rooms 10 million. Furthermore people attend many times each year so that total annual attendances are many times this number. It must be noted that 60% of these audiences are defined by those whose education has, or will, extend past the age of 18. These will be the higher achievers in their communities and so bring higher earnings and entrepreneurial ability to town centres for the wider benefit of the community. Performance spaces attract large numbers of people to town centres, past the shop windows of retailers so familiarising them with the range of goods and services available locally. Travel to a cultural facility familiarises the audience with the transport infrastructure so that they may be more able to use it when returning to purchase those goods and services. In their visits they will use catering, hotel and other associated retail facilities adding to the evening economy and the peaceful population of town centres in the evening and notably the late evening. For major cities performance spaces will be important components of the tourism industry. In a survey carried out by the Tourist Board several years ago the question was asked “what makes a city?” In the responses the largest number listed a “cathedral” but the second highest listing was a “theatre”. This is not surprising when one considers that auditoria are the only places where the community can meet without racial or religious homogeneity yet have a common emotional and intellectual experience. Where they can meet and discuss these experiences in a building which is commonly “owned” and enjoyed. Performance spaces not only enliven and image our communities they bond our communities. It is for this reason that they are so important in regeneration. In West Germany, after the Second World War, some cities chose to use their scarce resources to build theatres before housing and industry to envision a future and raise public and commercial belief in it. The cities which did this developed more quickly and thrived faster than those that chose apparently more rational paths. The Minister has recognised this in his forward when he speaks of the “spirit of place”. In encouraging new town and village centre development, in attracting new businesses and new housing performance spaces have much to contribute. For some elements of the cultural sector (commercial cinemas, arenas, small music spaces attached to public houses etc) planning considerations are not dissimilar to other retail enterprises as they can capitalise their developments from their own trading resources. But for most performance spaces there is a planning concern in respect of land and property valuations that is not recognised in the new proposals. There are a little over 1,400 permanently licensed theatres in the United Kingdom. Additionally there are many more village, church and school halls where occasional performances are put on and these are of enormous importance in building and linking communities. No matter how different your own background or experience may be if your child, spouse or relation is involved in the performance (or exhibition of art or other event) you will join with others to enjoy and applaud the results. There is no more effective (secular) way of joining new members intimately into their community. Of these 1,400 performances spaces 46% are operated by local authorities, 34% by trusts (almost all charities) 20% are commercially operated. In all local authorities are the freeholders of more than 50% of annually licensed performance spaces and a larger proportion of village and other halls. About 10% of these premises are in a position to generate from trading the resources to buy and sell capital assets in the general market leaving over 1,250 which are incapable of earning sufficient margins to replenish their capital. Of these 1,400 theatres 60% are supported from the public purse (mostly local authorities but including the Arts Councils and other government and lottery funding). Because there is little or no return on capital it is practical only to value these buildings by the residual value of the land on which they sit. It is a fact that a community may join together, with local government and central resources support, to create a new cultural facility at considerable cost only to know, as soon as it opens it has become in commercial terms virtually valueless. In a climate where there is a presumption for new development and pressure on local authorities to realise potential values from buildings where they may also be providing revenue support, the temptation to cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w146 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

realise potential capital may be overwhelming. For independent owners and trusts there will be similar pressures. The community’s accumulation of capital in these cultural buildings should be preserved but without obstructing re-planning and redevelopment of town centres. In the spirit of the NPPF, where new developments are encouraged or required to make contributions to improvements in essential infrastructure, this can be done by applying a special condition for the redevelopment of cultural buildings. This would be that the redevelopment of these buildings should be compensated to the community by a sum equivalent to the current building and land cost. This sum to be held in a special fund for the replenishment of cultural buildings in the future. A new development incorporating a new cultural facility would be able to draw down on this fund (or off-set the compensation due on the loss of the original building). This compensation and fund might be known as Cultural Capital to distinguish it from other community compensation due from development. By this means the public investment in cultural buildings may be sustained yet make redevelopment of such buildings practically possible, so invigorating town centres. Cultural Capital having a cash value ensures too that replacement facilities are truly equivalent, not a passing nod to the concept of replenishment. Recognition of the importance of the cultural facilities in a community should be introduced into the text of the draft National Planning Policy Framework and the following suggestions may be helpful: Section 10, second bullet point—insert italics “...and supports its physical and cultural health and well being”; and Section 18, add a bullet point—“A special valuation is to be made of cultural buildings to preserve the community’s investment to be known as Cultural Capital and shall be the current replacement cost of the building and its land purchase at current values, this valuation to be charged to the redevelopment and used by the community to replenish cultural building stock, including equivalent value replacement within the proposed development.” Section 23, add a bullet point as the third one—“the provision of cultural buildings, performance spaces, galleries, museums and the like.” Section 30, third bullet point—insert italics—“....the performance of centres including the role of cultural facilties.” Section 73, fifth bullet point—add italics “....environmental enhancement including the provision of cultural facilities”; and Section 76, Amend title and throughout to read “...viability of town and village centres”. Section 76, add new bullet point as the fourth point—“recognise the importance of cultural facilities in drawing people to the centre of their communities enhancing their vitality and strengthening community bonds through attending performances and other gatherings.” Section 79, insert italics—“....for retail, cultural and leisure development.....”. Section 124, insert new third bullet point—“ensure access to cultural facilities to promote community cohesion and well being; and”. Section 125, new final bullet point—“the provision of cultural facilities, particularly performance spaces, which encourage public evening activity to populate developments and enhance the evening economy and community cohesion.” Section 126, first bullet point, insert italics—“...meeting places, cultural facilities, public house...”. Section 126, second bullet point insert at end “....needs including cultural facilities by preserving existing Cultural Capital”. September 2011

Written evidence from the West Midlands Planning and Transportation Sub Committee Summary of Main Points — Overly succinct policy leads to differences in interpretation and a lack of clarity—danger of planning by appeal, Ministerial Statement and recourse to the Courts, which is counter to Government’s overarching objectives. — Lack of clarity as to what constitutes an up to date Local Plan that is consistent with the NPPF. — Internal inconsistencies—Local Plans v Neighbourhood Plans, housing need v housing demand and duty to cooperate v local discretion. — Deﬁnition of sustainable development differs from that recently offered by DEFRA and sees economic growth as “ﬁrst amongst equals”; removes local discretion. — Core planning principles unclear and inconsistent with other policy objectives and guidance. — NPPF very much led by Treasury and BIS; no objective evidence that planning system a barrier to growth or acknowledgement of its role in shaping markets. — Missed opportunity to articulate a spatial vision to rebalance England. Concern that may exacerbate past trends of decentralisation from urban areas, such as West Midlands Metropolitan Area. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w147

— Removal of spatial dimension a matter of concern as links with other national policies lost, particularly in relation to climate change. — Whilst strengthened, duty to cooperate needs to go further, particularly in terms as to how conﬂicts can be resolved. — Accompanying impact assessment selective in terms of evidence used and in acknowledging key conclusions. — Evidence that communities universally welcome additional development unclear.

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 over planning decisions? General 1. The draft NPFF makes a bold attempt to simplify the planning system. There is no doubt that 1100 pages of guidance is excessive, has led to duplication and is only navigable by specialists, thus making it distant from the communities that it means to serve. 2. Reducing this to 58 pages, however, is too draconian. Succinct policy is open to interpretation leading to the very uncertainty that Government seeks to remove. Where existing policy has been summarised, it is often necessary to have knowledge of the origins of that policy as expressed in PPGs / PPSs to fully understand its context; this is unlikely to assist the layperson. There is a concern that this uncertainty will lead to more planning by appeal, Ministerial Statements and, ultimately, recourse to the Courts. 3. The relative brevity of the NPPF is illustrated when compared to the recent Planning for Travellers consultation,144 which devoted 33 pages to a single issue. If, as proposed, this is inserted in full within the NPPF, it will lead to the document appearing unbalanced.

Local Plans 4. As the Local Plan takes centre stage under the revised system, clarification is sought as to what comprises a Local Plan, especially during the transition period, and what it may legitimately contain. 5. Paragraph 58 of the draft NPPF states, in summary, that unless local authorities have up to date plans consistent with the NPPF, then proposals should be determined in accordance with its presumption in favour of sustainable development. 6. Paragraph 48 also states that in examining Local Plans, unmet development requirements from neighbouring authorities should be met where practical to do so. It is not clear what mechanism there is for deciding this and there is a potential conflict between the Duty to Cooperate and local discretion. 7. To provide necessary certainty, it is suggested further guidance is sought from Government: — What comprises an up-to-date and consistent plan? — Are plans that have recently been adopted, such as the Black Country Joint Core Strategy,145 considered to be up to date? — Will plans that add more detail than the NPPF requires be deemed inconsistent with it? If so, how is this consistent with localism? — If local authorities are obliged to amend existing or plans or those that are well established is this not likely to lead to further uncertainty and delay? — What status do emerging plans have? — The NPPF advises that Local Plans should be single documents; are local authorities expected to merge existing Area Action Plans and Core Strategies into a single document? — Is the Planning Inspectorate likely to be sufficiently resourced to deal with the additional demands placed on it? How will it distinguish between the Duty to Cooperate and local discretion? — Regarding transitional arrangements, particularly as local authorities have been discouraged from repeating regional / national policies?

Internal conﬂicts within the NPFF 8. The relative brevity of the NPPF and some loose drafting has led to some internal conﬂicts, and your Committee is drawn to the following examples.

Local Plan v Neighbourhood Plan 9. NPPF (para 51) states that Neighbourhood Plans must conform with Local Plans. However, if there is a conﬂict then the Neighbourhood Plan takes precedence. If a Neighbourhood Plan advocated, for example, more 144 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/travellersitesconsultation 145 http://blackcountrycorestrategy.dudley.gov.uk cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w148 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

retail development in a centre than that advocated in a Local Plan, which allocates development in accordance with its deﬁned Network of Centres (NPPF para 76), then how would this be resolved?

Housing Requirements 10. NPPF (para 28) states that Strategic Housing Market Assessments should identify the scale and mix of housing for the local population, whilst immediately beneath there is requirement to take account of migration. Migration is one of the biggest challenges facing strategic planning and there is a danger that some authorities may revert to planning for zero net migration. This is further confused by NPPF (para 109) which requires that Local Plans meet full demands in the housing market area. 11. There is also a greater emphasis on planning to meet demographic projections (NPPF para 111). The status and role of these is also a contentious issue when planning strategically. It is not best practice to plan on the basis of trend based projections as these vary and are self reinforcing; instead, these are one factor that should be taken into account when preparing local forecasts of housing requirements. The terms need and demand are also used interchangeably and these have very different meanings.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 12. The principles of sustainable development have become enshrined within the planning system over the past two decades as well as other Government policy areas, and the definition is crucial. 13. DEFRA recently published the document Mainstreaming Sustainable Development;146 this takes a corporate approach to embedding sustainable development throughout Government policy, and: …recognises that the three “pillars” of the economy, society and the environment are interconnected (page 2). 14. It proceeds to state that: As part of our commitment to enhance wellbeing, we will start measuring our progress as a country, not just by how our economy is growing, but by how our lives are improving; not just by our standard of living, but by our quality of life. 15. The definition offered by the NPPF is inconsistent with this guidance as the economic dimension is seen as the first amongst equals. This can be interpreted to mean that any growth is sustainable and consequently should be permitted. What constitutes sustainable, therefore, is likely to be a source of debate and consequent delay. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of many developments that do not have economic benefits, otherwise they would not be pursued by the private sector. 16. NPPF (para 11), states that: These three components should be pursued in an integrated way, looking for solutions which deliver multiple goals. 17. This is a crucial phase and should be amplified and be at the heart of the document, as it encompasses what the planning system is about. It would also help allay some criticism of the NPPF. 18. The NPPF removes local discretion and flexibility in policy application. For example, the relative weight given to each of the sustainability criteria may vary between local authorities and even within their administrative areas, dependent on local circumstances. Local communities and elected Members are best based to make this judgement. 19. The NPPF’s definition of planning for prosperity could be interpreted narrowly, focusing on Gross Value Added (GVA) or company profits; there is no direct reference to creating / safeguarding local jobs, which is of upmost importance to local authorities.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 20. It is not obvious what the role of this section is. It appears to be an unfocused list ranging from high level principles to detailed policy requirements; for example the first bullet states that planning should be genuinely plan led, whilst the final bullet point advocates ensuring a good standard of amenity. 21. Elsewhere, there is duplication and inconsistency with other parts of the NPPF, namely the strategic priorities and accompanying advice to local authorities, with no clarity as what takes precedence. 22. For example, the core principle relating to transport (NPPF para 19) states that: Planning policies and decisions should actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in areas which are or can be made sustainable. 146 http://sd.defra.gov.uk/documents/mainstreaming-sustainable-development.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w149

23. This, however, is diluted by one of the objectives for transport (NPPF para 83) which states that: Where practical, encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion. The planning system should therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport.

24. Finally, and as highlighted elsewhere in this submission, these core principles offer limited scope for local discretion and are likely to be a source of delay in plan preparation and development management.

25. It is a matter of concern that many of the more fundamental policy changes advocated through the NPPF emanate directly from the Treasury/ BIS in the Growth White Paper147 and Plan for Growth148 that accompanied the Budget in March 2011. There was no opportunity to comment on these proposals. 26. These introduced the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the default answer to development being yes, the primacy of the NPPF and liberalising the Use Classes Order. It is not clear how these sit with DCLG’s localism agenda. 27. The Plan for Growth also seeks to rebalance the economy, with less reliance on the South East nationally and less on public sector employment elsewhere. Although Enterprise Zones and the Regional Growth Fund are in place, the NPPF is a missed opportunity to offer a geographical focus to address spatial inequalities and economic / population imbalances between London / South East and the remainder of England. 28. This is a particular concern for the West Midlands Metropolitan Area, which has an established urban renaissance strategy and has suffered disproportionately during the recent economic downturn. This strategy seeks regeneration of the urban area through increased investment and population growth facilitated in part by stemming selective out migration of economically active residents and jobs to the Shires. There is a danger that this approach will be weakened and exacerbate past unsustainable development pressures in the Shires, leading to a “hollowing out” of the urban areas. A recent report by the Centre for Cities cites evidence of the decentralisation of jobs.149

29. By means of comparison, the Wales Spatial Plan150 sets out a clear geographically based vision for balanced economic and community development linking with strategic infrastructure priorities.

30. There is scant regard to strategic infrastructure in the draft NPPF.151 There needs to be coordination between the National Infrastructure Plans and the likes of high speed rail and future aviation policy, which could have fundamental effects on the socio economic geography of England and the wider United Kingdom. Whilst the National Infrastructure Plan152 was a welcome publication, it is largely a position statement rather than a forward looking plan.

31. The NPPF reverts planning to a narrow focus on land development programmes rather than having the broader spatial component that was introduced in the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. The existing PPS1153 (Para 30) sets out spatial role of planning: Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which inﬂuence the nature of places and how they can function.

32. Since its inception, spatial planning has been a very useful tool in that it has fostered interdisciplinary working and drawn together investment programmes from key sectors such as housing, environment, health and transport to deliver common policy objectives. To dispense with this concept is considered to be a retrograde step and your Committee is urged to ask Government on what grounds this decision has been made.

33. In abandoning the spatial component of planning, only lip service is paid to integrating policy across Government; whilst broad objectives are alluded to, this is implicit rather than explicit and the distinct absence of cross referencing is noticeable. A particular oversight is lack of acknowledgement of the contribution that the planning system makes to responding to climate change as expressed in the Climate Change Act,154 the UK Renewable Energy Strategy155 and the Coalition’s Carbon Plan.156 147 http://www.bis.gov.uk/news/topstories/2010/Oct/local-growth 148 http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_growth.pdf 149 http://www.centreforcities.org/assets/ﬁles/2011%20Research/11–07–04_City_Collaboration.pdf 150 http://wales.gov.uk/location/strategy/spatial/?lang=en 151 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ppp_national_infrastructure_plan.htm 152 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ppp_national_infrastructure_plan.htm 153 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpolicystatement1 154 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/legislation/cc_act_08/cc_act_08.aspx 155 http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/what%20we%20do/uk%20energy%20supply/energy%20mix/renewable%20energy/ renewable%20energy%20strategy/1_20090717120647_e_@@_theukrenewableenergystrategy2009.pdf 156 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/carbon_plan/carbon_plan.aspx cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:46] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w150 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

34. Equally at the local level, the lack of a spatial focus is disappointing as this formally articulated the need to develop a shared spatial vision to bring together local and sub regional strategies such Local Transport Plans and Community Strategies.

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 35. The West Midlands Metropolitan Authorities, through the Planning and Transportation Sub Committee, have a long established tradition of joint working on strategic planning and transportation matters and this is set to continue. This is reflected in the Joint Interim Strategic Planning Statement157 that it recently agreed in the light of the proposed abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies. 36. The duty to cooperate has been strengthened in the Localism Bill, but it remains is real challenge to ensure that it provides an effective mechanism for strategic planning. At the very least, it is suggested that there is a formal requirement for local authorities to collaborate and prepare Strategic Infrastructure Assessments which seek to ensure that issues such as infrastructure, economic development, housing and the environment are considered in a coordinated way and to use common evidence bases. 37. Paragraphs 44 to 47 of the draft NPPF are drafted loosely and the likely sanctions for not cooperating are not fully set out, and there is no identified mechanism for resolving conflicts. In responding to your Committee’s Report on the Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: a planning vacuum,158 the Secretary of State (para 33) made it clear that: Where local councils fail to cooperate on cross boundary issues their local plans will not pass the independent examination. 38. It is simply too late for matters to be resolved at this juncture, as it will lead to further delays and poor planning. 39. The dynamics of the West Midlands are complex as are the relationships between the Metropolitan Area and its Shire neighbours, particularly in terms of migration patterns and commuting. 40. The NPPF suggests that there is a ready consensus awaiting and willing recipients to accommodate additional growth that cannot be met in the authority that generated it. This may not be the case especially given the scale of future development requirements and the requirement for local discretion. 41. A radical change of position by one or a group of authorities, therefore, could have wider ramifications thus preventing other authorities adopting their plans, which would lead to further delays and uncertainty. This is illustrated by the recent Inspector’s Report on the Stevenage Core Strategy,159 which found it unsound, as neighbouring North Hertfordshire withdrew its support for an urban extension to accommodate growth generated by Stevenage. 42. It is also uncertain as to what the precise role and expectations of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) on local and strategic planning processes will be and further clarification through the NPPF would be beneficial, particularly relating to strategic pan-LEP issues.

Are the policies contained within the NPPF sufficiently evidence based? Planning as a barrier to growth 43. The evidence base for the more fundamental changes advocated through the NPFF is weak and very much driven by a Treasury / BIS view of the planning system which is not substantiated. No objective evidence is offered that the planning system operated in England is more restrictive than in the named competitor countries, nor what contribution it may / may not have made to Britain’s comparative advantage in 1998. 44. Furthermore, no objective evidence is offered that the planning system contributes to the shortfall in housing. As at 2009 there were almost 17,000 committed plots in the Metropolitan Area, sufficient to accommodate 7.5 years of very challenging housing requirements. The credit crunch and resulting economic downturn have led to less mortgage funding being available, particularly for first time buyers who drive the market. 45. The fact that planning can help create and shape markets and overcome economic disparities has been overlooked. As a local example, local authorities across the West Midlands have collectively retained a large single site to accommodate major new footloose investment. This site is known as i54 and lies immediately to the north of Wolverhampton, adjacent to J2 of the M54. There have been several attempts to relax the planning policies on this site, but it is now subject to interest from Jaguar Land Rover for a reported £67 million new engine plant that would create around 1,000 jobs. Whilst this is far from certain, had this site not been safeguarded, then the opportunity would not have arisen. 157 http://www.sandwell.gov.uk/downloads/file/2107/position_statement_strategic_spatial_planning_in_the_west_midlands_ metropolitan_area 158 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmcomloc/517/517.pdf 159 http://www.stevenage.gov.uk/content/15953/26379/26386/26393/CSEiP-Inspectors-Report.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w151

46. At the other end of the scale, many West Midlands ﬁrms rely on cheap start up premises, and these need safeguarding through the planning system.

Accompanying Impact Assessment160 47. The accompanying impact assessment is selective in its analysis and, notwithstanding this, the draft NPPF does not reﬂect some of its key messages. Rather than assess the impacts in an objective manner, it reads as a justiﬁcation for the NPPF as drafted. Some examples are offered below.

Removal of offices from town centre first policy 48. The risks identified in removing offices from the “town centre first policy” simply states that people may have to travel further to work, with adverse impacts on carbon emissions. This will be mitigated as (page 37): Office development will still be the subject to the policy requirement that development stating significant people movement should be located in accessible locations where sustainable transport modes can be maximized. Such locations tend to be in urban areas. 49. This is very simplistic as out of town business parks cannot match the accessibility benefits of town centres, which usually function as multi modal interchanges. The justification is weak and should take into account other matters such as: — Offices provide substantial footfall which supports the wider regeneration of centres. — This approach may prompt further decentralisation. — The impact on land markets, as offices are favoured in out of centre locations rather than B2 general industrial due to higher rental values and plot densities. — Reduced choice for manufacturing industries, which are crucial to the Metropolitan Area’s economy, and genuinely need good access to the motorway network. — Impacts on the strategic highway network during peak periods. — Social inclusion as jobs will be less accessible to those without access to a car.

Brownfield Land 50. The NPPF proposes removing the national policy that prioritises brownfield development for housing and sets a 60% target. The impact assessment (P50) acknowledges that local circumstances can determine the suitability of brownfield land, that there are costs and benefits to developing both and that it is a matter for local authorities to determine an approach appropriate to their area. This analysis, however, is not reflected in the NPPF itself which weakens the ability of the likes of the West Midlands Metropolitan Area to prioritise brownfield sites in accordance with local circumstances. Your Committee is urged to draw Government’s attention to this and seek amendment to the final NPPF.

Planning Appeals 51. Page 13 of the impact assessment states that greater clarity in national policy will lead to fewer appeals. Pages 25 to 26 suggest that the risk of permission being allowed on appeal will ensure that local authorities seek to approve planning applications in accordance with an up to date plan or, in its absence, the NPPF. 52. This analysis is ﬂawed, in that it assumes that there is universal acceptance that the NPPF as drafted is clear. A common thread throughout this evidence is that the NPPF is open to wide interpretation. A potential risk that has not been identiﬁed in the impact assessment is that the development industry may deploy a “straight to appeal” tactic, particularly in the short term.

Evidence that Communities Support Growth 53. Government has expressed the view that communities are likely to be more receptive of growth if they see the beneﬁts of it. Whilst there is some evidence of this, acceptance is far from universal as is illustrated by research undertaken by the former (pro housing development) National Planning and Housing Advisory Unit161 summarised below. — 62% of 25–34 year olds support house building in their area compared with 47% of 55–64 year olds. — Opposition to new house building is generally greater in areas of high demand. — The acceptability of house building increases if reassurances regarding infrastructure and services are given. — Opposition to house building is greater amongst homeowners. 54. The P&T Sub Committee acknowledges the need for new development and its responsibility for ensuring that housing needs are accommodated and has a growth led strategy to achieve this. As is illustrated above, 160 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/draftframeworkimpact 161 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/507390/nhpau/pdf/16127041.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w152 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

however, acceptance is not universal and is resisted most in areas of higher demand, the very areas that the market will prioritise.

55. Whilst guidance on CIL requires that a proportion of receipts are repatriated to the communities where development occurs, initial analysis suggests that in parts of the Metropolitan Area’s receipts may be limited due to viability issues. A common theme throughout the NPPF is that viability and deliverability must not be compromised and this raises the question as to whether sufﬁcient funding will be available for infrastructure. September 2011

Written evidence from the UK Environmental Law Association (UKELA)

The UK Environmental Law Association (“UKELA”)

1. This response has been prepared by the permanent Working Party established by UKELA which deals with Planning and Sustainable Development. The UK Environmental Law Association aims to make the law work for a better environment and to improve understanding and awareness of environmental law. UKELA’s members are involved in the practice, study or formulation of Environmental Law in the UK and the European Union. It attracts both lawyers and non-lawyers and has a broad membership from the private and public sectors. UKELA seeks to ensure that best legislation and practice are achieved across the UK jurisdictions.

2. This memorandum addresses the questions raised by the Communities and Local Government Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons. We note that the Committees do not expect to examine in detail the individual areas of planning policy. We have therefore focused on our main concerns and UKELA will be responding to CLG regarding their own consultation document in more detail in due course.

Summary — UKELA welcomes the Government’s objective of promoting sustainable development. Most of our response focuses on this aspect. — It is important to distinguish between the two rather different tasks that the government has undertaken—simplification of the guidance and changes to the policies themselves. — The draft document does represent a radical simplification of the planning policy framework, but it risks removing important areas of guidance which have stood the test of time. — We are however more concerned at the drafting of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and do not believe that it will achieve its stated aim. The presumption can only work if it is linked back to an appropriate definition of sustainable development that integrates environmental, social and economic objectives. At present, it prioritises economic growth at the expense of long term environmental and social objectives. — There are some legal complications which will need addressing. The presumption as drafted (para 14) does not fit with the basic statutory test that planning decisions should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004—previously set out in s.54A of the TCPA 1990). The old presumption that permission should be granted unless it “would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance” was removed for this very reason. — The presumption as drafted also misunderstands the ability of Development Plans to provide a black and white answer to planning applications. Development Plans require interpretation. They rarely provide a yes or no answer. — A requirement to grant permission for applications where the plan is “absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date” will simply lead to debate and challenge over whether in fact a plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or its policies are out of date. It will not lead to a simpler planning process. — Local Plans have been developed to date in such as way as to avoid duplication with national and regional policies. The revocation of the PPS/PPGs and Regional Strategies will leave a vacuum in many if not all Local Plans which it will take time to fill. Development decisions must be allowed to be taken on their merits while those gaps are filled. — The presumption in favour of sustainable development could be expressed to facilitate development which meets the minimum sustainable development guidelines in a revised NPPF. — As drafted, the presumption is likely to lead to delays in the planning system including longer appeals and more High Court challenges as those involve debate the interpretation that should be given to the presumption. — We have also addressed the points raised in the CLG Committee’s questions. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w153

General Assessment of the Fitness for Purpose of the Draft Framework as a Whole 3. As an organisation that brings together those with a legal interest in the environment, we are concerned about the effectiveness of the NPPF. We will need to make this new approach to planning policy work for those we advise and represent. 4. It is important to distinguish between the two rather different tasks that the government has undertaken. The first is the editorial task of summarising 1,000 pages of planning policy in 52 pages. The second is to carry out an overhaul of national planning policy, which introduces some radical changes to the substance of existing planning policies. 5. As for the substance, our main concern is that the vision of “sustainable development” put forward by the government in the Framework is a flawed one [discussed below under Question 2]. There is also a significant problem with the relationship between the new presumption in favour of sustainable development and the role of Local Plans. 6. Although we are aware of the considerable criticisms that have been made of the substance of the changes proposed to the detailed policies, those areas lie largely outside our remit. We do not therefore seek to address those in our submissions to the Committees. 7. There are some legal complications as well. The presumption does not fit with the basic statutory test that planning decisions should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). This is discussed further under Q2. 8. As an editorial simplification, we acknowledge that the framework of the draft NPPF is easy to read. However, because it has removed much of the supporting detail, there is a risk that the draft NPPF will act not so much as a nudge to the system to promote economic growth but as a shove, so that the system may well stumble and fall before it can find its feet. 9. Whilst all clarification is to be welcomed, there are some important areas of policy which it does not appear to have been deemed necessary to summarise. If the main basis for the simplification argument is that existing planning policy is longer than the collected works of Shakespeare, this is a poor justification. Whilst many may have enjoyed the Reduced Shakespeare Company as they romp through “The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged)—All 37 Plays in 97 Minutes!”, no one is seriously suggesting that Shakespeare would be improved if his works were reduced to 52 pages. Similarly, most of the nuances and well-established detailed policies will be lost once the NPPF is adopted. 10. The dangers of poor planning are well known—it “can result in a legacy for current and future generations of run-down town centres, unsafe and dilapidated housing, crime and disorder, and the loss of our finest countryside to development”. (existing PPS 1, para 1)

The Specific Questions Raised by the Committee Q1. 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 over planning decisions? 11. There are many unanswered matters of detail, given that national planning guidance will be reduced to 50–60 pages. Since there will be no spatial plan for England, unlike in Wales, it will be difficult to predict the outcome of significant planning decisions. Given that the government is encouraging local decision making, this is perhaps inevitable. 12. The latter part of the question picks up on one of the inherent difficulties of the neighbourhood planning agenda. It appears to be based on the premise that the local community and the local planning authority have different ambitions. In the past, the main power for local communities over planning decisions has been through their elected representatives on the planning committee. It is regrettable that the draft Framework actually weakens the requirement for pre-application consultation (in para 57), as the LPA cannot require a developer to engage with them. On the other hand, the draft NPPF encourages the developer to engage with the local community, which would appear to duplicate work. 13. It is unclear whether neighbourhood plans will be a success. But the statement that the LPA cannot adopt policies on an area when there is a neighbourhood plan in the course of preparation would risk leaving a policy vacuum (para 51).

Q2. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 14. The definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document is stated very simply, and repeats the high-level formulation put forward by the Brundtland Commission (para 9). This does not provide any definite answers to the issue of how to apply this in practice. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w154 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

15. The Environment Audit Committee itself recommended (3rd Report, 16 March 2011, para 10) recommended that the five internationally-recognised principles of sustainable development set out in the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy should be included in the Localism Bill—namely, living within environmental limits, ensuring a strong, healthy and just society, achieving a sustainable economy, promoting good governance and using sound science responsibly. However, the explanation given in the draft NPPF of what sustainable development means in the planning context does not acknowledge these. 16. What we have instead is an emphasis on growth. If the Foreword is as much a part of policy as the rest of the document, we can see that the Minister defines “development” as “growth”, and states that “sustainable development is about positive growth”. We recognise that economic growth is an immediate and pressing national issue but the public interest also requires decisions to be taken with a view to the long term sustainability of society. A presumption in favour of sustainable development must be clearly linked back to an acceptable definition of what constitutes sustainable development overall—in the short, medium and long-term. 17. The current draft of the NPPF therefore appears to overlook the fact that the term “sustainable development” was conceived to reconcile tension between environmental and developmental concerns. The term is used globally in policies, strategies and treaties such as UNFCCC. It is often also used interchangeably with the term “sustainability” although the terms denote different things. “Sustainability” is used to describe an aspiration for finding a better way for humans to live within our support system. “Sustainable development” is the policy manifestation of society’s attempt to achieve that goal. 18. We accept that that there is some inconsistency and vague use of language in research, standards and policy documents which often refer to “the principle of sustainable development” or “principles of sustainable development” or the objective of “sustainable development”. The lack of consistency and precision is probably a reflection of the diverse stakeholders interested in the development of sustainable development. We have responded to the Environmental Audit Committee’s recent inquiry on the UK’s preparations for “Rio +20: The UN Conference on Sustainable Development” on this matter already. 19. Whilst the term “sustainable development” is used in some UK and Scottish statutes, there is no definition within the statutes. One problem with an imprecise definition is that it is more difficult for the courts to interpret and enforce in a way that is consistent with the legislature’s intentions. Where duties are imposed by legislation on an agency including the terms “sustainability”, without an exact definition, this can give rise to issues. For example, Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 required Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) to “have regard to the desirability of securing that anything done whether by SNH or any other person, in relation to the natural heritage of Scotland is undertaken in a manner that is sustainable”. The Act provided no definition of “sustainable” and consequently SNH had to define the term for its own purposes. Given the need for integrated solutions as a matter of public policy it is not useful for every agency to develop its own definition and approach to sustainable development. 20. The “presumption” [para 14—and possibly also 110] will be made to work by those decision makers who have to apply it, but it introduces significant ambiguities. We assume that the Framework is intended to be the guidance envisaged in the new s.33A of the 1990 Act which establishes the Duty to co-operate in relation to planning of sustainable development. 21. The issue is what this presumption means? As currently framed, the presumption appears to promise an easier ride for developers—indeed it is already seen as such by many commentators. In contrast, if there were to be a focus on the global allocation of scarce natural resources to give effect to the concept of “intergenerational equity” derived from the “Brundtland definition” then it could justifiably limit developments to give effect to “sustainability”. 22. In practical terms, a planning system that is geared to achieve sustainable development needs to embody a spatial planning approach. Only such an approach is sophisticated enough to balance population patterns, societal and economic needs and market forces with all-important ecological constraints. The government’s new approach is essentially market-led, and devoid of spatial considerations. It therefore risks failing to address population imbalances, economic and social inequality and resource pressures (such as water constraints in the South East). It would have been preferable for the NPPF to include a broad spatial vision of how England should develop, which sets the priorities and key issues for planning authorities to consider in different parts of the country, from a sustainability perspective. 23. The presumption harks back to the language used before 1997, that permission should be granted unless “that development would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance” (PPG 1, 1988, para 15, and even in 1953—see the discussion in the Planning Encyclopaedia at Vol.2, P70.40). 24. That policy presumption was held to be irreconcilable with the statutory duty that requires that all planning permission decisions shall be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (established in s.54A of the 1990 Act, and now in s.38(6) of the 2004 Act). The same conflict will arise here. 25. We note that John Howell MP is reported in Planning (9 September 2011, pp.6–7) as telling the Planning Summer School that the presumption is intended to inform plan-making rather than individual decisions. That would be a welcome clarification—but that is not how para 14 currently reads. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w155

26. There is also a difﬁculty in reconciling the presumption with other presumptions—in the green belt, where there is a presumption against inappropriate development, or the desirability to preserve or enhance conservation areas and protection of listed buildings and their settings.

27. The status of the local plans in relation to the “presumption” is also a major challenge. The NPPF wishes to see development granted permission where local plan is “absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date”. The planning system is used to dealing with policies which are “out of date”, and this accords with the s.38(6) duty. That is all that this part of para 14 should have said.

28. The ﬁrst problem with what it currently says is that many local plans are “absent”. As the Impact Assessment records, only 30% of English authorities currently have a Core Strategy in place, and even fewer have adopted a detailed site allocation DPD. Perhaps the worst problem is that 47% have yet to even publish their core strategy—and these are likely to take over a year to adopt even once they are published. By contrast, the government is proposing to adopt the NPPF this year (ie within three months from now).

29. Many recent local plans will also deliberately be “silent” on important points, as they will have been adopted following the advice to Inspectors to ensure that DPDs did not repeat national planning guidance. The revocation of the PPS/PPGs and Regional Strategies will leave a vacuum in many if not all Local Plans which it will take time to ﬁll.

30. All existing plans will also be “silent” on the point about the presumption. The ability to receive a certiﬁcate of conformity needs greater explanation [para 15]. Since it is impossible for existing local plans to “contain” the presumption—as the presumption was not there before—and the soundness tests for local plans have changed (para 48), how can a certiﬁcate (under para 26) ever be granted?

31. These are practical problems, that could be resolved with time. However, there is no transitional period allowed. Does the government intend that there should be an indeterminate period of hurried plan making and unpredictable appeal decisions before the new system beds down?

32. There is a major problem with the idea that the default answer applies when plans are “indeterminate”. This would turn the current working of the plan-led system into confusion. Many decisions in planning are made where the development plan policies are in effect “indeterminate”. The issue of conﬂicting policies in a development plan has been considered in the courts, and has gone all the way to the House of Lords- in City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] 1 WLR 1447, per Lord Clyde: “ … In the practical application of section 18A [the equivalent to s.38(6)] it will obviously be necessary for the decision-maker to consider the development plan, identify any provisions in it which are relevant to the question before him and make a proper interpretation of them. His decision will be open to challenge if he fails to have regard to a policy in the development plan which is relevant to the application or fails properly to interpret it. He will also have to consider whether the development proposed in the application before him does or does not accord with the development plan. There may be some points in the plan which support the proposal but there may be some considerations pointing in the opposite direction. He will require to assess all of these and then decide whether in light of the whole plan the proposal does or does not accord with it. He will also have to identify all the other material considerations which are relevant to the application and to which he should have regard. He will then have to note which of them support the application and which of them do not, and he will have to assess the weight to be given to all of these considerations. He will have to decide whether there are considerations of such weight as to indicate that the development plan should not be accorded the priority which the statute has given to it. And having weighed these considerations and determined these matters he will require to form his opinion on the disposal of the application. If he fails to take account of some material consideration or takes account of some consideration which is irrelevant to the application his decision will be open to challenge. But the assessment of the considerations can only be challenged on the ground that it is irrational or perverse.” [emphasis added]

33. The wording at the end of para 14 is likely to be a section that is much debated—at what point is an adverse impact of a development “significant” enough to refuse permission? And is an expert’s opinion sufficient to be “demonstrable” evidence? And is a local agenda sufficient to outweigh the benefits? This is likely to lead to delays in the planning system including longer appeals and more High Court challenges.

34. The presumption in favour of sustainable development could be expressed to facilitate development which meets the minimum sustainable development guidelines in the NPPF. The default answer to developments which met the guidelines would then logically be “yes”, unless there were other reasons to refuse it. For all other developments, it should be “no” until and unless the developer can show the development satisﬁes the sustainable development guidelines. The sustainable development guidelines in the NPPF would set the minimum standard. Local authorities would be free to set additional guidelines to ensure that development is sustainable in terms of their local conditions. This would be the very essence of “localism”. This is not however what the NPPF achieves. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w156 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Q3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed?

35. Given the scope of our evidence, we do not propose at this stage to comment in detail on the “core planning principles” set out in para 19.

36. We do wonder what the status of the “key housing objective” in para 107 (to increase delivery) is intended to have.

Q.4 Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments?

37. Once it is adopted, it is said that the NPPF will replace all PPS and PPG and most of the signiﬁcant circulars—as listed in the Consultation Document. Essentially, only National Planning Statements, waste policy and procedural circulars will remain.

38. The assertion that “stakeholders” can produce their own best practice documents is regrettable. Not only will these take time to produce, but the accumulated wisdom in the existing practice guides will be removed. Flood risk is the most obvious example.

39. The justification for removing the guidance on planning conditions is not justified in the impact assessment document. These are valuable documents, that reflect the vast experience gained whilst making the existing planning system work—in particular by the Planning Inspectorate. They should be retained, as we are otherwise being asked to re-invent the wheel.

40. Harnessing the expertise and good practice that already exist in terms of ecologically favourable and sustainable development, the NPPF should contain a clear list of guidelines for local planning authorities on what types of development are sustainable. This should include guidelines on transport access, materials and resource use, energy consumption, water consumption and waste generation.

Q5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning?

41. This enforced co-operation is an untried area. For the most part, it can be expected that local authorities will seek to co-operate amongst themselves, and that many of the “larger-than-local” issues will be addressed without the need for a formal resolution by an outside body. The problem will come with issues where no authority wants to take the lead—for instance, gypsy site provision in the south-east, or the need for an urban extension into neighbouring authorities’ areas (eg at Stevenage).

42. The Secretary of State’s role appears to be limited to nationally-signiﬁcant infrastructure, through the National Planning Statements, and to those applications he may deign to call-in for his own determination. Since there is no spatial plan for England, “larger-than-local” may become a process of planning by appeal.

43. These needs will not resolve themselves. Whilst the local planning authorities are encouraged to draw up their plans on the basis of “objectively-assessed development needs” these will always require an element of judgment—particularly when the market is, by its very nature, only taking a short term view.

Q.6 Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based?

44. The Impact Assessment deals with some of the changes that are proposed. This provides limited detail. For instance, it is not clear why the long-term protection on employment land has been removed (see para 75) at the same time as the overall policy is to advocate economic growth. This perhaps reﬂects the short-term time horizon being put forward for these policies, which sacriﬁces long-term interests.

45. It is the role of government to set policy priorities. Indeed, many of the decisions appear to be based on opinion, rather than on “objectively-assessed evidence”. For instance, the choice has been made to remove any target for the use of brownfield land, to remove the requirement to set maximum parking standards for non- residential parking in major development, and to weaken the “town centre first” policy by removing office development from the sequential test, at the same time as retaining the desire to limit urban sprawl. All of these policies were previously introduced in order to promote sustainable development. September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w157

Written evidence from the National Federation of Artists’ Studio Providers The National Federation of Artists’ Studio Providers (NFASP) suggests strongly that Government should strengthen the National Planning Policy Framework guidance by making explicit reference to culture and to its role as an essential component of balanced sustainable development. Commercial leisure, sport and heritage are explicitly recognised in the draft NPPF. Culture and the broad definition of the artist including the visual arts are not. In addition the Draft Framework makes little reference to acknowledging the role of artists’ contribution to local, regional and national culture, place making and sustainable development, nor does it as well as their role as key players in the UK’s creative and cultural economy. NFASP supports the development of sustainable and affordable studio space for artists, and has good evidence over many years of the sustained contribution which such activity makes to the improvement of neighbourhoods, towns and cities. The provision of affordable artists’ workspace offers: — a catalyst to the regeneration and revitalisation of areas; — vitality to neighbourhoods, helping to maintain employment use in developments which would otherwise be vacant; — community benefits, where artists can be involved in local neighbourhood projects which aid social cohesion, as well as benefiting the public realm; and — a sustainable business model with extremely high levels of occupancy. In the introduction to the Draft, the Minister for Planning Greg Clark MP states that the purpose of planning is to achieve sustainable development and that sustainable development is about change for the better. In addition he states that the natural environment is essential to our well being, that our historic environment can be better cherished, that our standards of design can be so much higher and that planning should be a creative exercise to enhance and improve the places in which we live. The Draft identifies that key contributors to this include sport, leisure, recreation, open spaces, the natural environment and design. However, there is a worrying absence of the mention of culture, the arts, theatres, galleries, museums or libraries which surely merit acknowledgement given their well evidenced, extensive and locally valued contribution to the life and well being of communities. Numerous studies give credence to this argument not least the House of Commons own report on funding for the arts (2011) which accepts that culture is an essential component of an improved quality of life. In addition as stated in Cultural Metropolis (2011) the London Mayor’s own strategy “Artists have contributed to the international reputation of the City Fringe and East End as an artistic centre, transforming formerly derelict buildings and playing a key role in the cultural and social regeneration of neighbourhoods.” In NFASP’s view, experience shows that studios which are affordable to a wide range of working visual artists can be an important component of any sustainable community, whether in the inner city, within new greenfield urban extension schemes or in rural areas. Working with a range of development and artists’ agencies, local planning authorities should take account of the needs of artists for affordable studio workspace when considering development and regeneration proposals in their areas. Policies that allow for affordable studio space should be included in Local Development Frameworks and provisions made in Area Action Plans. Local communities should consider artists’ studio needs as they prepare Neighbourhood Development Plans. Examples of including affordable artists’ studios in the planning mix:

Avoiding Loss of Employment on Allocated Land Studio space can add vitality and interest to areas by occupying sites where manufacturing has declined. For example London based studio provider ACME are currently about to complete on a development developers Telford Homes a landmark mixed-use development in the London Borough of Hackney. Located on the site of the former Lesney Matchbox Toys Factory in Homerton, E9, Matchmakers Wharf comprises 49 purpose-built artists’ studio, 209 residential units which will become available for sale or as social housing and commercial space for community, ofﬁce and retail use. Hackney Council fully supports the scheme which will see continued employment use on the site and complements plans to promote creative industries in the area.

Re-using Empty Premises in Town/Retail Centres Affordable artists’ studio space can also be the chosen re-use option for vacant retail and ofﬁce space in town centres. For example, ACAVA (London based) studio providers working in partnership with Essex County Council, Harlow Renaissance, Harlow Council and Harlow Town Centre Partnership have developed 23 artists studios a gallery and a community space in a former vacant ofﬁce building as part of a regeneration initiative with plans to incorporate for the long term rather than the initial three year timeframe. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w158 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Building Social Capital in New Areas such as Sustainable Urban Extensions and Large Infill Sites Affordable artists’ studios can be integral part of a mixed use scheme as in Space Studios, Arlington House development in Camden Town London. Offering residential units for homeless people, low rent flats, a doctor’s surgery, conference and business support facilities in addition to 13 affordable artists’ studios within the scheme. The scheme retains employment use on a former hostel and is in partnership with developers One Housing Group and London Borough of Camden fulfilling social economy aims. Yorkshire Artspace have worked with The Housing Market Renewal Team in Sheffield City Council and Arts Council England, Yorkshire to deliver on the potential for affordable artist’s workspace as part of their Neighbourhood Strategy. Two schemes have resulted in the provision of 18 artists’ studios across the two developments.

Creating Synergies with the Further and Higher Education Sectors, Providing Space for those Leaving College Another mixed use example illustrated by a development in a former tea packing factory in Bristol accommodates 70 studios for artists at affordable rents with residency spaces and a gallery subsidised by the rest of the building which houses facilities for ﬁne art students from University of West of England other cultural and creative industries paying commercial rents.

Providing Valuable Uses for Vacant Property Bow Arts Trust established in 1995 offers, across a broad portfolio of cultural activity, a live/work scheme pioneering the use of empty ﬂats awaiting refurbishment in Poplar, East London. The artists are offered affordable housing rents and one third of the rent goes into a community arts fund to deliver with the help of the artists a sustainable arts project for the beneﬁt of community.

Conclusion We would hope that these examples of affordable artists’ studios in partnership with both the private and public sectors would give demonstrable evidence to amend the NPPF to ensure that culture is recognized as a key component in delivering sustainable development alongside that of economic growth, social inclusion and environmental balance. September 2011

Written evidence from the County Councils Network Introduction 1. The County Councils Network is a cross-party special interest group of the Local Government Association which speaks, develops policy and shares best practice for the County family of local authorities, whether unitary or upper tier. CCN’s 38 member councils, with over 2,500 Councillors, serve 24 million people over 45 thousand square miles or 87% of England. 2. CCN welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence, having undertaken signiﬁcant work on reform of planning in the past, including contributing to debate on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3. CCN welcomes the Draft National Planning Policy Framework, and strongly supports the Government’s objectives of simpliﬁcation and localism. Comments below should be read in the light of this support, and the importance of ensuring that the new planning process is clearer, simpler, and faster, and deals fairly with the competing interests between which it exists to arbitrate. 4. As a special interest group of the LGA, the CCN endorses the response made by the LGA to the Committee’s Inquiry. The CCN would also draw the Committee’s attention to responses made by individual CCN members.

Response 5. CCN particularly wishes to endorse the LGA’s highlighting of the importance of using a widely accepted definition of “sustainable development”, which can be applied in an appropriate way in each local area, and the value of setting in place a clear transition system from old to new arrangements which avoids creating a “planning hiatus”. 6. The CCN would be keen for the Committee to address the question of how “viability” is defined; taking paragraphs 39 and 70 together the current definition appears solely to address the question of whether development is viable for the developer. The CCN would prefer a symmetrical definition of viability, where cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w159

viability is also called into question if a development would impose disproportionate capital or revenue costs on the public purse. 7. The CCN takes a strong view on the Committee’s question “Does the NPPF, together with the ‘duty to cooperate’, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning?”. The CCN supports amendments to the Localism Bill which have been introduced in the House of Lords seeking to establish a locally flexible “Strategic Infrastructure Assessment” which will ensure that consideration of the future strategic infrastructure needs of a local area is undertaken effectively and with the full co-operation of partner organisations. Given the importance to local people of getting correct infrastructure in place for development, to meet transport, health, and education needs, policy should aim to ensure that this co-operation takes place early in the process. The CCN is concerned that taking Examination as the only point at which the adequacy with which the Duty to Co-operate has been discharged is assessed creates a blunt instrument, which potentially comes into play too late. 8. There is also an absence in the draft of a recognition that where strategic priorities for an area are determined at a level larger than that of the Local Planning Authority, a mechanism should also exist for consultation with the public on that larger scale. 9. Without this amendment, the CCN welcomes the emphasis in the document on joint working across authorities, but feels that the current wording suffers from a lack of clarity about the mechanisms for ensuring this takes place. One example of this is the document’s statement that the Community Infrastructure Levy should place “control over a meaningful proportion of the funds raised with the neighbourhoods where development takes place”. The CCN would recommend that the Government should either set out their definitions of “control”, “meaningful proportion” and “neighbourhood”, or explicitly state that they are matters for local negotiation and determination. It must also be recognised in this context that the overwhelming majority of the cost of infrastructure falls on principal authorities and, in two-tier areas, on the upper tier. 10. Across much of the country local solutions will be found and partnership working is already highly effective, but the CCN would welcome more specific references to vertical integration in two-tier areas, as well as clarity about the level of flexibility to be given to local areas to undertake joint arrangements, for example where small unitaries border county areas, or where authorities wish to co-operate at the level of the Local Enterprise Partnership. The CCN also feels that the definition of “relevant issues” for the purposes of planning strategically across boundaries contained in paragraph 45 is vague, and would be improved if it made reference to the “strategic policies” set out in paragraph 23. 11. The CCN has in the past spoken of the value of more visually sympathetic development, particularly in rural areas. In this context the CCN welcomes the draft NPPF’s references to the value of design, with developments which respond to the local character and identity of their surroundings, and are visually attractive, make good use of open space, and are likely to be well maintained. 12. Given the importance attached to simplification by the Government, the CCN believes it would be advantageous if the NPPF could be accompanied by a list of those policy areas which are specifically repealed by virtue of being replaced by the NPPF when it enters into force, and of those areas which are specifically excluded from the scope of the NPPF (for example waste). 13. The CCN also believes that the new planning system should aim to avoid the trap of “creating policy on appeal” where local plans aim to match the concise, simplified nature of the NPPF and are therefore silent on a specific issue. A simple system must include some discretion for locally elected representatives to engage in community leadership and negotiation, exercising qualitative judgements in some cases. 14. The CCN is concerned that the current version of the NPPF contains an excessive amount of “hedging language”, making around 20 references to actions being undertaken “when practical”, or in a “reasonable” manner. These have the potential to create hostages to fortune, and greater clarity would be welcome. September 2011

Written evidence from the London Sustainable Development Commission (LSDC) Summary — The definition of sustainable development, as currently worded, is not considered appropriate: it gives priority to economic growth and downplays the importance of issues such as natural resources and environmental limits; and it does not reflect the principles set out in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy 2005 despite the Minster’s recent endorsement (5 August 2011). — LSDC would prefer the NPPF to be based on two mechanisms which are currently only briefly referenced in the Framework: use of key sustainable development principles as mentioned in paragraph 19 point 2, listed clearly in the first section of the Framework, and cross referenced to the main text; and use of a range of relevant indicators/targets, so that progress towards sustainability can be assessed. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w160 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— The presumption should be in favour of “development which addresses the key sustainable development principles”. — The mechanism for encouraging completion of up to date plans (paragraph 14 point 3) is likely to increase uncertainty and have negative effects on landowners, developers and local communities: guidance is needed on how this aspect will be implemented, if it is to go forward.

1. Introduction The London Sustainable Development Commission (LSDC) was established in 2002 to provide expertise and advice to London Government on sustainable development. Its remit includes setting out best practice, advising on how this can be achieved in London, and taking steps to lobby, encourage and support London’s organisations to achieve real progress. Partly as a result of the activities of the LSDC London has developed a reputation as one of the more sustainable world cities. Our aim is that working with the GLA and other partners, London should be the global benchmark for sustainable cities by 2020. LSDC is therefore taking the opportunity of the current consultation to write to the Select Committee in response to the second question related to sustainable development in order to suggest, on the basis of the experience in London, how the proposals in the draft NPPF could be improved to enable the planning system to achieve more rapid sustainable development in both the short and long term.

2. Definition Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate? The Commission’s view is that the definition as provided in paragraph 10 is not helpful because: — It demotes the concern about natural resources to part of the environmental element of the definition, instead of giving it the separate standing it has had in PPS1. The importance of land as a finite resource is downplayed, as are the need to ensure efficient use of all resources, utilisation of renewable sources and reuse of materials all within the imperative of respecting and starting to operate within environmental limits. — Economic growth is placed first in the order of presentation, reflecting the priorities in the NPPF as a whole, with no recognition that it is sustainable economic growth (a term which is used but is undefined in the draft) that should be central to the planning system. Mention of the low carbon economy should be central to this element of the definition, not relegated to an afterthought in the environment section. — It bypasses the existing UK Sustainable Development Strategy and relies only on the Brundtland definition. While the latter is important as a high level starting point it has little practical application. The NPPF should refer directly to the former as the practical application of sustainable development through planning, particularly in the context of the explicit Ministerial statement (5.August 2011) that the Government proposes no change to more recent formulations, such as the 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy. The Commission considers that it would be preferable for the Select Committee to consider whether the NPPF would be better based on two mechanisms that have been widely used in pursuing sustainable development, which are partly present in the current draft and which can be improved so that they are of practical use.

2.1 Key sustainable development principles There is a reference to the importance of the key sustainable development principles in paragraph 19 point 2 of the NPPF. However these are not identified as such anywhere in the Framework. It would be useful if consideration could be given to the following: — To strengthen and clarify that the NPPF is a mechanism to deliver sustainable development principles in practice, the principles should be clearly identified within each of the separate sections of the NPPF. The objectives sometimes contain this information: for instance paragraph 124 related to sustainable communities. In other sections the appropriate reference is not placed under the objectives: for instance paragraph 150 on climate change. — The principles should also be identified in the first section of the NPPF either as part of or instead of the current definition. The London Plan contains a clear vision for the sustainable development of London and a set of specific objectives162 (pages 32–35) which are easily referenced and set the context for the Plan. There should be cross-referencing to where the principles appear in the main text. — Reference should be made to the five principles set out in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy 2005 recently endorsed by the Minister.163 162 Attached as Appendix 1 163 Attached in Appendix 2 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w161

The LCDC recommends that the Select Committee investigates how the clear identiﬁcation of the key sustainable development principles could improve the usefulness of the NPPF and the practical delivery of sustainable development.

2.2 Use of indicators or targets There is very little mention of indicators or targets to assess how far sustainability is being achieved: for instance for biodiversity in paragraph 168. Clearly the Government will be assessing progress on such matters as plan preparation, numbers of applications made and approved, and housing numbers. Without the explicit use of National indicators which DEFRA are currently consulting on164 and other means to track action at local level, it is unclear how the Government will understand how the combined effect of localised decisions is helping contribute towards national aims such as the restoration of England’s natural environment and the contribution of local action to national carbon objectives. Unless a few key indicators related to the environmental and social aspects of sustainability are also being traced then it will not be possible to assess whether sustainable development is being achieved and, crucially, how the kind of economic development being prioritised in the draft NPPF is contributing to or undermining the ultimate aim of sustainable development. The Commission has found its own development of Quality of Life Indicators165 (last published May 2009; to be updated in 2012) of considerable help in identifying where priority actions are needed. The LSDC recommends that the Select Committee considers (as it examines the principles) the usefulness of identifying a few key indicators on which information is already being collected and that should be used to assess progress in achieving sustainable development.

3. Presumption Is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 3.1 Use of term “sustainable development” The LSDC view is that there has been a significant error in the use of terms in this section of the NPPF, and that this has major implications throughout the draft document, and for the likely outcomes. It is not correct to construe that economic growth is sustainable development on the grounds that it fits into the first part of the definition in paragraph 10 (which seems to be the assumption allowing the transition from paragraph 13 to paragraph 14). For development (or economic growth) to be sustainable it must also address the other two aspects of the definition—environmental and social. The presumption should relate to development which is sustainable in terms of all the aspects of sustainability. We welcome the draft NPPF’s statement in paragraph 11 on the value of and need for integration of what, incorrectly in our view, tend to be regarded as separate strands of sustainability (“three components should be pursued in an integrated way, looking for solutions which deliver multiple goals..”) but we find that the rest of the NPPF fails to deliver on this integration primarily by its favouring of a particular strand of economic growth. In this context we would prefer to see the terminology of the presumption changed so that it refers to “development which addresses the key sustainable development principles”. Only such development can be described as sustainable and be subject to approval—unless it has adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The LSDC recommends that the Select Committee takes the important opportunity to advance both the definition and practical implementation of sustainable development by clarifying the use of terms in the presumption in order to enable the achievement of sustainable development that is integrated.

3.2 Status of the statutory plan The LSDC is also concerned at the expectation that (unless there are signiﬁcant and demonstrable adverse impacts) permission is granted for development if the local plan is “absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date” (paragraph 14 point 3). The Commission has been able to assist in the development of the London Plan 2011 by taking part in the Examination in Public in 2010, as well as contributing to the preparation of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, and a number of other relevant strategies. The London Plan was approved immediately prior to the publishing of the draft NPPF. We are concerned that there may be speciﬁc areas where the London Plan has a policy that could be construed as not being in conformity with the NPPF. For instance there is a clear statement in the London Plan that industrial land should be protected if it is able to meet the future needs of different types of industrial and 164 DEFRA consultation on National SD indicators—http://sd.defra.gov.uk/progress/national/indicators-survey/ 165 http://www.londonsdc.org/sustainable_development/monitoring.aspx cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w162 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

related uses (policy 4.4); whereas the NPPF states that planning policies should avoid the long term protection of employment land (paragraph 75). We are very concerned that as it stands paragraph 14 point 3 will have an adverse effect on local planning, leading to disaffection with the planning system in local communities, and uncertainty for landowners and developers rather than the renewed role for planning which we understand Ministers have said they seek. The LSDC recommends that the Select Committee seeks to clarify: — How (and by whom) decisions will be made on whether speciﬁc policies are “out of date”. It is vital that such decisions are made together with the Local Planning Authority concerned so that the full implications of policy change in the context of the local plan can be assessed. — How existing plans can be certiﬁed as soon as possible as being in general conformity with the NPPF so that the orderly development of these areas can proceed without delay. — Whether there are alternative methods of encouraging the completion of up to date plans without the disruption likely to be caused by the existing clause in the draft.

APPENDIX 1 EXCERPT FROM LONDON PLAN Strategy: The Mayor’s Vision and Objectives 1.52 Against the context set out in this chapter, the Mayor has put forward a vision for the sustainable development of London over the period covered by this Plan: Over the years to 2031—and beyond, London should: excel among global cities—expanding opportunities for all its people and enterprises, achieving the highest environmental standards and quality of life and leading the world in its approach to tackling the urban challenges of the 21st century, particularly that of climate change. Achieving this vision will mean making sure London makes the most of the benefits of the energy, dynamism and diversity that characterise the city and its people; embraces change while promoting its heritage, neighbourhoods and identity; and values responsibility, compassion and citizenship. 1.53 This high level, over-arching vision is supported by six detailed objectives. These embody the concept of sustainable development. They give more detail about how the vision should be implemented, and link it to the detailed policies in the following chapters: Ensuring London is: 1. A city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth in ways that ensure a sustainable, good and improving quality of life and sufficient high quality homes and neighbourhoods for all Londoners, and help tackle the huge issue of deprivation and inequality among Londoners, including inequality in health outcomes. 2. An internationally competitive and successful city with a strong and diverse economy and an entrepreneurial spirit that benefit all Londoners and all parts of London; a city which is at the leading edge of innovation and research and which is comfortable with—and makes the most of—its rich heritage and cultural resources. 3. A city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods to which Londoners feel attached, which provide all of its residents, workers, visitors and students—whatever their origin, background, age or status—with opportunities to realise and express their potential and a high quality environment for individuals to enjoy, live together and thrive. 4. A city that delights the senses and takes care over its buildings and streets, having the best of modern architecture while also making the most of London’s built heritage, and which makes the most of and extends its wealth of open and green spaces, natural environments and waterways, realising their potential for improving Londoners’ health, welfare and development. 5. A city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment locally and globally, taking the lead in tackling climate change, reducing pollution, developing a low carbon economy, consuming fewer resources and using them more effectively. 6. A city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, opportunities and facilities with an efficient and effective transport system which actively encourages more walking and cycling, makes better use of the Thames and supports delivery of all the objectives of this Plan. 1.54 The principles set out in these objectives, and particularly the third, will be applied by the Mayor to the new and existing neighbourhoods in the Lee Valley that will develop and evolve following the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. (see Policy 2.4). 1.55 Under the GLA Act,1 the Mayor is required to have regard to the desirability of promoting and encouraging the use of the River Thames safely, in particular for transportation of freight and passengers. He cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w163

also recognises the importance of the Thames and other London waterways to a range of policy objectives, including mitigating climate change, providing important leisure and amenity benefits, and enhancement of London’s natural environment and economic development. Specific policies dealing with the “Blue Ribbon Network” of waterways are set out in Chapter 7, but other policies (such as those on sports facilities (Policy 3.19), developing London’s economy (Policy 4.1), London’s visitor infrastructure (Policy 4.5), flood risk management (Policy 5.12), sustainable drainage (Policy 5.13), water quality and wastewater infrastructure (Policy 5.14), water use and supplies (Policy 5.15), freight (Policy 6.14), place shaping (policies 7.1–7.7) and the historic environment and landscapes (policies 7.8–7.12) will also be particularly relevant.

Quality of Life 1.56 The Mayor’s commitment to ensuring all Londoners can enjoy a good, improving and sustainable quality of life now, over the period to 2031 and into the future, underpins the vision and objectives. The quality of life that Londoners experience when living, working, visiting and moving around London is fundamental to how they feel about the city—and to how the capital is perceived from outside. The decisions we make about our city now will shape the quality of life of those who come after us and their view of how successful we have been in our stewardship of London. 1.57 This is a fundamental theme that runs through all the chapters and policies of this Plan, in particular the policies dealing with: — quality of life issues in particular places within London—particularly those on the 2012 Games and their legacy (2.4), outer London (2.6–2.8), inner London (2.9), the Central Activities Zone (2.10–12), regeneration areas (2.14), town centres (2.15) and green infrastructure (2.18)—in Chapter Two (London’s Places); — ensuring equal life chances for all (3.1), improving and addressing health inequalities (3.2), ensuring an adequate supply of good quality homes for all Londoners (3.3–3.15) and sufficient social infrastructure (3.16–3.19) in Chapter Three (London’s People); — ensuring and developing a London economy that provides jobs, goods and services Londoners need—including those on developing the economy (4.1), arts, culture and entertainment (4.6), retail, town centres and small shops (4.7–4.9), encouraging a connected economy (4.11), and improving opportunities for all (4.12) in Chapter Four (London’s Economy); — mitigating the scale of future climate change (5.1–5.8) , adapting to the change that is now inevitable (5.9–5.13) and, as part of this, ensuring high water quality and sufficient water supply and wastewater infrastructure (5.14–5.15) in Chapter Five (London’s Response to Climate Change); — providing a transport network enabling easy access to jobs, opportunities and facilities while mitigating adverse environmental and other impacts in Chapter Six (London’s Transport); — supporting a high quality urban living space—including building neighbourhoods and communities (7.1), inclusive environments (7.2), high quality built environments (7.3–7.7), protection of London’s heritage (7.8–7.12), air and noise pollution (7.14–7.15), protection and enhancement of open and natural environments (7.16–7.22) and of the Blue Ribbon Network of waterways (7.24–7.30) in Chapter Seven (London’s Living Places and Spaces); and — strategic priorities for use of the planning system to secure infrastructure and other benefits to support improving quality of life in Chapter Eight (Implementation, Monitoring and Review). 1.58 It also requires action on issues outside the scope of the London Plan and addressed in other mayoral strategies and programmes (action on crime and antisocial behaviour, for example). 1.59 The content of policies in this Plan is split between: — strategic: strategically important statements of Mayoral policy — planning decisions: policies that will be applied by the Mayor and other planning authorities in deciding planning applications — LDF preparation: advice to boroughs in preparing their local development frameworks, tending to fall into two categories. First, areas of flexibility, where authorities may want to consider how its particular circumstances might differ from those of London overall. Secondly, areas where it will be necessary for boroughs to carry out more detailed analyses of local circumstances on which to base policies for local use in determining planning applications. 1.60 This three part distinction is intended to make the Plan easier to use. As with the Plan itself, policies should be taken as a whole, and not their individual parts. “Planning decisions” policies should be reflected in LDFs and “LDF preparation” policies should inform planning decisions, with “strategic policy” providing the context for both. The Mayor will take all three categorisations into account in taking decisions on strategic planning proposals and the general conformity of LDFs with the London Plan. Paragraphs with policies have been lettered A, B, C/a, b, c to ease reference. Numbers are used in policies where there is a hierarchy of preferences with one being the first priority. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w164 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Endnote

1 Greater London Authority Act 1999, section 41(5)(d)

Policy 1.1

DELIVERING THE STRATEGIC VISION AND OBJECTIVES FOR LONDON

Strategic

A. Growth and change in London will be managed in order to realise the Mayor’s vision for London’s sustainable development to 2031 set out in paragraph 1.52 and his commitment to ensuring all Londoners enjoy a good, and improving, quality of life sustainable over the life of this Plan and into the future.

B. Growth will be supported and managed across all parts of London to ensure it takes place within the current boundaries of Greater London without: (a) encroaching on the Green Belt, or on London’s protected open spaces; and (b) having unacceptable impacts on the environment.

The development of east London will be a particular priority to address existing need for development, regeneration and promotion of social and economic convergence with other parts of London and as the location of the largest opportunities for new homes and jobs.

C. Other mayoral plans and strategies, decisions on development proposals and investment priorities, and borough DPDs and development decisions should aim to realise the objectives set out in paragraph 1.53 so that London should be: (a) a city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth; (b) an internationally competitive and successful city; (c) a city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods; (d) a city that delights the senses; (e) a city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment; and (f) a city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, opportunities and facilities.

APPENDIX 2

EXCERPT FROM UK SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

In March 2005 the current UK Sustainable Development Strategy was published.

The new strategy includes ﬁve guiding principles and four agreed priorities.

The five guiding principles are: — Living within environmental limits—Respecting the limits of the planet’s environment, resources and biodiversity—to improve our environment and ensure that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations. — Ensuring a Strong, Healthy and Just Society—Meeting the diverse needs of all people in existing and future communities, promoting personal well-being, social cohesion and inclusion, and creating equal opportunity for all. — Achieving a Sustainable Economy—Building a strong, stable and sustainable economy which provides prosperity and opportunities for all, and in which environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them (polluter pays), and efficient resource use is incentivised. — Promoting Good Governance—Actively promoting effective, participative systems of governance in all levels of society—engaging people’s creativity, energy, and diversity. — Using Sound Science Responsibly—Ensuring policy is developed and implemented on the basis of strong scientific evidence, whilst taking into account scientific uncertainty (through the precautionary principle) as well as public attitudes and values. September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w165

Written evidence from the Oxylane Group Executive Summary 1.1 These representations are submitted by the Oxylane Group in response to following questions: — Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear and does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? — Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence based? 2. The Oxylane Group is one of the World’s leading sports development companies, and our Decathlon brand sports stores lead the market in the UK, providing a one-stop facility for technical and specialist sports equipment. 3. However, we recognise that stubbornly low levels of sports participation represents a major barrier to market growth, and are therefore investing heavily in driving significant and sustained growth in the numbers of people regularly playing sport and being physically active. 4. Our concept—Oxylane Village (illustrated at Appendix 1)—although new in the UK, is well established in France. Delivering grass roots, family-focused formal and informal sports and recreational facilities alongside access to equipment, advice and professional coaching, the concept builds on the Sport England model of sustainable sports hubs, which recognises that a multi-sport/activity environment is a proven catalyst for driving participation. 5. The Oxylane Group aim to build 30 Oxylane Villages and 160 new Decthlon stores across the UK over the next 10 years, delivering 20,000 jobs. This represents a total investment of £2.5 billion, delivering sustainable community sports and recreation facilities, and contributing significantly towards economic growth and the development of sustainable communities. 6. The consolidation of national planning policy into a single National Planning Policy Framework represents a critical opportunity to address some of the inadequacies of the existing regime, and ensure consistency with more recent cross-governmental policy aimed at tackling the growing health problem of “lifestyle diseases” and delivering a legacy from the London 2012 Olympic Games. 7. The key requirement is to ensure that the right environments are provided where participation in sport can increase, embracing the contribution of the private sector and ensuring that the delivery of new facilities is not constrained by an approach that only caters for current low levels of participation. 8. There is much within the draft NPPF that Oxylane supports. However, we strongly believe that the following changes will provide the necessary platform to drive significant and sustained growth in participation in sport and the numbers of people being physically active, which is essential to the success of wider Government policies for tackling the major public health problem of “lifestyle diseases” and delivering an Olympic legacy: — Planning policies should support development that contributes towards improvements in health and well-being, including development that promotes physical activity or provides opportunities for people to participate in sport and active recreation. — The NPPF should be consistent with the Government’s health and Olympic legacy agendas, and recognise the key role that the planning system has in creating environments where activities are made easier and public health can be improved. — The enormous beneficial effects of regular participation in sport and physical activity should be acknowledged in the NPPF, and much greater emphasis should be placed on the contribution that access to good quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation makes to health and well-being. — Locally assessed needs for open space, sports and recreational facilities should be used to establish the minimum level of provision required, not the maximum. — Local planning authorities should be required to plan for the delivery of open space, sports and recreational facilities in a similar way to housing, which requires that local planning authorities assess the availability, suitability and viability of potential sites before allocation, in order to ensure that they are deliverable. — Local planning authorities should be required to specifically provide for the varied locational requirements of different retail and leisure formats, including large scale sports facilities. — Planning policies should support the delivery of retail and leisure proposals which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent to town centres. — The delivery of new facilities and encouragement of competition within the sports market should be positively welcomed in order to maximise opportunities for participation. — Local planning authorities should be required to plan positively for sport, including allocating sufficient deliverable sites for appropriate facilities to meet identified needs. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w166 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— The development of new open, space, sports and recreational facilities, over and above that required to meet identified needs, should be encouraged in order to deliver growth in levels of sports participation. — In the context of existing low levels of participation in sport and the numbers of people being physically active, the loss of existing open space, sports and recreational facilities should not be permitted on the basis that they are surplus to requirements. Instead, the NPPF should require the provision of commensurate new facilities on locationally preferable sites, where they will continue to meet identified needs. — The NPPF should recognise that the delivery of sustainable sports facilities requires that the long- term financial obligations on local authorities is minimised, and that commercial income streams from other “enabling development” is likely to be necessary in order to provide long-term financial sustainability. — The extent to which development supports wider Government policy objectives, and is otherwise consistent with the policies in the NPPF, should be identified as a key consideration when determining whether there are “very special circumstances” sufficient to justify “inappropriate development” in the Green Belt.

1. Introduction 1.1 These representations are submitted by the Oxylane Group as evidence to the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee in response to following questions: — Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear and does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? — Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence based? 1.2 In so doing, it is considered necessary to examine the detail of certain policies within the draft NPPF in order to illustrate the inconsistencies and contradictions with other national statements of planning-related policy. 1.3 The Oxylane Group is one of the World’s leading sports development companies, operating in 17 countries and employing more than 50,000 people united in a common purpose to create desirability and make the pleasure and benefits of sport accessible to all. 1.4 Our Decathlon brand sports stores lead the sports retail market in the UK in terms of range, pricing and customer and staff initiatives, and provide a comprehensive one-stop facility for technical and specialist sports and active recreation equipment. 1.5 Unlike many of the other sports retailers, who have shifted their focus towards high street sports fashion, Oxylane remain committed to providing a comprehensive range of top quality technical sports equipment. 1.6 However, we recognise that stubbornly low levels of sports participation represents a major barrier to market growth, and are therefore investing heavily in order to drive significant and sustained growth in the the numbers of people regularly playing sport and being physically active. 1.7 We do this not only because it makes commercial sense, but also because Oxylane are passionate about sport, health and well-being. 1.8 Oxylane believe that by locating interesting, attractive and high quality products alongside excellent facilities, together with first class programming and mangement, we can drive up participation levels and contribute substantially to achieving wider cross-governmental policy objectives. 1.9 Our concept—Oxylane Village (illustrated at Appendix 1)—although new in the UK, is well established in France, where there are now 9 Villages welcoming more than 8 million visitors every year. Delivering grassroots, family-focused formal and informal sports and recreation facilities alongside access to equipment, advice and professional coaching, Oxylane Village creates a unique environment which is attractive to all sections of the community, including those who are usually deterred from taking part in physical activity. 1.10 The concept builds on the Sport England model of sustainable sports hubs, which recognises that a multi-sport/activity environment is a proven catalyst for driving participation, creating the desire to participate and, crucially, delivering immediate opportunities to act upon that desire. The result is sustainable growth in sports participation, and more people being physically active, which leads to better health outcomes and the creation of a larger sports community to the benefit of all. 1.11 The Oxylane Group aim to build 30 Oxylane Villages and 160 new Decathlon stores across the UK over the next 10 years, delivering 20,000 jobs. This represents a total investment of £2.5 billion, delivering sustainable community sports and recreation facilities, and contributing significantly towards economic growth and the development of sustainable communities. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w167

1.12 The consolidation of national planning policy into a single new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) represents a critical opportunity to address some of the inadequacies of the existing regime, and ensure consistency with more recent cross-governmental policy aimed at tackling the growing public health problem of “lifestyle diseases”.

1.13 The planning system has a key role in creating an environment where activities are made easier and public health can be improved. However, static levels of participation and the rise in obesity and overweight in society, is proof that a new, more aspirational, approach is needed if we are to support people in making healthy choices, and therefore live healthy and fulﬁlling lives into old age.

1.14 The key requirement is to ensure that the right environments are provided where participation is sport can increase. This means providing the right facilities in the right place at the right time, but also establishing the ﬁnancial vehicles to ensure the delivery of sustainable facilities within a climate of economic austerity. It is critical that the contribution of the private sector is embraced, and that the delivery of potential new facilities is not constrained by an approach that only caters for current low levels of participation.

2. Policy Background

2.1 Physical inactivity has become a major public health problem, with the majority of people not being sufficiently active to enjoy the full range of health benefits, and as few as 30% of children getting the recommended amount of exercise. Britain is now the most obese nation in Europe, and inactivity and sedentary behaviours place a significant, and growing, burden on healthcare services and the wider economy.

2.2 Sports participation rates have remained stubbornly static in the last 30 years or so, and substantially lower than in other north western European countries, despite compelling scientiﬁc evidence regarding the beneﬁcal effects of physical activity on health and well-being. There is also now a growing body of evidence on the positive impact that regular participation in sport can have on developing strong, sustainable and cohesive communities.

2.3 As a consequence, a wealth of cross-governmental policy has been published in recent years, promoting greater participation in sport and physical activity, both as a driver for improvements in health and well-being, and a key component of the London 2012 Olympic legacy.

2.4 At the same time, recent studies have recognised that public expenditure on sport in the UK is limited and, despite best endeavours and investment from central and local government, participation levels remain ﬂat.

2.5 Part of the problem is creating the right environment to drive participation, as identiﬁed in the recent Inverdale Report (2011), which found that facilities for sport and recreation in the UK are not in good enough condition and, in some cases, are not even available for use.

2.6 However, with the ability of the public sector to fund community sports facilities also declining, there is a clear need for private sector investment, as recognised in the 4Ps review of leisure PFI and PPP (2007), and innovation in the forms that new sports facilities are provided.

Health and Well-being

2.7 The Chief Medical Officer’s report, At Least Five A Week (2004), strongly advocates the need for a significant culture shift to ensure that everyone in society becomes more active, and set out guidelines for the amount and type of physical activity that children, young people and adults should take part in each week in order to enjoy the full range of health benefits.

2.8 The Foresight/Department of Science report Tackling Obesities: Future Choices (2007), identiﬁes levels of physical activity as one of four key determinants of obesity and highlights the escalating costs to the NHS. It also recognises that interventions to increase physical activity levels could be effective, but that to have a real impact on obesity would require far greater change than anything tried before.

2.9 Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives (2008) acknowledges the growing problem of the so called “lifestyle diseases”, of which obesity is the foremost. It identiﬁes prevention, rather than treatment, as being more likely to deliver greater overall increases in healthy life expectancy, and recognised the need for physical activity to become the norm. In so doing, it marks an important shift towards supporting people in making healthy choices.

2.10 The follow-up report, Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives: One Year On (2009) identiﬁes the need to give people opportunities to make healthy choices and maintain a healthy weight, and recognises that making it easier for people to be active would be vital in achieving this ambition.

2.11 The White Paper, Healthy Lives, Healthy People (2010) reiterates the need for action to address lifestyle- driven ill health. It sets out a radical new approach, which recognises the need to create a public health service, rather than a national sickness service, and harness efforts across society in order to tackle these issues. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w168 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2.12 Most recently, the Chief Medical Ofﬁcers for the four home nations published Start Active, Stay Active (2011). This report establishes a UK-wide consensus on the amount and type of physical activity people should do at each stage of their lives, and updates the existing guidelines for children, young people and adults, as well as introducing new guidelines for early years and older people for the ﬁrst time. It calls on all those organisations with a part to play—local government, business, third sector organisations, planners, sports and local champions—to make physcial activity not just an aspiration for the few, but rather a reality for all.

Olympic Legacy 2.13 Playing to Win: A New Era for Sport (2008) identifies increased physical activity as an important legacy of the Olympic Games, and establishes the aim of getting one million more people participating regularly in sport, and two million more people physically active by 2012. 2.14 Before, During and After: Making the Most of the London 2012 Games (2008) sets out an action plan to stimulate long term benefits from hosting the Olympic Games, including inspiring a significant and sustained increase in participation. This specifically recognises the need to strengthen the sporting infrastructure in order to offer a wider range of sports and physical activities, attract more people, and improve the mechanisms to keep then inspired and active. It also acknoweldges that private sector investment will be crucial to delivering the legacy of the London 2012 Games. 2.15 Be Active, Be Healthy (2009) establishes a new framework for the delivery of physical activity for the period leading up to the London 2012 Olympic Games and beyond. It encourages more physicial activity for the benefit of individuals and communities, as well as for its potential to deliver substantial overall cost savings to the nation.

3. Key Issues and Proposed Changes Delivering Sustainable Development 3.1 The UK is experiencing an unprecedented period of austerity, and the public sector is now facing its most serious funding challenge for many years. Sustainable economic growth is desperately needed, and the planning system has a key role in helping to build a strong economy and support development. 3.2 The Oxylane Group therefore welcomes the strong emphasis on delivering sustainable economic growth in the draft NPPF. 3.3 In particular, we support the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 13), and the onus on local planning authorities to plan positively for new development (paragraph 14).

Plan-making 3.4 Oxylane agree that Local Plans should be aspirational (paragraph 22), and support the requirement for planning applications to be determined in accordance with the NPPF in the absence of an up-to-date and consistent plan (paragraph 26). 3.5 We also agree that local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of business needs and strongly support the requirement for them to work closely with the business community to identify and address barriers to investment (paragraph 29). 3.6 Similarly, we support the need to use this evidence base to assess the land and ﬂoorspace requirements for all types of economic activity, including for retail and leisure uses (paragraph 30), which should include commercial sports facilities. 3.7 We are concerned, however, that the NPPF fails to require local planning authorities to effectively plan for the delivery of facilities in a similar way to housing policies, which require the deliverability of housing supply to be tested through Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments. 3.8 The absence of any mechanism to require the delivery new facilities that will meet future sports and recreational requirements is a key weakness. The lack of any check on deliverability simply leaves to much to chance, and in the current economic climate will likely result in the failure to deliver new facilities.

Health and Well-being 3.9 The requirement in paragraph 38 for local planning authorities to work with public health leads and health organisations to understand and take account of the health status and needs of the local population and identify relevant barriers to improving health and well-being is welcomed. However, it remains unclear quite what the outcome of this collaboration should be. The NPPF should therefore require that planning policies promote development that contributes towards improvements in health and well-being. 3.10 Also, given the unequivocal evidence that regular physical activity delivers significant health benefits, and the key role of the planning system in shaping our environment, we consider that paragraph 38 should specifically require local planning authorities to encourage development that promotes physical activity or provides opportunities for people to participate in sport and active recreation. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w169

Proposed Changes—Paragraph 38 38. Local planning authorities should work with public health leads and health organisations to understand and take account of the health status and needs of the local population, including expected future changes. Planning policies should support and any information about relevant barriers to improving development that contributes towards improvements in health and well-being, including development that provides opportunities for physical activity or for people to participate in sport and active recreation.

Retail & Leisure

3.11 Oxylane strongly support the requirement for local planning authorities to allocate a range of suitable sites, sufﬁcent to meet retail and leisure needs in full (paragraph 76).

3.12 However, whilst town centres provide an appropriate location for much of the commercial retail and leisure sector, the Oxylane Group objects to the notion that “one size ﬁts all” in sectors as diverse as these.

3.13 Town centre ﬁrst policies impose an unnecessary constraint on large scale, outdoor and multi-sport developments in particular, which puts at risk the important contribution that such developments can make towards growing participation in sport and active recreation, and improving public health. It also places an unnecessary burden on applicants, who have to undertake extensive and costly assessments of potential alternative sites, which fail to take account of the particular business model and associated commercial drivers for site selection.

3.14 The NPPF should therefore speciﬁcally require local planning authorities to provide for the varied locational requirements of different retail and leisure formats, including large scale sports facilities.

3.15 Also, the requirement for local planning authorities to set policies for the consideration of retail and leisure proposals which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent to town centres (paragraph 76), is inconsistent with the aims of ensuring that the planning system does everything thing it can to support sustainable economic growth, and that retail and leisure needs are met in full. It should therefore be strengthened, to require that planning policies support the delivery of retail and leisure proposals which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent to town centres.

3.16 In addition, prior to allocation, local planning authorities should be required to assess the availability, suitability and viability of potential sites, in order to ensure that they are deliverable, which is consistent with the approach taken in relation to housing sites. Oxylane also consider that the wording in paragraph 78, regarding the need to assess potential sites for their availibility, suitability and viability, could be amended to provide a greater degree of clarity.

3.17 Finally, we support the removal of the requirement to consider the scope for disaggregating parts of a retail or leisure development onto separate sequentially preferable sites, as this ran counter to the aim of promoting attractive mixed-use developments, and undermined the delivery of sustainable sport facilities. Proposed Change—Paragraph 76 76. Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period. Local planning authorities should… — allocate a range of suitable sites to meet identified the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, community services and residential development needs in town centres. It is important that retail and leisure needs are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability. Local planning authorities should therefore assess the availability, suitability and viability of potential sites for the full range of retail and leisure formats, and undertake an assessment of the need to expand town centres to ensure a sufficent supply of suitable sites; — allocate appropriate edge of centre sites where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available, and if sufficent edge of centre sites cannot be identified, set policies for meeting the identified requirements in other accessible locations; and — set policies for the consideration to support the delivery of retail and leisure proposals which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent to town centres. Proposed Change—Paragraph 78 78. Local planning authorities should prefer locations for retail and leisure uses to be located in town centres where practical, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable and deliverable sites are not available should out of centre locations be considered. In applying this sequential approach, local planning authorities should ensure that applicants demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable sites that are available, suitable and viable potential sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability and for their ability to meet the full extent of assessed quantitative and qualitative needs. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w170 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Sport and Leisure 3.18 Against the background of cross-governmental policy, paragraph 128 of the draft NPPF should acknowledge the enormous beneficial effects of regular participation in sport and physical activity, and place much greater emphasis on the contribution that access to good quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation makes to health and well-being. 3.19 Similarly, we consider that the role of the planning system, in creating an environment where activities are made easier and public health can be improved, is significantly underplayed in paragraph 128. This is in stark contrast to the positive statements in respect of housing supply, where local planning authorities are required to both identify sites and ensure that they are deliverable. 3.20 The needs based approach set out in the draft NPPF (paragraph 128) is based on the existing guidance in PPG17, which was originally published in 1994 and reissued in 2002. It therefore pre-dates all of the current cross-governmental policy linking sport and physical activity with public health, and the London 2012 Olympic legacy objectives for significant and sustained growth in sports participation and the numbers of people that are physically active. 3.21 This approach fails to take account of existing low levels of participation, which are among the worst in western Europe (the lastest Sport England Active People Survey found that only 16.3% of adults participate in at least 3x30 minutes of moderate intensity sport each week), and that with high and rising levels of obesity in society, it is now essential to effect the changes that will support people in living healthier lives. 3.22 More importantly, however, it places an unnecessary and unhelpful restriction on delivery, which is inconsistent with the aforementioned wider cross-governmental policy objectives. 3.23 In practice, the “need” for new sports and recreational facilities is derived from, and therefore continually reinforces, existing low levels of participation. This is because the planning system requires that proposals for new sports and recreational facilities are justified on the basis of identified need. 3.24 For example, if a local planning authority considers that there are sufficient facilities within their area to broadly meet current demand based on current low levels of participation, then identified needs will be small, and the perceived requirement for new facilities will be low. 3.25 This makes it very difficult to justify new sports and recreational facilities, especially when the identified need is geographically dispersed. For example, there may not be one site from which all of the identified need can be met, or there may not be sufficient need identified in any one locality to justify the provision of a new facility, even when a cumulative need has been established at the district level. 3.26 The result is that new sports and recreational facilities are not delivered, and even identified needs remain unmet. 3.27 The fundamental weakness of the needs based approach, however, is that it fails to significantly grow participation, by effectively ignoring the vast majority of people who do not currently take part in sport on a regular basis, and the overarching obligation to encourage those people to be physically active so that they can live healthy and fulfilling lives into old age. 3.28 There is therefore a clear contradiction within the NPPF between cross-governmental policy, which recognised the need to significantly grow participation in sport, and planning policy, which seeks only to provide facilities to meet existing demand. This is amplified by the lack of any requirement within the NPPF for local planning authorities to actively plan for the location of new facilities and ensure that identified sites are deliverable. 3.29 The key issue is that the approach within the NPPF will stifle the delivery of new facilities and remove the positive effects that competition between operators will have in providing increased opportunities for participation in sport. 3.30 Oxylane therefore consider that the NPPF should be consistent with the Government’s health and Olympic legacy agendas, and that locally assessed needs should be used to establish the minimum level of provision required, not the maximum. 3.31 Local planning authorities should be required to plan positively for sport, including allocating sufficient deliverable sites for appropriate facilities to meet future needs, based on the aspiration that growth in participation should occur. In effect, the NPPF should remove barriers to the delivery of new facilities and embrace the benefits that greater participation can bring in terms of health and well-being and growth in the wider economy. 3.32 The development of new open space, sports and recreation facilities over and above that required to meet identified needs, should be encouraged in order to deliver growth in levels of sports participation. Proposed Changes—Paragraph 128 128. Physical activity is essential for good health, and Access access to good quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation is can makes an important contribution to for the health and well-being of communities. The planning system has a key role in helping to create an environment cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w171

where activities are made easier and public health can be improved. Local planing authorities should consider favourably all proposals for new open space, sports and recreational facilities, where this is consistent with the land use and other policies in this Framework. Planning policies should identify deliverable sites for open space, sports and recreational facilities to meet identified identify specific needs based on an objective assessment of quantitative or and qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. The information gained from this assessment of needs and opportunities should be used to set locally derived minimum standards for the provision of open space, sports and recreation facilities. The delivery of new open space, sports and recreational facilities over and above that required to meet the minimum identified need should be supported within Local Plans. Planning policies should protect and enhance rights of way and access. 3.33 The requirement to protect existing open space, sport and recreational facilities from development (paragraph 129) is supported. 3.34 However, given the current low levels of participation in sport in the UK, it is almost inconceivable that existing facilities could be deemed surplus to requirements. It is more likely that existing facilities might be of poor quality, badly equipped, or be sited in locations that do not best serve local need. 3.35 In such circumstances, Oxylane consider that it might be preferable to secure new provision in a better location, in lieu of retaining the existing facilities. This would have an overall beneficial impact, and therefore paragraph 129, criterion 1 should be deleted, and a new criterion inserted to that effect. Proposed Changes—Paragraph 129 129. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: — an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or — the need for and benefits of the development clearly outweigh the loss; or — commensurate new open space, sports or recreational facilities are to be provided on a locationally preferable site within the local area that will continue to meet the identified need.

Green Belt 3.36 The requirement for local planning authorities to plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt through, inter alia, providing opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation (paragraph 135), is welcomed. By virtue of its location adjoining urban areas and comprising essentially open land, the Green Belt makes an ideal location for outdoor sports and recreational facilities, and is capable of accommodating a wide range of sports close to major centres of population. 3.37 Similarly, the exclusion of new buildings providing appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and recreation from the definition of “inappropriate development” (paragraph 144) is supported. 3.38 However, it is important to recognise that the delivery of sustainable sports facilities requires that the long-term financial obligations—be it annual subsidies, maintenance or capital expenditure—on local authorities is minimised. This can be achieved through the use of commercial income streams from other “enabling development” to provide long-term financial sustainability—an approach advocated by Sport England in Delivering Sustainable Sports Facilities (2008). 3.39 However, this is at odds with existing national planning policy, and the draft NPPF, which identifies such development as being “inappropriate” in the Green Belt. Moreover, it runs counter to the aim of using the Green belt to provide opportunities for outdoor sport, because it is simply not possible to deliver high quality, sustainable sports facilities without complementary commercial uses in lieu of long-term local public susbsidy. 3.40 Furthermore, in the absence of any specific guidance in the draft NPPF as to what other considerations should be taken into account in determining whether thare are “very special circumstances” sufficient to justify “inappropriate development”, Oxylane consider that the NPPF should identify as a key consideration, the extent to which the development supports wider Government policy objectives, and is otherwise consistent with the other policies in the Framework. Proposed Change—Paragraph 143 143. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. “Very special circumstances” will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In particular, this will include the extent to which the development supports the delivery of wider Government policy objectives and is consistent with the other policies in this Framework. September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w172 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

APPENDIX 1

OXYLANE VILLAGE CONCEPT MASTERPLAN cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w173

Written evidence from Fields in Trust Summary — FIT’s core work is the provision, improvement and protection of outdoor space and facilities for sport, play and recreation and this provides the focus for our evidence. — The Government’s objectives of promoting sustainable development for economic growth, and streamlining and clarifying planning policy are supported by FIT, though FIT considers more detailed guidance is needed when planning for sport, play and recreation. — Our strong recommendation is that the Government endorses FIT’s guidance in “Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play” (2008) as good practice guidance to which regard should be had when planning for sport, play and recreation. — Planning for sport, play and recreation should be afforded more weight, and further clariﬁcation should be provided by the Government about how the presumption in favour of sustainable development will work in practice, otherwise the fear is that previous protection under PPG17 for policies for outdoor sport, play and recreation will be eroded. — The current policy in PPG17 relating to the provision of like for like replacement land in place of open space to be developed should be reinstated.

Background to Fields in Trust 1. FIT is the operating name of the National Playing Fields Association. FIT’s work is to ensure adequate provision of, and protect and improve, outdoor facilities for sport, recreation and play. FIT does this directly and indirectly. Directly, FIT has a legal interest in 1,281 sites throughout the United Kingdom comprising in total 8,804 acres (3,563 hectares) of land, over which it has secured contractual rights, protecting them for recreation and requiring its specific consent in advance of any disposal, consent granted only if betterment is agreed in terms of replacement facilities. These figures are set to increase significantly under FIT’s current land protection initiative, the Queen Elizabeth II Fields Challenge. 637 nominations, covering a further 9,786 acres (3,960 hectares) have been received to date. Indirectly, FIT has been making recommendations on planning for outdoor recreational facilities to local authorities, developers and the community at large, since its formation in 1925. These recommendations, formerly known as the “Six Acre Standard”, are now published in “Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play” (2008). Covering aspects of provision involving quality, quantity and accessibility, these recommendations serve as benchmark standards, and are either referred to, adopted or used by some 70% of local planning authorities throughout England (and the United Kingdom as a whole) as a tool in the Local Plan process. They therefore constitute objective and respected industry-standard practice guidance of the type we understand the Government seeks to encourage from appropriate third parties.

The Basis of FIT’s Evidence 2. This response is concerned with the planning system so far as it relates to FIT’s work as described above. It focuses upon policies relating to the adequacy and quality of facilities for outdoor sport, play and recreation, and their protection, in the broader context of open space, in particular by consideration of predecessor policies as stated in PPG17. These policies, including the need for sport, play and recreation in new developments, impact upon strategic planning nationally and locally. 3. FIT responds below to the questions asked by the Select Committee as follows:

Question 1: 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 over planning decisions 4. FIT supports the Government’s key objectives of simplifying and clarifying the planning system, and within that framework of underlining the need for sustainable development and encouraging the involvement of individuals and communities in planning. Part of that commitment is reflected in the distillation of national planning policy into a single document, the NPPF. 5. Guidance on our area of work was previously given in PPG17 on Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2002) and its Companion Document. PPG17 was 15 pages long. The relevant section in the draft NPPF is now only 1 page long, comprising 5 paragraphs. It is absolutely correct that the NPPF should be more accurate, brief and concise than its predecessor but its content leads to a huge reduction in the availability of worthwhile guidance to planning authorities and developers alike. The impact that this will have upon quality and consistency, quality and speed of delivery of development management and the appeal system could be considerable, and possibly adverse, if something were not done to fill the gap this creates. 6. We therefore recommend that more detailed supporting information should be made available to all involved in the planning system. As we have said above the most respected and used document in the context of outdoor land and facilities for sport, play and recreation, including playing fields, is FIT’s “Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play” (aka “The Six Acre Standard”). The stated recommendations cover cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w174 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

quantity, quality and accessibility of space. They present benchmark standards which assist in the development of local standards of provision as advocated by the Government. They are not national standards to be slavishly adhered to but they are tried and tested and are referred to, used or adapted by some 70% of local authorities in the planning process. Our strong recommendation is that the Government endorses FIT’s guidance as good practice guidance to which regard should be had when planning for sport, play and recreation space.

Is the definition of sustainable development contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 7. As mentioned in paragraph 62, the planning system is plan-led. Local and Neighbourhood Plans therefore should lie at the core of that system, providing its infrastructure and nerve-centre. The principle of sustainable development, supported by FIT, therefore contributes significantly to the process of Plan development and, inter alia, the enhancement of an individual’s and communities’ quality of life, health and welfare through outdoor sport, recreation and play. Open space and facilities for these activities should be afforded greater consideration, prominence and protection than currently indicated. 8. There has been much discussion in the media of late about the impact of the presumption on favour of sustainable development. FIT sees the merits of such a presumption but given that the Government has stated that the planning system is plan-led and that in paragraph 10 it defines sustainable development in the context of planning for people, places and prosperity, it would be logical and desirable for a clarification to be provided which incorporates the following: — The planning system is plan-led and incorporates the principle of sustainable development. — This places an emphasis on planning for people, places and prosperity with weight afforded to each dependent upon the nature of policy, or in management development terms the nature of any proposal. — These considerations are set within recognition of the importance of growth and housing to the community at large and country as a whole. 8. Such a statement will help create an improved balance within the system while also ensuring that issues relating to open space are given fair and proper consideration and objectives relating to prosperity, development and housing can be met. 9. FIT also considers that the way in which the presumption will operate is insufficiently explained. FIT’s particular concern is that the interface between economic, social and environmental considerations needs to be better explained. If, for example, development clearly achieves economic and social advantages but at the expense of environmental factors then is the presumption engaged? Historically areas of recreation space properly enjoyed protection from development through the policies in PPG17. Without clarification of how the presumption will work in practice FIT considers there is a real risk that this protection will be eroded to the detriment of play space provision.

Are the core planning principles clearly stated and expressed? 10. Paragraph 19 refers to the planning system being genuinely plan led, which is a fundamentally positive and beneﬁcial principle. Statements including the need for a proactive drive towards development and the importance of planning decisions being made in the context of local circumstances are equally clear. 11. Reference is also made to the multi-functionality in both urban and rural areas, of open space, including recreation, and to the need for local strategies to improve health and well being. These statements are clear and fully supported by FIT.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? 12. FIT has no comment to make on this, apart from the observation that as drafted the NPPF, if so conﬁrmed, would tend to weaken existing policies about protection of land and facilities for outdoor sport, play and recreation in PPG17.

Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 13. It is too early to draw a conclusion and FIT therefore has no comment to make.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence based? 14. In the context of open space and outdoor sport and recreation the answer is, unfortunately “no”. 15. There is a need for strong and robust evidence on these matters and the NPPF must call for it. Insufﬁcient reference will, it is predicted, reduce the weight accorded to this essential aspect of planning and lead to decisions in favour of built development, predictably to the detriment of individual health and quality of life, and community cohesion and well-being. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w175

16. The following are brought to the Select Committee’s attention: — Paragraph 23 on plan making should include reference to open space and leisure facilities. — Paragraph 24 should be amended to include reference to open spaces and facilities being protected. — Paragraph 27 should include specific reference to assessment and strategies for open space, playing fields and leisure. — Paragraph 38 should include specific reference to information on open space, playing fields and leisure in the context of health and well-being. — Accordingly paragraph 128 should be strengthened and again refer to robust assessments of need, as stated in current policy. — Furthermore, the statement in paragraph 129 that “Existing open space, buildings or land, including playing fields, should not be built upon unless …… the need and benefits of the development clearly outweigh the loss” undermines the process of evidence gathering as the key information for policy determination in the context of the future of open spaces. — FIT would however wish to see a policy incorporated enabling development where loss of facilities is compensated by (at least) like for like facilities being provided.

16. By way of explanation, in the context of plan making, strategic priorities are referred to in paragraph 23. There is a need to include open space and leisure facilities for sport, play and recreation, and their development. Similarly, paragraph 27 calls for up to date Local Plans, based on relevant evidence. Up to date open space and playing pitch strategies (ie adopted within the preceding three years) have ot been a priority for many local authorities and consequently many authorities have not been able to use up to date information as the basis of local policies and standards. To help overcome this, speciﬁc reference should be made to their need in paragraph 27. This could be reinforced by including reference to such facilities within paragraph 38 in the context of their contribution to health and well-being.

17. FIT ha a serious concern about the lack of credible, up to date assessments of open space, including playing ﬁelds. Too many local authorities have failed in this respect. The danger is that in the absence of such assessments permission for development will be granted with the encouragement of the NPPF. However, once built upon open land is lost forever (except in the rarest circumstances). Development by virtue of default is unwelcome. Government needs to make clear that evidence gathering is of key importance, and that failure to do such work by planning authorities shall not be condoned. Appropriate penalties should therefore be identiﬁed and implemented, as opposed to such failures “clearing the way” for planning permissions. A proportionate stick is needed to ensure that recalcitrant authorities mend their ways, not a carrot to encourage development by default.

Conclusion

18. FIT welcomes the publication of the draft NPPF and its objectives in relation to simplifying and clarifying the business of planning policy. As currently drafted, however, the NPPF disadvantages outdoor open space and facilities used for sport, play and recreation. As a result there is danger that open space, including playing ﬁelds will be in greater danger from development without adequate replacement or compensation and, consequently, overall provision will be inadequate in terms of quantity, quality or accessibility. September 2011

Written evidence from IMERYS Minerals Ltd

Summary — Q1—the relationship between the Minerals section and the main text of the Framework is ambiguous and unclear. — Q2—the problems identiﬁed at Q1, obscure the concept of sustainable development in relation to minerals in the terms set out in the NPPF, but are otherwise balanced and workable. — Q3—in general the core planning principles are appropriate and able to be clearly referenced to mineral development. — Q4—with respect to minerals, all current planning policy statements and guidance appear cancelled by the Framework. — Q5—Industrial minerals in particular, due to their limited occurrence, are good examples of the need for local planning authorities to cooperate on planning for a steady and sufﬁcient supply of minerals. However, it would be helpful if the Framework could make clear that minerals are a strategic priority for the Local Plan. — Q6—generally the provenance of the minerals policies is recognised. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w176 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Q1. Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others, including investors and developers, while at the same time giving local communities sufficient power over planning decisions? A1. IMERYS Minerals is principally concerned with the Minerals section of the NPPF, but notes that the Framework is required to be read as a whole. Aside from the dedicated minerals policies, the policies are predicated on urban/built development and it is therefore not sufficiently clear how the policies will be interpreted in relation to mineral development itself. This is illustrated by paragraph 2 of the Introduction that sets out the Governments expectations of the planning system. It limits its expectations to the delivery of “homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs” which carries only an implicit recognition that minerals are essential to underpin such development aspirations. The inclusivity of minerals within the planning principles and particularly the requirement for strategic priorities is sometimes hard to determine. It is by no means clear if the core planning principles are in fact intended to embrace mineral development. In allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, local authorities are required to take account of the needs of the residential and business community. The business community does not appear to include the minerals sector as it is approached separately within the draft in considering its requirements. Minerals, therefore, appear relegated to “other development needs”. It is also by no means clear if mineral development, per se, is seen as “economic development” as under the requirement to set out strategic priorities, “housing and economic development requirements” form one bullet point and minerals are confusingly lumped together under infrastructure requirements for transport, waste, energy, telecoms, water supply and water quality, under a further bullet point. If minerals are not encompassed in “economic development” for the purposes of the NPPF, policies that apply to economic development and business requirements do not relate to minerals. Even in the rural economy, within which most mineral operations are based, minerals receive no mention. One is required, by this uncertainty, to rely on the dedicated minerals section for policy support and this militates against the advice to read the document as a whole.

Q2. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? A2. The problems identified above, obscure the concept of sustainable development in relation to minerals in the terms set out in the NPPF. It is possible to read mineral development into the economic role, in “planning for prosperity”, within a system for the delivery of sustainable development, but only by inference. Otherwise the application of the Brundtland definition seems appropriate and the presumption in favour of sustainable development incorporating the three pillars of the economy, society and the environment should be a balanced and workable approach.

Q3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? A3. In general a number of the core planning principles are couched in terms that can be read to include mineral development, such as succinct up-to-date plans setting out development needs, account for local circumstances, land allocations, effective use of land and environmental and heritage issues.

Q4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? A4. With respect to minerals, all current planning policy statements and guidance appear cancelled by the Framework.

Q5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger- than- local strategic planning? A5. Industrial minerals in particular, due to their limited occurrence, are a good example of the need for local planning authorities to cooperate on planning for a steady and sufﬁcient supply of minerals. Historically, this has been applied to our sector and we see no problem in its future application. However, it would be helpful if the Framework could make clear that minerals are a strategic priority for the Local Plan.

Q6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidenced-based? A6. We are only able to comment in relation to the section on minerals and china clay and ball clay in particular. The policies are largely derived from existing Government policy and with some notable exceptions cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w177

that are referred to in our response to the consultation on the draft NPPF; we recognise the provenance of draft policies. September 2011

Written evidence from English Heritage English Heritage is the Government’s statutory adviser on all matters relating to the historic environment in England. We are a non-departmental public body established under the National Heritage Act 1983 to help protect England’s historic environment and promote awareness, understanding and enjoyment of it. We also advise Government on the designation of nationally significant historic places, advise local planning authorities on how to manage historic places through the planning system and have worked closely over recent years with DCLG and DCMS on the updating of national planning policy for the historic environment. English Heritage has had detailed discussions with DCLG and DCMS during the development of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and these have been extremely useful in guiding the text towards achieving the aim of the same level of protection for the historic environment as is set out in existing policy (Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment or PPS5). That aim is not yet achieved in the draft NPPF as it stands. We have a number of concerns with the drafting of the NPPF and have raised these with DCLG and DCMS. Cumulatively they are important to heritage protection in this country, but we are confident that most, if not all, can be resolved through discussion on the premise that heritage protection levels are to remain intact. Of these, there are three major concerns we wish to raise here, which if unresolved we believe will lead to a serious reduction in current levels of protection. 1. English Heritage is very concerned at how one matches the precautionary approach to handling non- renewable resources, such as heritage assets, as set out in the Historic Environment section with the permissiveness of one element of the definition of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 14 requires local authorities to grant permission “unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” (our emphasis). It is not clear how a decision- maker would resolve this presumption with the key historic environment policies in paragraphs 183 and 184: “considerable weight should be given to [designated heritage asset] conservation”; “any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification”; and “substantial harm.....should be wholly exceptional.” Under the historic environment policies public benefits have to demonstrably outweigh the harm, whereas under paragraph 14 the harm has to “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits. This internal conflict needs resolution. It is a particular concern for less than substantial harm for which there is no explicit policy (see comments below in our second point). If the requirement was to give permission unless the benefits are outweighed by the harm then this would not be in logical conflict with the policies in the heritage and other sections. Adding in “significantly and demonstrably” means that the harm might outweigh the benefits, but permission should still be given, notwithstanding the precautionary approach that has been taken to heritage protection for decades, as embodied in the historic environment section. Changes to paragraph 14 obviously have implications well beyond heritage conservation. If changing the wording in the way suggested is undesirable for other reasons, then we suggest the heritage policies are made an express exception to the “significantly and demonstrably outweighed” requirement. If the drafting is not changed, there would be a raft of decisions that under PPS5 would favour conservation and that under the NPPF would favour harmful development. As such the protection of the historic environment would be substantially reduced across all types of heritage asset. 2. There is no policy to help decision-makers deal with proposals where there is moderate or minor harm to designated heritage assets. The majority of heritage asset consent applications (scheduled monument, listed building, conservation area consents) fall into this category. English Heritage believes this will make it harder for local authorities to make balanced decisions. It may result in local authorities being more inclined to test a wider range of proposals against the “substantial harm” policy in paragraph 184. This will not be in the best interests of owners, local authorities and the heritage assets themselves. We are also concerned that the absence of a policy suggests that minor harm does not need justifying. Without it there would be a perception that the policy approach has changed, but in a way that is unclear as no policy replaces it. It is very likely to be generally perceived as now of less importance and more a matter for local discretion alone. This would amount to an effective reduction in protection for nationally important heritage buildings and sites. The loss of the policy on how one handles alterations to achieve the optimum viable use of the asset (also in HE9.4) is equally regrettable, in our view, as it leaves the historic environment section without this commendable objective. PPS5 is strong on the need to find viable uses of most heritage assets in the interests of their conservation. Examples of the implications of not having policy to cover what is in PPS5 HE9.4 include extensions to listed buildings. Each extension may cause only minor harm, but the cumulative effect of a series of applications for minor extensions could end up with the interest of the building being hidden or even lost. Some minor extensions can seriously harm the appearance of a building by upsetting symmetry. On the other hand the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w178 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

sometimes minor extensions to provide modern services or make the building accessible though causing some harm can be justified on the grounds of maintaining the building in viable use. This issue could be addressed by including the policy in PPS5 HE9.4 at the end of paragraph 184 of the NPPF. 3. We believe that the NPPF fails to address a potential threat to nationally important but undesignated archaeology posed by the Neighbourhood Development Orders (NDOs) proposed in the Localism Bill. Whilst the heritage section of the policy still offers these sites protection in planning decisions, and the NPPF does have to be taken into account in deciding an NDO, the NPPF is not effective to protect these sites from the effect of an NDO as it stands. These are nationally or internationally important sites that could be scheduled and would have to be scheduled as monuments if they were not protected by the planning system. The reasons why the policies within the heritage section would be insufficient to protect them are twofold: A. The information requirements within the heritage section if applied strictly to all sites within a neighbourhood are likely to be disproportionate and therefore the information brought forward with an NDO is likely to be less than would be the case for a planning application affecting one site. There is therefore a real risk of impacts on nationally important archaeological sites being missed out of consideration of the NDO. B. The policy approach to protection within the heritage section is to balance public benefits against harm to these sites (as they are equivalent to designated sites). An NDO removes the requirement to apply for planning permission. It does not consider the benefits of the development that may be permitted within its scope. It is clearly desired by the neighbourhood who bring the NDO forward, but the heritage policy does not permit their desires alone to be taken into account. So it is unclear how these sites would be considered under the NPPF policies when an NDO is brought forward. We believe that an amendment in paragraph 65 (Neighbourhood Development and Community Right to Build Order) that simply puts physical impacts through NDOs beyond question would resolve this issue. This could be done by adding a sentence to the effect that permission should not be granted for development that would directly affect non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest equivalent in importance to scheduled monuments. If the threat (perceived or real) is not removed, Government is likely to come under serious pressure to schedule sites currently adequately protected through the planning system. Scheduling is an expensive and time-consuming process. It has been avoided for the estimated 80,000 non-scheduled but nationally important archaeological sites because of the costs to the owner and the taxpayer. If one of these sites is at risk because the protection from the planning system is to be removed, the Secretary of State at DCMS may not have discretion not to schedule. A consequence could be to put pressure on DCMS to schedule more of these 80,000 currently unscheduled sites on a reactive basis, creating further unnecessary work and then management post-scheduling. Related to this issue is the need for those engaged in all neighbourhood planning to know if within their area there are heritage assets designated or not. We believe there should be a requirement that all Neighbourhood Plans and Orders need to demonstrate at independent examination that they have consulted their local historic environment record and have taken advice on the implications of the sites within their area. This is no more than is required of local authority planners or those submitting a planning or heritage consent application.

Committee Questions 1. 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 over planning decisions? We believe there are a number of areas where local planning authorities would benefit from clarification and further guidance as to making balanced judgements between the various sections of the NPPF. For example we are concerned at how one matches the precautionary approach to handling non-renewable resources, such as heritage assets, as set out in the Historic Environment section, with the permissiveness of one element of the definition of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 14 requires local authorities to grant permission “unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” (our emphasis). It is not clear how a decision-maker would resolve this presumption with the historic environment key phrases in paragraphs 183 and 184: “considerable weight should be given to [designated heritage asset] conservation”; “any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification”; and “substantial harm.....should be wholly exceptional.” This internal conflict needs resolution. It is a particular concern for less than substantial harm for which there is no explicit policy. If the drafting is not changed, there would be a raft of decisions that under the existing Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5) would favour conservation and that under the NPPF would favour harmful development and without any justification being required. As such the protection of the historic environment would be substantially reduced across all types of heritage asset. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w179

Similarly, there are a number of other areas where we believe that the NPPF should take the opportunity to stress both the non-renewable and ﬁnite nature of the historic environment. There are a number of policy areas within the NPPF (for example housing, design and sustainable communities) where reference to the historic environment would usefully enhance the context within which local planning authorities have to reach decisions.

2. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? While we support the section of the NPPF dealing with sustainable development which includes reference to the Brundtland definition, we are concerned by the qualifications to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in the answer to the first question and at the beginning of this submission. The definition of sustainable development results in inconsistent advice on what weight is given to the benefits of development as set out in paragraph 14 and the conservation of the environment as set out in paragraphs 183 and 184. Unless this is resolved satisfactorily there is a risk that heritage protection may be reduced. The success of the sustainable development objectives of the NPPF will depend largely on the quality and consistency of decision making that it encourages. We believe that reusing heritage assets represents an effective use of finite resources, avoids the waste involved in demolition and replacement of existing buildings and makes a significant contribution to the achievement of other sustainable development objectives as well as being sustainable development objective itself. We believe the NPPF could go further in stressing the contribution the historic environment makes to overall sustainability.

3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? We welcome the ﬁfth bullet point of paragraph 19 on the principles which emphasises the importance of protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment. However, it is not clear how potential conﬂict between these principles should be resolved.

4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? We consider that the relationship between the NPPF and the National Policy Statements to be clear, and that it would not come into any conflict with the role of the historic environment in planning policy. However, it should be noted that until it is clear which of the existing Planning Circulars (for example that on protection World Heritage Sites DCLG 07/09) are to be retained and how they will relate to the NPPF, a final view on this issue cannot be taken.

5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger than local strategic planning? We have concerns that the “duty to cooperate” will not prove to be an effective planning regime with regard to development that has implications across local authority boundaries. The Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) contained policies that helped protect the historic environment. An example of this is the Yorkshire & the Humber RSS policy for a Green Belt around York. The Green Belt encompasses parts of six local planning authorities. York is one of a handful of settlements in England which has a Green Belt whose primary purpose is to preserve the setting and special character of a historic town. Of those settlements, however, York is unique insofar as it is the only one whose precise Green Belt boundaries have yet to be formally defined in an adopted Development Plan (other than for certain parts of its outer boundary which lie within neighbouring authorities). The statutory basis for the Green Belt is set out in the RSS. The abolition of the RSS for Yorkshire and the Humber effectively removes the statutory basis for defining a Green Belt around York, its general extent and, significantly, its primary purpose. Relying purely on a “duty to co-operate” to define a Green Belt could result in significant harm to the historic character of this important City.

6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based? We welcome the proposal in the NPPF that in terms of the evidence base for preparing local plans, local planning authorities should have (and put to use) up to date evidence about their local historic environment and should ensure they have access to a historic environment record. We also endorse paragraph 178 requiring local authorities to set out a strategy for the historic environment, including identifying and dealing with heritage at risk or loss through neglect or decay. Where we have concerns is the new area of planning, Neighbourhood Planning as introduced by the Localism Bill, and insofar as it is covered by the NPPF (paragraphs 49–52). In trying to reduce the burdens on neighbourhoods groups producing plans or orders, there is no requirement for them to look at the historic environment records for their site/area and then take advice on the limitations that a heritage asset identiﬁed within the area might have on what development they can achieve. We are seeking amendments to the NPPF cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w180 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

to bring in this minimal requirement, as a way of ensuring that the present level of protection of the historic environment under the planning system is maintained. September 2011

Written evidence from the Landscape Institute 1. Introduction The Landscape Institute is the professional body for landscape architects. It is an educational charity and chartered body responsible for protecting, conserving and enhancing the natural and built environment for the beneﬁt of the public. It champions well-designed and well-managed urban and rural landscape. The Institute’s accreditation and professional procedures ensure that the designers, managers and scientists who make up the landscape architecture profession work to the highest standards. Its advocacy and education programmes promote the landscape architecture profession as one which focuses on design, environment and community in order to inspire great places where people want to live, work and visit. The Institute provides services to assist members including support and promotion of the work of landscape architects; information and guidance to the public and industry about the speciﬁc expertise offered by those in the profession; and training and educational advice to students and professionals looking to build upon their experience.

2. The LI and the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2.1 The planning system, and therefore the draft NPPF, have a profound impact on the way our land is planned, designed, managed and used. Reforms to the planning system present us with an ideal opportunity to improve the way in which we manage and use this ﬁnite resource which is one of the nation’s greatest assets. 2.2. The profession of landscape architecture comprises landscape planning, landscape science, landscape design, landscape management and urban design. It is a holistic discipline which addresses the social, environmental and economic characteristics that make particular places unique. Landscape architects develop solutions which deliver the optimum, and most sustainable, outcomes for that particular place. Revisions to planning guidance are therefore of signiﬁcant interest to the LI and its 6,000 members.

3. Summary of LI response to CLG Select Committee Inquiry 3.1 The following lines of inquiry set out by the CLG Select Committee will be responded to by the LI: — Is the definition of sustainable development appropriate and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? — Is the relationship between the draft NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the draft NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government departments? — Does the draft NPPF, together with the duty to cooperate, provide a sufficient basis for larger than local strategic planning? 3.2 The response of the LI can be summarised as follows: — The definition of ‘sustainable development’ in the draft NPPF is inappropriate, confused and incompatible with the Brundtland Report definition, despite reference to this definition early in the draft. — The draft NPPF would prevent much of the progressive thinking demonstrated in the Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) from being implemented and points to a lack of coordination between DEFRA and CLG. — The draft NPPF fails to build on the excellent evidence base in the recently-published UK National Ecosystems Assessment which highlights the significant economic and social costs of depleting natural capital while also demonstrating the economic benefits of looking after it. — The ‘duty to cooperate’ is an inadequate way of addressing the ‘larger than local’ demands to be made of the planning system especially with regard to implementation of green infrastructure plans.

4. Is the definition of sustainable development appropriate and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 4.1 The definition of sustainable development is not appropriate and the way in which it is articulated throughout the draft NPPF is incompatible with the established definition. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is neither balanced nor workable. At the heart of our response to this line of inquiry, is the extract from Our Common Future, more commonly known as the Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987) which states that: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w181

This definition is the basis for much of the work done by this organisation and others over the past twenty years. It was cited at the beginning of the draft NPPF, it is reasonable to use this as point of reference in analysing further references throughout the document. 4.2 The draft NPPF explains that sustainable development is the “core principle underpinning planning” and the Ministerial Foreword states that “The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development”. The draft NPPF establishes a commitment to sustainable development, in accordance with the definition outlined in the Brundtland Report. However the draft NPPF undermines this intention through a number of statements. These are as follows: 4.2.1 “Simply stated, the principle [of sustainable development] 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”—paragraph 9, NPPF. This reinterpretation of the original definition is incorrect, and the addition of the phrase ‘…and enjoy a better quality of life’ confuses matters significantly. 4.2.2 Development means growth. We must accommodate the new ways by which we will earn our living in a competitive world. We must house a rising population, which is living longer and wants to make new choices. We must respond to the changes that new technologies offer us. Our lives, and the places in which we live them, can be better, but they will certainly be worse if things stagnate”—Ministerial Foreword, page V, NPPF. The statement that development means growth is not justified or explained. We do not disagree with the urgent pressure to create jobs, to build new homes and to respond to changing population requirements but the planning system needs to address the requirements of sustainable development, not unplanned growth. 4.2.3 “So sustainable development is about positive growth-making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations”—Ministerial Foreword, page V, NPPF. Sustainable development is about satisfying current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The Brundtland definition requires that we should avoid acting in the present in ways which risk seriously compromising the future. This demands that we think about and balance present and future needs. This long term approach is not reflected in the draft NPPF. This approach lacks integrity as it redfines the notion of sustainable development so that it becomes synonymous with economic growth. 4.2.4 “This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable”—Ministerial Foreword, page V, NPPF. Quite simply, the draft NPPF does not set out clearly what could make a proposed plan unsustainable. 4.2.5 “Planning for prosperity (an economic role)—use the planning system to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type, and in the right places, is available to allow growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure”—paragraph 10, page 3, NPPF. This section of the draft NPPF fails to acknowledge the important role played by the natural environment in delivering economic prosperity. This is addressed in the recently published Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP). The Executive Summary states “A healthy, properly functioning natural environment is the foundation of sustained economic growth, prospering communities and personal wellbeing”. 4.3 The LI believes that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is neither balanced nor workable based on the Brundtland definition. The imbalance is clearly demonstrated by the following extracts of the draft NPPF: — “The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth…Planning must operate to encourage growth and not act as an impediment. Therefore, significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system”—paragraph 13, page 4, NPPF. — “Planning policies and decisions should seek to protect and enhance environmental and heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, and reduce pollution.” The ‘significant weight’ attached to economic growth in the first extract, together with the weaker reference to environmental enhancement and protection in the second extract, is incompatible with Brundtland principles. It is not the purpose of planning to encourage growth; its role, in accordance with the Department for Communities and Local Government own website, is “…to ensure that development takes place in the public interest, in economically, socially and environmentally sustainable ways.”166 4.4 The LI welcomes the significance given to sustainable development but is disappointed that the initial enthusiasm for this is not carried through the whole document. The approach outlined below is one that we support. 166 http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w182 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

“Planning policies and decisions should make effective use of land, promote mixed use developments that create more vibrant places, and encourage multiple beneﬁts from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions”—paragraph 19, page 5, NPPF.

The work of our members has demonstrated that multifunctional green infrastructure approaches to land use represent one of the most positive ways of ensuring a future which is sustainable. We also welcome the recognition of the value of design in its contribution to sustainable development.

5.1 The draft NPPF does not sit comfortably with some of the promising thinking contained within the recently published Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP). The planning system is one of the key mechanisms for delivering many of the ambitions set out in NEWP, yet the draft NPPF has failed to address Government environmental policy. The aspirations in NEWP are welcomed by the LI. “The Government wants this to be the ﬁrst generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than it inherited. To achieve so much means taking action across sectors rather than treating environmental concerns in isolation. It requires us all to put the value of nature at the heart of our decision-making—in Government, local communities and businesses.”—paragraph 2, page 3, NEWP. “Through reforms of the planning system, we will take a strategic approach to planning for nature within and across local areas. This approach will guide development to the best locations, encourage greener design and enable development to enhance natural networks. We will retain the protection and improvement of the natural environment as core objectives of the planning system.”—paragraph 6, page 3, NEWP.

5.2 Through NEWP, DEFRA outlines a vision for the natural environment which puts it at the centre of decision making, for example: — “The National Ecosystem Assessment has given us the evidence to inform our decisions. It makes clear that government and society need to account better for the value of nature, particularly the services and resources it provides”—Ministerial Foreword, page 2, NEWP. — “This White Paper…places the value of nature at the centre of the choices our nation must make: to enhance our environment, economic growth and personal wellbeing”—Ministerial Foreword, page 2, NEWP. — “A healthy, properly functioning natural environment is the foundation of sustained economic growth, prospering communities and personal wellbeing”—paragraph 1, page 3, NEWP. — “Sustainable economic growth relies on services provided by the natural environment, often referred to as ecosystem services”—paragraph 8, page 4, NEWP. — “We will put natural capital at the centre of economic thinking and at the heart of the way we measure economic progress nationally”—paragraph 11, page 4, NEWP. — “The beneﬁts we get from nature are often described as ecosystem services…Taking account of all the economic and non-economic beneﬁts we get from these services enables decision-makers to exercise judgments about how we use our environment. Such an approach is often called an ‘ecosystems’ approach”—paragraph 1.5, page 7, NEWP.

None of these approaches is reﬂected in the draft NPPF. The draft NPPF does not explain how the environmental, social and economic objectives for the planning system relate to each other. It is difﬁcult to understand how the approaches outlined above can be translated into action with an approach to planning which favours economic growth over the natural environment the draft NPPF does not take account of the objectives set out in NEWP, particularly in relation to placing nature at the heart of economic decision-making. Instead, it treats economic growth and environmental protection as separate goals (see paragraph 4.3).

5.3 In June 2011, UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA) was published by DEFRA. It revealed that nature is worth billions of pounds to the UK economy. The report effectively makes the case for protecting and enhancing the environment and, we believe, should be used as evidence to inform planning policy. Defra’s website states: — The report strengthens the arguments for protecting and enhancing the environment and will be used by the government to direct policy in future.167

This commitment made by Government has not been carried through into the draft NPPF. This represents a missed opportunity for land use planning reform. 167 http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/06/02/hidden-value-of-nature-revealed/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w183

6. Does the NPPF, together with the duty to cooperate, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger than local strategic planning?

6.1 It does not, because: — It does not provide an adequate basis for addressing the issues set out in the Natural Environment White Paper. — It lacks detail on key environmental issues. — It is not explicit about landscape-scale approaches. — It is not explicit about green infrastructure.

6.2 We have indicated some of the ways in which the NPPF fails to deliver what was promised in the Natural Environment White Paper. To a large extent, the failure of the NPPF in this respect arises from the fact that most of the issues in the NEWP issues are not ‘local’ and they require a larger than local approach if they are to be properly addressed.

6.3 The NPPF deliberately does not contain as much detailed guidance on speciﬁc environmental issues as the various topic-based PPGs and PPSs. This loss of detail at national level, in combination with the absence of regional policy, may well result in substantial variations both in interpretation of the available guidance and the setting of relevant priorities between neighbouring or clusters of local authorities. For example, the local aspirations of one authority in respect of green infrastructure, housing growth or economic development may not mesh with another, despite or possibly because of their geo-physical relationship. It is unclear in such circumstances how the Duty to Cooperate will be delivered in a timely and effective manner. This may delay the adoption of Local Plans.

6.4 It will often be the case that the social, economic or environmental impacts of a decision made in one area will be felt by neighbouring communities. This is likely to be especially critical in urban areas, where neighbourhoods are currently undefined, as opposed to parishes, which are predominantly rural. A neighbourhood development order or plan, whilst being in conformity with the Local Plan (assuming this to be in place), may have an adverse effect on adjoining areas where a neighbourhood plan does not exist or has conflicting aspirations. This may apply especially to edge of town (peri-urban) greenfield development proposals, where the separate proposal (S.130 to 132) for promoting and protecting ‘Local Green Spaces’ may give rise to further challenge and delay in decision-making. In the absence from any indication within the NPPF as to how such matters might be resolved, we are concerned that complex and sensitive matters may either become quickly bogged down in protracted disputes, or may just be ignored by neighbouring authorities because they are too difficult to resolve.

6.5 The NPPF only refers to ‘landscape-scale’ in respect of planning for biodiversity (S.168) across local authority boundaries. The need for landscape-scale approaches extends much more widely then biodiversity, and includes, for example, strategic green infrastructure networks, which are relevant to urban areas and which have a particular importance in peri-urban areas where the NPPF in general is weakest. The NPPF should therefore outline the importance of landscape-scale approaches to land use more generally and indicate how the duty to cooperate can deliver it.

6.6 Section B4 of the NPPF Impact Assessment includes helpful guidance on green infrastructure, setting out the case for government intervention to offset market failure and referring to the associated multi-functional beneﬁts of the services that it can provide. Whilst mention is made of green infrastructure in respect of climate change adaptation (s.154) and biodiversity (s167), it is not included speciﬁcally under the list of strategic priorities to be addressed through the Duty to Co-operate nor as an important element of infrastructure provision. There is also no reference to green infrastructure in the NPPF glossary. This may result in a failure to make the best use of land and missed opportunities for built development to incorporate elements of green infrastructure or otherwise contribute to its provision.

6.7 The National Ecosystem Assessment Report and the Defra Natural Environment White Paper highlight the substantial beneﬁts of green infrastructure provision and the concepts that it embraces. Most of the published or emerging regional plans identiﬁed proposals for green infrastructure networks at a sub-regional scale. Successful delivery of these will be highly dependent on collaborative approaches by local authorities, public agencies, land-managing organisations and a number of other stakeholders and this will need to be informed by cross-cutting strategic and spatial planning policy.

6.8 Finally, the LI questions how the Duty to Cooperate would work in the potential scenario where two or more neighbouring authorities do not yet have in place local plans. Such uncertainty will not be conducive to delivering against challenges which transcend political boundaries. September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w184 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from Freight on Rail Freight on Rail welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the inquiry on the draft National Planning Policy Framework. Freight on Rail, a partnership of the rail freight industry, the transport trade unions and Campaign for Better Transport, works with local and central Government to promote rail freight, the low carbon,i energy-efﬁcient safe alternative to long distance road freight which reduces road congestion.

Summary We welcome the National Planning Policy Framework’s (NPPF) recognition of the need to support sustainable transport modes for the movements of goods or people (paragraph 89) and the imperative to avert climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions and the need to reduce road congestion (p88). However, some of the caveats such as where practical and where reasonable (p83) risk weakening the framework’s ability to meet the stated objectives to avoid climate change and reduce road congestion. We warmly welcome the draft NPPF recognising the role of rail freight: (a) in facilitating economic growth, reducing road congestion and reducing carbon dioxide emissions; (b) the resulting need to build rail freight terminals to achieve these aims through modal shift; and (c) the recognition of the need to develop large scale facilities such as rail freight interchanges (p84). We are pleased to see that the local authorities retain the ability to safeguard sites but fear that the weakening of safeguarding policy will make it difﬁcult in practice for local authorities to safeguard sites for long term possible use. We are also concerned about transitional arrangements during the period when local plans are not NPPF compliant.

Transport Lack of sub-national strategies could make if difficult for local authorities to support strategic projects locally which have wider social, environmental and economic benefits but have local disadvantages. (See question on strategic planning). For example, P5 paragraph 18 states developments should be appropriately located. Without sub-national strategies it is more difficult for local authorities to protect sites for future rail use in local plans.

Transport safeguarding needs to be strengthened Rail freight infrastructure needs to be located in the right places, therefore the ability of local authorities to safeguard key sites is crucial. So we welcome the retention of the principle of local authority safeguarding (p94) of key strategic rail corridors and sites in their local plans. While the principle of land safeguarding remains, we envisages safeguarding problems, especially during the transition period, because many existing local plans will either not conform with the NPPF or have not been adopted and the proposed text in the NPPF, will not protect sites, in its own right. In practice, it may therefore be difﬁcult to safeguard strategic sites for long-term potential transport use from other less environmentally sustainable demands for the land. The NPPF is not likely to allow local authorities to have the same control on getting freight related locations right in local plans in terms of supporting freight without the speciﬁc references which were in PPG13 paragraph 45.

Paragraph 45 PPG13 The Government has set out is policy framework on freight in its “Sustainable Distribution Strategy” March 1999). While road transport is likely to remain the main mode for many freight movements, land use planning can help to promote sustainable distribution, including where feasible, the movement of freight by rail and water. In preparing their development plans and in determining planning applications, local authorities should: cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w185

— Identify and, where appropriate, protect sites and routes, both existing and potential, which could be critical in developing infrastructure for the movement of freight (such as major freight interchanges including facilities allowing road to rail transfer or for water transport) and ensure that any such disused transport sites and routes are not unnecessarily severed by new development or transport infrastructure. In relation to rail use, this should be done in liaison with the SRA which is best placed to advise on the sites and routes that are important to delivering wider transport objectives; — Where possible, locate developments generating substantial freight movements, such as distribution and warehousing, particularly of bulk goods, away from congested central areas and residential areas, and ensure adequate access to trunk roads; — Promote opportunities for freight generating development to be served by rail or waterways by influencing the location of development and by identifying and where appropriate protecting realistic opportunities for rail or waterway connections to existing manufacturing, distribution and warehousing sites adjacent or close to the rail network, waterways or coastal/estuarial ports; and — On disused transport sites consider uses related to sustainable transport first, before other uses. PPG13 paragraph 73 stated—In preparing their development plans and determining planning applications, local authorities, in conjunction with work on the local transport plan, should: 3. explore the potential, and identify any proposals, for improving rail travel, in liaison with the Strategic Rail Authority, including the reopening of rail lines, or creation of new stations on existing rail lines, light rail or guided bus routes (giving due consideration to the funding and value for money of proposals). Paragraph 43 of the NPPF, could also make it difficult to safeguard key sites for future possible rail use, if infrastructure has to be deliverable in a timely fashion.

Minerals section We support the safeguarding in the minerals section. (p102) safeguard existing, planned an potential rail heads, rail links to quarries wharfage and associated storage, handling and processing. We would like to see prioritisation of the use of low carbon modes such as rail and water, for transportation of minerals to lessen the impact on society in terms of emissions, road congestion, road maintence costs and adverse impacts from transportation of bulk products. It should be noted that NR pointed out in its Value of Freight publication that an average aggregates train can remove up to 160 HGVs from our roads. We support the fact that local plans should include strategic policies to deliver the provision of infrastructure for transport minerals and waste and work with other authorities and providers to assess the demands and meet forecasted demands para 31.

Green belt policy We support current policy which we understand the NPPF does not changes. This allows for some development where in very special circumstances if the social, economic and environmental is compelling.

Planning conditions and obligations NPPF weakens the ability of local authorities to impose or enforce planning conditions and obligations (p67–70). NPPF discourages the use of conditions and obligations. However we believe that conditions and obligations can be important to promote sustainable modes and that local authorities should have to power to make these conditions. For example planning permission for Terminal 5 was given on condition that construction materials were delivered by rail. Local authorities can stipulate that facilities get planning permission on the basis of a certain percentage of freight being carried by rail. Even with the current system it can be difﬁcult for authorities to enforce conditions as developers do ask for rail quotas to be reduced, once planning permission has been secured, sometimes even before the facility is operational. See PPG13 paragraph 81/82/83/84.

Transitional period There is a lack of clarity about what Ministers expect to happen with this process and the extent to which they expect existing local plan documents to be rewritten. There is also the danger of local planning authorities rushing through local plans which are inadequate. Local plans are required to have a certiﬁcate of conformity with the NPPF. In its absence, or the absence of an “up-to-date and consistent local plan” (p14), planning applications will be determined in accordance with the NPPF. In those circumstances, the NPPF will take precedence over local development plans, where full consultation has occurred (p26). A recent estimate by a planning lawyer was that only 5% of areas would be covered by a valid plan in conformity with the NPPF when it comes into force. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w186 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2. Is the deﬁnition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? The emphasis on sustainable development reads too much like being in favour of short-term economic development which could impose costs on both the economy in terms of road congestion and the environment which will have to picked up over the long-term.

3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? While the summary chapter Delivering sustainable development states the environmental role planning for places plays and the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low-carbon economy, and (p71) enforces this to meet the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future, the section on transport waters this down with qualifying statements such as where practical and where reasonable (p 83). In the same way, what does undertaking development responsibly mean in planning terms?

4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? Paragraph 31 states that local planning authorities need to take account of the need for nationally significant infrastructure within their areas. The definition of areas should not be limited to local authority boundaries and should include the wider sub-national and regional context. Paragraph 87 take account of the principles set out in the relevant national policy statement. National Policy statements for national networks does not exist yet so currently there is a planning vacuum for major infrastructure projects which is undermining economic recovery by stopping developers submitting planning applications for SRFIs. Rail facilities, especially the large SRFIs, with warehousing and associated ancillary services provide both direct and indirect employment, as illustrated by the chart below. Examples of Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges Location Size Employment Indirect Construction (HA) Direct Person years DIRFT 1 180 2,595 existing DIRFT 54 1,390 260 900 existing Ditton 180 5,000 Halton MBC Under Widnes construction

5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? Key economic need for strategic planning if sustainable regeneration is to take place. Lack of sub-national policy will make strategic planning difficult. LEPs, which do not have statutory status, cannot fill this gap so the final wording in the clauses of the duty to co-operate in the Localism Bill will dictate how effective the new regime can be in supporting strategic planning. Projects like rail freight terminals which have wider economic, social and environmental benefits, but can have local disadvantages, such as extra local HGV movements, and are consequently opposed locally, can be difficult to justify without strategic planning policy. While the draft NPPF ensures that local authorities demonstrate that they have worked together, there is no overriding sub-national policy objective which has to be achieved, now that regional spatial strategies are being abolished, which means that there is a danger that some local authorities could go through the motions of co-operating. Suggested clauses for modification of duty to co-operate submitted to DCLG by Freight on Rail in February. — Planning authorities should be required to consider fully the economic, social and environmental impacts [not benefits] outside their boundaries of schemes. — Planning authorities should be required to consider and show that they have had regard to representations about such impacts from people and organisations outside their area, including neighbouring authorities, statutory bodies, and civil society groups.

6. Rail freight potential Rail freight volumes have grown despite the recession, with a 16% growth in the ﬁrst quarter of 2011 over the previous year, especially in the consumer market with quarter of products coming out of South Eastern container ports being carried by rail. Rail freight volumes can double in the next 20 years, especially in the consumer sector, as long as Government continues to support rail freight through spatial planning and transport policy; in fact if rail does not grow there will be increases in long-distance road congestion. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w187

The growth is forecast particularly in the emerging supermarket rail trafﬁc, this sector has the highest growth potential of up to 12 times in a 25 year periodii as long as terminals can be built and existing market conditions are maintained. The case for rail freight (a) Road congestion alleviation An average freight train can remove 50 long distance HGVs and an aggregates train can remove up to 160 long distance HGVs.iii Road congestion is claimed to cost businesses £17 billion per annum.iv DfT estimate the cost of congestion being £1 per lorry miles on the most congested roads. (b) Tackling climate change Rail produces 70% less CO2 per tone-km than road transportv and can help the UK meet the 80% carbon reduction target. Network Rail has calculated that a tonne of goods can travel 246 miles by rail compared to 88 miles by road on a gallon of fuel. Shrinking oil supplies and costs mean that rail’s efﬁciency is even more important. (c) Rail freight is a safe mode British railways the safest in European Union after Sweden Existing HGVs are over three times more likely to be involved in fatal accidents than cars on major roads due to a combination of size, lack of proper enforcement of drivers hours, vehicle overloading and differing foreign operating standards.vi September 2011

References i Rail freight produces 70% less CO2 emissions than the equivalent long distance road journey DfT Logistics Perspective Dec 08. ii Network Rail The Value of Rail Freight July 2010 Domestic intermodal growth highest forecast 1200% in tonne km between 2006–07 and 2031. iii Network Rail 2011. iv FTA The Importance of Rail Freight 2008. v DfT Logistics Perspective Dec 2008 P8 item 10. vi Source: Road Statistics 2008, Tables 3.2 and 3.6, Road Freight Statistics 2008 Section 5, both UK Department for Transport).

Written evidence from the Federation of Master Builders Introduction The Federation of Master Builders (FMB) is the largest employers’ body for small and medium sized ﬁrms in the construction industry, and with over 10,000 members is the recognised voice of the SME building sector.

Summary 1. The FMB broadly welcomes the NPPF. 2. The NPPF strikes a reasonable balance between the requirements for housing, growth and infrastructure, and the need to protect the country’s natural heritage. 3. How effective the NPPF will be in practice will largely depend on how it is interpreted at local level and in the courts. 4. The FMB’s main concenr is that the hiatus in planning identiﬁed by the Communities and Local Government Committee earlier this year will persist while the new system is introduced.

Evidence General Assessment of the Draft Framework 5. The call for evidence suggested that witnesses may like to offer a brief general assessment of the ﬁtness for purpose of the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as a whole. The following constitutes the FMB’s response to this portion of the call for evidence. The remainder of the memorandum focuses on the speciﬁc questions posed. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w188 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

6. The FMB broadly welcomes the NPPF. While we agree that development control is necessary to prevent inappropriate development, the bureaucracy and delay incurred by the current system adds nothing of value of the process or the quality of its outcomes.

7. In our view, the NPPF is a clear statement of what the Government wants, and a genuine attempt to improve the efﬁciency of the planning system. The messaging is clear: the Government wants an efﬁcient system that delivers responsible, high quality schemes that serve the needs of local communities without compromising the needs of future generations.

8. The draft NPPF contains a number of proposals that the house building industry has been calling for. These include switching the default position for planning from no to yes;168 approving applications that accord with statutory plans without delay;169 and the granting of permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date.170

9. Critics of the NPPF suggest that the current draft if approved will remove safeguards that protect much of the country’s natural heritage. This is not the case. (a) First, the NPPF is explicit in protecting green spaces. It states that “Local communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be able to identify for special protection green areas of particular importance to them. By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances.”171 (b) Secondly, the NPPF contains an entire section setting out the importance of Green Belt land. This includes the statement in paragraph 144 that “A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt.” This is followed by a short list of exemptions for agricultural and forestry buildings; outdoor sport and recreational facilities; modest alterations to existing buildings; limited infilling in villages; and limited infilling or redevelopment of preciously developed sites.172 These are all required for the maintenance and enjoyment of Green Belt land. (c) Thirdly, the previously cited proposals favoured by the house building industry only require the system to be more positive in its outlook, and more efficient and effective at plan making and determination. Ultimately the power still rests with those who make the plans with which development must comply and they are subject to democratic accountability by local councillors.

10. Overall, we feel that the NPPF strikes a reasonable balance between the requirements for housing, growth and infrastructure, and the need to protect the country’s natural heritage.

11. While the Government’s intentions are clear, how effective the NPPF is in delivering sustainable homes and economic growth will depend on how it is interpreted in practice. Given that views on development proposals tend to be highly charged and diametrically opposed, it is very difficult to comment on the likely efficacy of the NPPF until its core principles have been through the clarification process in the courts that will inevitably form a key stage in the bedding down process for the new planning system.

12. The main problem for housing delivery is that the length of this bedding down process serves to extend the hiatus in planning identiﬁed by this committee in its report on the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies back in March this year.

13. The consequences of the ongoing uncertianty continue to be felt. The latest Housing Pipeline Report173 from the House Builders Federation suggests that just 25,171 residential permissions were granted in the second quarter of the year, down 24% on the previous quarter and 23% on the same period last year. It is the second lowest number of permissions granted in a quarter in the last ﬁve years this is well below the 60,000 per quarter level that the HBF suggest is required to meet the current housing shortfall.

14. In cumulative terms, projections from the CLG indicate that over the 2010–15 period there will be around 1.406m additional households in England. Over the same period, there will be just 884,000 net additions to the housing stock, according to forecasts by Experian. This suggests that by 2015 demand will outstrip supply by 521,600 which is higher than the dwelling stock of Birmingham in 2010 (420,870). 168 Department for Communities and Local Government, “Draft National Planning Policy Framework” July 2011. P5 paragraph19. 169 Department for Communities and Local Government, “Draft National Planning Policy Framework” July 2011. P4 paragraph 14. 170 Department for Communities and Local Government, “Draft National Planning Policy Framework” July 2011. P4 paragraph 14. 171 Department for Communities and Local Government, “Draft National Planning Policy Framework” July 2011. P37 paragraph 130. 172 Department for Communities and Local Government, “Draft National Planning Policy Framework” July 2011. P40 paragraph 144. 173 House Builder’s Federation, “New Housing Pipeline: Q2 2011 Report.” August 2011. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w189

Questions

15. 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 over planning decisions?

16. The FMB believes that the NPPF provides clear guidance to local authorities on what the overall objectives are, and that it places the onus on them to deliver it. The FMB also believes that the safeguards for green spaces and Green Belt mentioned previously, when combined with existing democratic controls and the provisions of the localism will be more than sufﬁcient to facilitate community control over development.

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

18. While the intention of sustainable development is clear, what it means in practice is the subject of some debate and is largely dependent on the stance taken.

19. An absolute interpretation suggests that sustainable development is a contradiction in terms as all development consumes resources that cannot be replaced; therefore no development can be sustainable. An equally extreme position could be adopted to argue that all housing developments are sustainable as housing is necessary to meet the needs of current and future generations.

20. More reasoned debate will focus on whether compliance with Part L of the building regulations is sufﬁcient for buildings to be considered sustainable. If not, how far beyond this standard is it necessary to go to meet the deﬁnition, and how will this change following the planned changes to Part L in 2013 and 2016.

21. The likelihood is that most local authorities will want to go beyond building regulations compliance in interpreting what sustainability looks like in their area, and that authorities with signiﬁcant anti development sentiment will go substantially further as a politically acceptable means of deterring development proposals.

22. While the intentions of the sustainable development policy are clear and appropriate, it is the interpretation of the policy at local level and in the courts that will determine whether it is a balanced and workable approach to development management. Ultimately there will always be conﬂicting interpretations of planning policy based on the priorities of those interpreting.

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

24. Yes and no. The intention of the core planning principles is clearly set out set out in paragraph 19 of the consultation document. However, the interpretation in practice will make this less so as interpretations will be driven to a greater or lesser extent by local sentiment on a case by case basis.

25. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments?

26. Our current understanding is that the NPPF will replace the planning policy statements and any further national statements have yet to materialise. As such the FMB declines to comment further.

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

28. The NPPF clearly states that “local planning authorities will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having successfully cooperated to plan for issues with cross boundary impacts when their local plans are submitted for examination.”174 However, it does not make clear what is to happen in circumstances where discussions have broken down or become deadlocked as is likely to happen in relation to controversial development proposals. This area requires further explanation.

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

30. It is difﬁcult to say as the references and evidence base have not been included in the NPPF. September 2011

174 Department for Communities and Local Government, “Draft National Planning Policy Framework” July 2011. P12 paragraph 46. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w190 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from John Baker Summary — The NPPF provides the opportunity to look at green belt policy as part of the overall suite of national planning policy, probably a unique opportunity. — Green belt policy does not ﬁt with the aim of preparing a clear, consistent, understandable and predictable planning policy which will deliver on the Government’s objectives. — Green belt policy is inconsistent with the concept of sustainability and directly contrary to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. — The presence of green belt means that choices are not made in development plans in a way which will lead to the most sustainable patterns of development. — Where it exists, green belt is used as a super development control policy for purposes for which it was never intended, and with deeply unfair consequences. — There is no need for an alternative to green belt policy—we have a plan led system to determine the scale, location and form of development to be provided, to enable proposals to be determined, and to provide protection to environmental assets. — Were there no green belt a positive approach could be taken to managing the urban fringe as an accessible and invaluable resource. — There is no coherent and persuasive argument for having green belt policy, notwithstanding its apparent popularity, and this opportunity should be taken to remove it. — The Select Committee is a vital chance to have an intelligent and objective look at green belt policy, something that never otherwise happens.

1. Introduction 1.1 The Select Committee is seeking views on the Draft NPPF. These comments are on the inclusion of policy on green belt in the Draft NPPF, and hence the persistence of green belt itself. This response may not appear to fit precisely with the Select Committee’s questions, though it is noted that the Select Committee may “return to specific areas of planning policy in later inquiries”. The last of the questions the Select Committee intends to address, is about whether the policies in the Draft NPPF are “sufficiently evidence-based”.Iam entirely clear that green belts are not evidence-based and that there is no evidence justifying the persistence of green belt policy. 1.2 The Draft NPPF is essentially the distillation of existing and long-tested planning policy, keeping what needs to be in place at the national level without the repetition and the conflict amongst policies that exists, and stripping out the guidance that is currently embedded and entwined with policy. It seeks to establish comprehensive and topical policy which will all date from the same point, the first occasion this will be the case since the original creation of the planning system. Whilst virtually all of the policy within the document is not new therefore, the Draft NPPF has taken the opportunity to think what is actually needed at the national level for a modern planning system to work. This opportunity should be taken to remove green belt policy from the NPPF as it conflicts directly with the rest of the NPPF and it has no place within a modern spatial planning system. 1.3 This submission looks at: What the green belt is: — The relationship between the operation of green belt policy and the presumption in favour of sustainable development introduced by the Draft NPPF. — The conflict between green belt and the delivery of more sustainable patterns of development. — How green belt works to undermine the preparation of good development plans. — The way green belt policy is used in the control of development rather than as a spatial planning implementation tool. — The so called “popularity” of green belt that is usually presented as the reason not to question the perpetuation of the national policy. — Why there is no need for an alternative were green belt to be removed, as a fuller and better planning system would already be in place already.

2. What it is 2.1 Green belt was conceived in the 30s and put in place from the 50s onwards as a reaction to development “sprawling” outwards from the principal urban areas, as people wishing to “get away from the city” and to live some notion of a rural existence took advantage of public transport services making commuting from the suburbs a realistic possibility. The rise of car ownership and the spread of strip development along arterial routes reinforced the concern that something had to be done to prevent towns being joined by a continuous strip of development. It is interesting to reﬂect on how dated the concern about linear development sounds now—linear development providing high loading for mass transit services has considerable merit for instance— cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w191

but the anachronistic nature of green belt policy is far greater when it is considered alongside the role of development plans. 2.2 The highest explanation or justiﬁcation of green belt policy is that it is a strategic policy for shaping places. This may have been in the mind of some of its creators, but it does not work well this way, and certainly not in a way consistent with other objectives for the way that development should take place. 2.3 Green belts are already in place, as extensive and often very arbitrarily deﬁned areas around and between urban areas. Incidentally the Draft NPPF strongly discourages the creation of new areas of green belt, as the current policy in PPG2 Green belts does. This in itself is rather telling. 2.4 Because green belts are in place, green belt policy is not a dynamic tool planners have for use to implement choices about the shape of places made through the proper participative plan making. Instead green belt predetermines those choices. Any choice or decision relating to land with a green belt designation has to be a battle with the established position, and green belt is only changed through resolute action by the committed and intelligent use of planning policy, usually by challenges to the planning authority. 2.5 The mythology of green belt and the unquestioning adherence to its effect is one of the most disturbing aspects of the policy and of planning practice as a whole.

3. The Perpetuation of Two Planning Systems 3.1 Decision makers are obliged to follow a very different reasoning process in green belt than they do anywhere else. This contradiction will be significantly emphasised if what is currently proposed by the Draft NPPF becomes national planning policy. 3.2 It is to be noted that green belt has only ever been expressed as a policy. There is no mention of green belt in legislation. This is remarkable given the power green belt has and how the presence of green belt entirely subverts rational decision processes. 3.3 Green belt policy reverses the reasoning process for decision making, shifting the onus from the decision maker to the applicant to demonstrate the rightness of their position. 3.4 The 1947 Planning Act effectively withdrew certain rights owners had over the use of land in certain circumstances and in the public interest, though the legal starting point remained a presumption in favour of development. This was expressed in Circular 14/85 along the lines that planning authorities should grant planning permission unless there was demonstrable harm to planning matters of acknowledged importance. In the continued evolution of these deliberations and with the 1991 changes to the 1990 Act, the starting point in decision making became what the development plan says, or in effect, a presumption in favour of the development plan. 3.5 The headline statement of the Draft NPPF, and the only “new” part of the policy essentially, is that where the plan is “absent, silent or not up to date”, CHECK there is a presumption in favor of sustainable development. In effect there is not a development plan to provide a clear direction, then national planning policy is the basis for determining an application. To planning inspectors, national planning policy has always been the most significant “other material consideration”. 3.6 The more graphic version of the presumption, as the Draft NPPF puts it, is that the default answer in dealing with planning applications should be “yes”. 3.7 In areas of green belt the starting point and the default position is most definitely “no”. Some logic could be attributed to this if green belt was synonymous with sustainable development. However having a green belt is not the way to deliver sustainable development, indeed it operates entirely contrary to the promotion of sustainable patterns of development, as explored below. A presumption in favour of sustainable development that defers to a policy that does not deliver sustainable development is a very odd concept indeed. 3.8 I should not proceed without noting the critical point in the Government’s position expressed through the Draft NPPF, that local planning authorities should put development plans in place as soon as possible. The progress in doing so to date since the introduction of LDFs in 2004 and the refresh in 2008 remains very disappointing. The Localism Bill is not proposing any change to LDFs except perhaps for the adoption of the generic term, Local Plan. The creation of the presumption is primarily the addition of a further motivation for make plans, adding the “stick” where the “carrot” hasn’t been sufficient, though given the resistance to making the necessary difficult decisions that characterises many of the areas without current development plans, it remains to be seen how effective this measure will be. 3.9 The Draft NPPF should not be proceeding on the basis of a national policy which encompasses two opposing decision processes applying in different parts of the country. At very least this situation needs to be thoroughly examined before it is perpetuated, and there should be very good reasons shown to justify enshrining the approach. My submission is that there are no such reasons and by reference to the Select Committee’s question, there is no evidence justifying the retention of green belt policy. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w192 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

4. Green Belt and Sustainable Development 4.1 Green belt policy conﬂicts with the concept of sustainability and the achievement of sustainable development. The common understanding of green belt policy—and the reason for its popularity amongst the settled community—is that its purpose is to stop development, and indeed it is used in this way. The idea that at some arbitrary point in the evolution of a town or city, it has reached its “correct” or optimum size and its further growth should be stopped, is clearly wrong, yet this is what designating a green belt round an urban area effectively does, and certainly what some would wish it to do. Places have to change and adapt with new needs to be met, and as new technologies and standards emerge as they have always done. 4.2 Deﬁnitions of sustainable development vary, but always include the concept of inter-generational equity, of people in the future being able to meet their own needs with access to adequate resources. How then can we now adopt a policy that seeks to say that there can be no change in the place which future people will inhabit? Saying that there can be no change in the shape of an urban area and hence no ability to accommodate development that cannot be satisfactorily accommodated within the existing boundaries of the urban area is the current generation seeking to deny future generations the means to determine how its development needs will be met. It also severely interferes with the basic freedom that people in a decent and democratic country should have to move from one part the country to another if they wish to. 4.3 Any role green belt has in shaping places is by default rather than through the positive use of green belt as a place making tool, as already noted. How this works is dealt with below in discussing development plans. 4.4 Because green belt has been drawn “a few miles wide” around urban areas, according to the 1955 guidance on creating green belts, development has been pushed out by the operation of green belt policy to locations beyond the green belt and to outlying smaller settlements. This has created high levels of longer commuting trips and a high level of car dependency, entirely at odds with the achievement of greater sustainability. 4.5 The process of selecting locations for development where green belt exists is not one that is consistent with seeking the most sustainable development sites. This should be a process that integrates social, economic and environmental considerations, and as a comprehensive approach to a place over the long term through the creation of a plan.

5. Green Belt and Development Plans 5.1 We have a plan-led planning system since the 1991 amendment to the 1990 Act. This began as a plan- led development control system effectively, but the introduction of LDFs in the 2004 Act and the emphasis on spatial planning at the local level has provided for the development plan to genuinely determine the scale, location and form of development. 5.2 Once land within the urban area is well used with a mix of uses achieved to promote high levels of accessibility, including access to useable open space, the most sustainable location for development will generally be on the edge of the larger settlements, again with the opportunity to maintain and enhance levels of accessibility, always having regard to the need to protect environmental assets. These are precisely the locations designated as green belt at many of the main cities and towns, though environmental quality is expressly precluded as a consideration in designating or reviewing green belt. 5.3 The development plan should make provision for the required development through strategic allocations and criteria policies, and be informed by the evidence of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment which has the role of identifying suitable and available land for development. 5.4 SHLAAs and development plans frequently follow a process for the identification of land which starts with the view—usually politically determined and not technically correct—that green belt is sacrosanct and should not be included in the consideration. This distorts the process and the results, and places green belt above such matters as flood risk, natural value, or agricultural land quality, as well as accessibility. 5.5 The existence of green belt with an entirely different test for any decision dramatically distorts the consideration of locational choices and interferes with rational and open decision making over development proposals. 5.6 The potential influence of green belt in determining the location of strategic development can be illustrated by looking at Chelmsford in Essex. London has a green belt, which is drawn “some miles” around its edge. On the north east side of London this means that the rather arbitrarily drawn outer edge of the green belt cuts across Chelmsford so that the south of the town is in the green belt but the north of the town is not. This distinction has nothing to do with any characteristic of Chelmsford, but arises entirely from Chelmsford’s location in the path of the green belt designation as it spread outwards from London’s edge, to a line reflecting (perhaps) some notion of the distance people were likely to be prepared to travel from their homes into London. Even if ever relevant this distance will have changed since the time of green belt designation. 5.7 In any spatial strategy the level of development at Chelmsford in the future should be determined according to its role, and the location of any development beyond the existing edge of the town should be determined by a process that integrates all relevant accessibility and environmental considerations. With green cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w193

belt in place, this rational process is less likely to be applied, and in such situations the first choice for development is likely to be anywhere that avoids changing the green belt. 5.8 Notwithstanding statements about their permanence, existing policy clearly provides for green belt to be changed if necessary, through development plans. The interesting issue now is that this has always been a two stage exercise, with the strategic plan dealing with the general extent of green belt and local plan defining boundaries. This in itself has created confusion in some cases and at certain times over whether land is within green belt or not. With no strategic plan following the proposed abolition of Regional Strategy, local plans will have both roles in changing green belts, which at least will be clearer by avoiding the time gap. It is not dealt with in the Draft NPPF, but presumably neighbourhood plans are to have no role in determining green belts since they are to be in conformity with “strategic policies” in local plans. 5.9 It is a further unfortunate feature of the NPPF that it revives the very odd concept of “safeguarded land”. That is, the policy says that plans for areas incumbent with green belt should be prepared on the basis that it will not become necessary to change the green belt boundary at the end of the plan period. Land should be taken out of green belt that is not needed for development and be identified as safeguarded land, with policies making it clear that the land is not intended for development in the immediate future or in this plan period. 5.10 This approach has been quietly ignored by planning authorities and inspectors alike in recent years, most notably by the panels reporting on Regional Strategies, and with good reason. To require observance of this policy requirement will be another huge setback to positive planning. 5.11 Safeguarded land is perceived very differently by all parties. To the planning authority it becomes “development in waiting”, notwithstanding the expectation that the location for development when it is needed will be identified according to circumstances at the time, because using safeguarded land will lead to less resistance than taking other land from the green belt. To developers it is an invitation to submit an application, because, they will say, “the principle of development has been accepted”. To the opponents of development, safeguarded land is indistinguishable from allocated land. Only something as irrational as green belt policy would spawn such a confusing situation. 5.12 The practicality for plan making is the worst consequence of the requirement for safeguarded land. Without there being any better definition and no expectation of guidance other than from the precedent of Inspector’s decisions, a simple interpretation of the time period that a plan with green belt has to address in identifying safeguarded land is at least two plan periods, or around 30–40 years according to what is said of the time horizon of plans. There are difficulties in looking to development requirements for one plan period and the controversy over making provision for development is the main reason planning authorities won’t make plans and the most controversial issue when they do. The idea of trying to quantify the land requirement for two plan period is daunting and it be safely assumed that this requirement alone will effectively stop local plans ever being adopted in locations where green belt exists.

6. Green Belt and Development Management 6.1 Once in place, green belt policy is used in ways that have nothing to do with its original purpose. It becomes a super development control policy that provides a very strong basis for saying no to development proposals. 6.2 This use of green belts in the development control or development management process is wrong for the reasons already introduced: — The decision process will be different in different locations—at the extreme, either side of the line defining the green belt (a field boundary perhaps)—for reasons that have nothing to do with the characteristics of the place. — Decisions about the merits of development do not take into account all of the factors they should. As with consideration of the presumption in favour of sustainable development above, this could be acceptable if green belt was an amalgam of or a short curt to all of the factors that should apply in the consideration of a proposal, but it is categorically not that. 6.3 Green belt is remarkably perverse in its operation. Types of development are defined in policy (PPG2 currently) as “not inappropriate”, where everything else is therefore deemed to be “inappropriate”, and if inappropriate, the policy says that there is automatically harm to the green belt, precluding the grant of planning permission. This process skips the reasonable question of whether the development would actually affect the openness of the land, the reason for having green belt in the first place, or whether there would be significant conflict with any of the five green belt purposes. The decision is pre-determined by a policy that takes no account of the nature of the development or its impacts or merits. There is something disturbingly Kafkaesque about this policy loop which is exceedingly difficult to break into.

7. Green Belt Purposes 7.1 The Draft NPPF reiterates the ﬁve purposes for including land in green belt that are in PPG2, without any consideration of the merit or meaning of these. These become the “criteria” for examining whether any change can be made through a plan to either the general extent of the green belt, or the detailed deﬁnition of cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w194 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

the boundary, if “exceptional circumstances” exist. These purposes are in large part garbled and meaningless, which unfortunately seems to allow for their use to justify almost any interpretation as long as it is negative.

Purpose 1—“To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas” 7.2 This purpose can be commented upon as follows: — As stated, it only applies to large build up areas, so that green belt around small settlements is not serving this purpose. — What is sprawl?—is sprawl something different from development, and does good development which meets current ideas of good practice, through achieving high density, good design and a mix of uses for instance, constitute sprawl? — Why is the purpose stated in terms of “check the unrestricted sprawl” rather than for instance to restrict or to prevent sprawl, and what is the difference between sprawl and unrestricted sprawl? — In a plan-led system, it is the plan that determines where development goes, which is surely different from unrestricted sprawl — Other planning policies can be used speciﬁcally to prevent development in particular locations, and there are plenty of others concerned with the environmental services that land provides that do so indirectly.

Purpose 2—“To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another” 7.3 This purpose can be commented upon as follows: — It only applies to neighbouring towns and hence not to the possibility that the outward growth of a town would embrace a village, so that green belt around towns with smaller settlements beyond the town edge and in the green belt is not serving this purpose. — Why do this?—is the concern with the identify of the towns, in which case it may not be the creation of an expanse of “no persons land” that characterises the identity of the places, and there will be plenty of other factors that are important. — How is this an aim to be related to the desirability of achieving more sustainable patterns of development (which implies bigger, more compact areas supporting better facilities and services, and the forms of development which are conducive to the provision of public transport services— such as dumbbells).

Purpose 3—“To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment” 7.4 This purpose can be commented upon as follows: — Green belt is only to “assist” this aim. — Plenty of other planning policies are in common use that achieve the same end directly or indirectly.

Purpose 4—“Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns” 7.5 This purpose can be commented upon as follows: — It is only acceptable where the relationship between the edge of the town and the landscape around it is an important part of the character of a town which qualiﬁes as “historic”.

Purpose 5—“To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land” 7.6 This purpose can be commented upon as follows: — There is no clear evidence that green belt policy (as opposed to a generally restrictive approach towards development in open countryside) does assist in bringing about urban regeneration. Market demand is a prerequisite that green belt does not create, and it is just as likely that investment and development unable to have the site that it wants will go to another town, region or country rather than take a site on previously used land in the same town. — There are many other means in the planning system of achieving the same channelling of development (this is the main purpose of spatial planning after all) that are more direct and positive than trying to do so indirectly by seeking to cut off the supply of other land for an indefinite but demonstrably not infinite period. 7.7 Picking up the last and most recently added purpose, the role of green belt and regeneration is a self perpetuating myth which needs to be challenged. Looking to the Select Committees remit and the need for policies to be evidence-based, where is the evidence on regeneration that justifies this policy? No evidence was presented to justify the addition of this purpose in 1985. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w195

7.8 The significant rise in the redevelopment of urban land that we have seen does not date from the designation of green belt but took place in the 90s onwards, driven by such as lifestyle choices and travel costs. More specifically in planning terms it has been driven by the availability of financial support from such as the RDAs, and by planning policies with such as PPS3 Housing and PPS6 Planning for Town Centres, as was, now PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. The most important change may well be the requirement for planning authorities to act on information rather than assertion, so that for instance it became a requirement to assess the potential for development to come forward within urban areas and for this to influence the location of development.

7.9 The myth of the role of green belt in bringing about regeneration can be easily exposed by a simple example. The three cities of Nottingham, Derby and Leicester are all in the East Midlands and are all exposed to a broadly similar economic environment. They are all different in terms of green belt. Nottingham is surrounded by green belt, there is green belt on the east side of Derby but not on the west, and there is no green belt at Leicester. It is not apparent that the economic performance of these cities has differed signiﬁcantly or the level of regeneration varied dramatically as a consequence of these different green belt situations.

8. Popularity

8.1 The so called “popularity” of green belt is often presented as the reason to not question the perpetuation of the policy in principle, but the Select Committee needs to be bolder in its examination of Draft NPPF and the policy it carries forward.

8.2 Green belt may be “known” to many people, but understood by rather less. Virtually no commentary on planning distinguishes areas that are designated green belt from land that is simply “green” by virtue of being undeveloped. The current debate raging in the media is a case in point.

8.3 The green belt is generally believed to be somewhere where development can never take place and this view is the basis of its popularity. Green belt has a seductive appeal to communities that want to see nothing change, and politicians who want to please the most vociferous communities are well aware that green belt appears to promise that nothing will ever change, and that no other people will ever appear.

8.4 The reaction to any suggestion of removing green belt is that this would “open the development ﬂoodgates”. This is not the case of course, and this view represents a failure to understand the role of green belt as a policy tool. A better job of determining where development is to go would simply be done another, far better, way.

8.5 Governments have never been prepared to inject clarity or intelligence into green belt policy through redrafting—if that were possible—and certainly not to do away with it.

8.6 It is ironic that there has been such an orchestrated outcry about the NPPF from organisations representing the no-change community. The Government has sought with the NPPF to make planning more accessible. George Osborne said in The House of Commons on 7 September, “we have got to simplify the planning system that is completely unintelligible to most citizens and that is what we have done”. The Government has evidently achieved its objective of making planning policy more accessible, in that some people have read the Draft NPPF and found amongst other things that development plans are just that, plans for how development requirements are to be met, and that green belt is something that changes through development plans to make provision for development.

8.7 Uninformed popularity is not a reason to maintain something that is so at odds with what we need from evidence-based planning policy and is clearly at odds with a rational basis for decision making.

9. Alternative to Green Belt

9.1 It is often said that if green belt were removed an alternative would have to be found. To do what? With a system of development plans that have the sophisticated roles they now have and which provide for both development and protection, there is no need for crude blanket restrictive policies. There is no need for an alternative to green belt when simply removing it would leave a far better planning system more able to do its job—if only planning authorities were to take the opportunity it presents.

9.2 Removing the overwhelmingly negative policy of green belt would enable fresh thinking about the urban fringe to shine through. The urban fringe is a great resource, the nearest open area to the large numbers of people in urban areas but accessible to people from rural areas too. In addition to vital roles for leisure and exercise, the urban fringe should increasingly be seen as and managed for the potential this close ring around the town has as a source of locally produced and community managed food and energy production. It may be said that nothing about green belt prevents this, but the green belt inﬂicts is a mind set diametrically opposed to this way of thinking, and so these opportunities are never taken. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w196 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

10. Conclusions 10.1 Green belt policy is an unfortunate and anachronistic hangover from a long time ago when planning was a simplistic development control function. Its persistence inhibits the preparation and proper use of positive spatial planning as the means of achieving more sustainable patterns of development. 10.2 It is entirely clear that no government would create green belt policy if it didn’t exist. This government has a better opportunity than has ever existed with the rewriting of national planning policy effectively from scratch to remove green belt as a policy and to end the designation of around 13% of England as green belt. The Select Committee should press the Government to do just this. 9 September 2011

Written evidence from Tom Spaul, Chief Operating Officer, Veolia Environmental Services I submit the following document on behalf of Veolia Environmental Services, the leading recycling and waste management company in the UK. We provide commercial, industrial and local authority customers with sustainable recycling and waste services to minimise their impact on the environment. Our Energy Recovery and Landfill Gas to Energy network supplies 220 MW to the National Grid—a major contribution to renewable energy. As a major investor in UK infrastructure, we welcome the government’s review of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). We strongly support its central tenet of a presumption in favour in sustainable development. However, we have concerns that this objective will not be met by the draft framework in its current form. Here we provide a short submission to the Environmental Audit Committee’s call for evidence on “the way sustainable development is dealt with in the NPPF”. We will be submitting a fuller response to the departmental consultation. However, we felt our recent experience of the planning decision on proposals for redevelopment of the former colliery site at Rufford would provide a helpful illustration to this inquiry of the complexities inherent in balancing sustainable growth with environmental protection and local decision-making. The following note aims to detail the deficiencies we consider the Rufford decision to hold, and how we believe such decisions impact on the objectives of the presumption in favour of sustainable development central to the draft framework. We would be happy to provide further evidence, either written or in person. Should you require any further information in the meantime, please contact Amy Finlayson at Westminster Advisers on 0207 227 1647 or [email protected].

SUBMISSION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE INQUIRY ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE DRAFT NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) Summary — As a major investor in UK infrastructure, Veolia welcomes government’s review of the NPPF. We are ﬁrmly aligned to the ambition behind its reform: “to promote sustainable economic growth and jobs.”175 — Yet we have concerns that this objective will not be met by the draft framework in its current form. We strongly advise there is a need for further guidance and clarity around the deﬁnition of sustainable development, and what constitutes the right balance between local communities’ powers and interests, environmental protection, and the national interests of creating jobs, sustainable economic growth and development of infrastructure and a low-carbon economy. — In order to illustrate the risk inherent in the current ambiguity in these areas, we have used the example of a recent planning decision we believe highlights potential pitfalls and the need for strong, unambiguous direction on sustainable development and planning.

Definition of Sustainable Development — The Ministerial forward to the draft framework states “sustainable development is about positive growth”. The document goes on to provide further definition under three headings: — Economic: supporting growth, jobs and infrastructure. — Social: supporting communities through built environment. — Environmental: protecting our environment, adapting to climate change and facilitating the move to a low-carbon economy. — Veolia agrees with this definition, and the need to ensure a careful and appropriate balance between the three strands. Without this balance, sustainable development will falter. 175 National Planning Policy Framework: Consultation (page 8, paragraph 16) cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w197

An Illustration: Energy from Waste and the Rufford Planning Decision — Energy from waste will help decarbonise energy generation within the UK.176 Yet development of any waste-related infrastructure receives significant opposition and there is pressure at a local planning level to site Energy Recovery Facilities (ERFs) away from the communities that produce the waste and need the heat. Such projects, which conform to the three central principles of sustainable development, must be allowed to progress: a strong and practicable presumption in favour of sustainable development is vital. — In 2006 Nottingham County Council procured Veolia to provide an ERF on the former Rufford Colliery site. The proposed redevelopment provided a sustainable solution, offering: — Clear economic benefits for the area through investment and job creation. — A clean, energy efficient solution, focussed on improving the local environment. — Significant financial savings to the public purse through waste diversion from landfill. — In January 2009 the ERF was approved by the local planning authority, almost unanimously, following the local planning process. Yet by March 2009 the then Local Government Secretary had called-in the project and in May 2011 permission was denied: the project was approved in accordance with the principles of localism, only for central government to intervene and sustainable development to be stifled. — It would have diverted 180,000 tonnes of waste from landfill per year, generating low-carbon electricity for around 15,000 homes and creating jobs to boost the local economy: this would appear to fit the definition of sustainable development. — A major opportunity for job creation in this sensitive and deprived area has been lost. An effective presumption in favour of sustainable development would have avoided this situation. Please see Appendix 1 for a fuller outline of the environmental, economic and social benefits the project would have afforded.

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development: A Balanced and Workable Approach? We believe the Rufford decision illustrates key anomalies and misunderstandings representative of the complexities in achieving the goal of a true presumption in favour of sustainable development.

A need for clearer definitions — Even though this site was a former colliery it was not regarded in the decision as “previously developed”: the Inspector described it is “Greenfield”, rendering the proposed redevelopment in conflict with the local area plan. — It was also decided that the building impacted too heavily on the landscape, yet our plans clearly showed it was barely visible, set in a natural dip. To work effectively, CHP requires constant consumers of the heat, so isolated and rural areas are not always viable locations. — The Inspector decided the project would not move waste up the Hierarchy, although this directly contradicted recent decisions on similar projects. — It was deemed that there was not sufficient urgency for the development, with landfill availability sited in evidence. Yet redevelopment of the site is central to overall strategy for the local area to meet targets for diversion of waste from landfill, in line with UK government policy and the EU Waste Framework Directive. Huge sums of public money are being paid in Landfill Tax.

A need for clearer guidance around the balance to be struck — The Inspector decided the risk to the birds and their habitat at the project site was too great. This was in spite of evidence that the project would not adversely impact on the birds and a commitment to provide a mitigation solution in excess of that recommended by Natural England or required had the Site had SSI status. — Despite clear relevance, there was little or no reference in the decision to the important regeneration needs of the area or to the Ministerial Statement on Planning for Growth. Redevelopment of the site has been identiﬁed by government as crucial to the regeneration of the area, which suffers high unemployment. The project offered a much needed catalyst for further development, and the refusal of planning permission makes it likely that major related job creating opportunities will now be lost in this area, with consequential detrimental impact on the local economy. — The possibility of an adjoining park with off-take users for heat was de-linked in the decision, contrary to government’s stated desire to see more CHP. Although the development offered signiﬁcant energy recovery and heat to the related light industrial development, the Inspector concluded that this did not represent the best available waste management solution. 176 The Institution of Civil Engineers estimates that energy from waste could account for 17% of UK electricity consumption in 2020. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w198 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Recommendations — We believe it is vital to achieve the ambition behind the presumption in favour of sustainable development. — In order to do this, we recommend further focus on removing ambiguities in the current framework and ensuring clear guidance on achieving the appropriate balance between economic, social and environmental interests. — Such clarity would ensure that sustainable development is positively promoted and allowed to thrive, driving forward sustainable growth, creating jobs and facilitating a low-carbon economy. — We would be happy to provide further evidence, either written or in person. Should you require any further information in the meantime, please contact Amy Finlayson at Westminster Advisers on 0207 227 1647 or [email protected].

APPENDIX 1 THE CASE FOR RE-DEVELOPMENT OF FORMER RUFFORD COLLIERY SITE Background — Redevelopment of the former Rufford Colliery site is central to overall strategy for the local area to meet targets for diversion of waste from landfill, in line with UK government policy and the EU Waste Framework Directive. — It has also been identified by government as crucial to the regeneration of the area, which suffers high unemployment. — In 2006 Nottingham County Council procured Veolia to provide an Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) on the site. The project would divert 180,000 tonnes of waste from landfill per year, generating electricity for around 15,000 homes and creating jobs to boost the local economy. — In January 2009 the ERF was approved by the local planning authority, almost unanimously, following the local planning process. — Yet by March 2009 the then Secretary of State for Local Government, Hazel Blears MP had called- in the project. This followed pressure from local Labour MPs Paddy Tipping and Alan Mearns. — The decision was unexpected, as previously support had been almost unanimous and more recent objections were either addressed by Veolia or of questionable integrity, being voiced by a small minority. — A public inquiry ran for a year from October 2009, and in May 2011 planning permission was declined. — The Rufford project offered sustainable development and was approved in accordance with the principles of localism, only for central government to intervene and development to be stifled.

The Case For Planning Permission A necessary solution — The project was originally procured to ensure the local authority could comply with its environmental obligations and avoid payment of significant sums in landfill tax through a green energy solution. — Former collieries are recognised as representing a significant business and environmental challenge. The Rufford site is specifically highlighted as in need of regeneration, and as such substantial investment has already been made. This includes a purpose built junction to serve the site, which has lain empty for 15 years and is currently used, illegally, by motorbike scramblers.

Cost of inaction — The project would have saved local authorities around £330 million in landﬁll costs. The delay and subsequent deciosn has caused the public purse unnecessary and considerable expense. — As permission was withheld, other local developments, which would have created further jobs, will also be jeopardised. During the course of the public inquiry 138 such projects were identiﬁed as having the potential to be affected by this decision, including 4,000 residential properties, a school, a doctor’s surgery, a care home for the elderly, a new visitor centre for Sherwood Forest and a Business Park.

Economic beneﬁts — Each development is designed to improve the local economy and provide jobs in this unemployment black spot. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w199

— The Rufford ERF proposal alone was worth £120 million, would have employed around 250 people during construction, and created around 35 much needed long-term permanent jobs. — The Rufford Business Park project was worth at least £50 million in investment value and would have generated signiﬁcant new jobs. — The other projects equated to hundreds of millions of pounds of economic activity which would have created thousands of construction jobs and long term operational jobs.

Environmental benefits — The Rufford ERF proposal was a sustainable solution which was chosen after an extensive procurement exercise, with support from DEFRA. — It would have generated 13MWe of low carbon electricity to the national grid and provided potential for a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) connection to the Business Park. — The technology that was proposed is clean, energy efficient and proven: energy is recovered from waste and use of fossil fuels is reduced, while dependence on landfill decreases and release of methane is avoided. Only waste for which there is no reuse or recycle solution would be used to convert to energy. — Emissions produced by the ERF are minimal—it is estimated that emissions from 1,000 years of continual use would be equivalent to those created by a single bonfire night. — These environmental credentials are central to Veolia’s business model. As such, we are scrupulous in ensuring the highest standards on each of our sites, and we work with the Environmental Agency to help us do so.

The right provider — Veolia Environmental Services is the waste management market leader in the UK, with signiﬁcant experience providing best environmental practice for waste treatment, and delivering effective ERF facilities elsewhere. A rigorous procurement process selected us. — We care about environmental impact, and as such have proposed to set aside sufﬁcient land to provide a wildlife management scheme and habitat zone as part of the project. — We are interested in contributing to the site’s regeneration through considerable investment cost injection because the project is commercially viable. Any alternative, non-commercial proposal would ultimately be funded by the public purse.

Summary We believe that permission would have provided sustainable development through: — A significant financial saving to the public purse through waste diversion from landfill. — A clean, energy efficient and proven solution, focussed on improving the local environment. — Clear economic benefits for the area through investment and job creation. September 2011

Written evidence from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) RICS—Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors—is pleased to respond to the Select Committee’s inquiry into the National Planning Policy Framework. RICS is the leading organisation of its kind in the world for professionals in property, construction, land and related environmental issues. As an independent and chartered organisation, RICS regulates and maintains the professional standards of over 91,000 qualiﬁed members (FRICS, MRICS and AssocRICS) and over 50,000 trainee and student members. It regulates and promotes the work of these property professionals throughout 146 countries and is governed by a Royal Charter approved by Parliament which requires it to act in the public interest.

General Comments RICS welcomes the Government’s draft National Planning Policy Framework as a signiﬁcant step forward in enabling the growth the UK requires. We are pleased to see this concise outline of strategic national planning policy which retains its focus on economic development but emphasises the need to achieve this in a sustainable way. Businesses and other potential employers need the clarity and certainty which RICS believes the Government’s draft NPPF provides. We also believe that the draft strikes the right balance in safeguarding the environment and promoting strong, vibrant and healthy communities. The existing planning system, however well intentioned, has failed to meet the demand for adequate, affordable housing and to deliver the economic growth the UK so badly needs. The proposals outlined in the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w200 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) will reduce the burdensome cost of the current planning system and this increased ﬂexibility will help deliver housing, drive economic growth and encourage innovation.

RICS believe planning reform is just one element of creating the conditions required to deliver much needed affordable housing and economic expansion. Funding new infrastructure and adequate, responsible mortgage lending are just two more pieces of the jigsaw. As a cross-sectoral professional body acting in the public interest, RICS is considering these and other issues alongside the NPPF.

RICS Offers Answers to your Questions as Follows

It would arguably be difficult for Government to reach a definition of “sustainable development” which is completely agreeable to all parties. It will be up to Local and Neighbourhood Plans to refine the approach according to local priorities. RICS believes this will bring about a planning system which is more workable for the local community and more responsive to public need and this is therefore to be welcomed. How economic, social and environmental need are interpreted and balanced in both policy and development management will differ between geographic location and at different stages of the economic cycle. Without a clearer understanding of what constitutes sustainable development, this may give rise to legal challenges which will inevitably lead to uncertainty and delay.

The proposed presumption in favour of sustainable development seeks to enable development in Local Authorities where an up to date Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan is not in place—where it is “absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date”. The idea that the default answer to development proposals should be “yes”, subject to ensuring their impacts are acceptable, already applies in other signiﬁcant policy areas, such as renewable energy. With approximately 65% of Local Authorities currently without an up to date Local Plan, the presumption will empower Local Planning Authorities to bring forward much needed development. It is vital that full coverage of Local Plans is achieved as soon as possible and is kept up to date. In the absence of Local Plans, development may be unsustainable and at odds with local needs and wishes. However, in light of pressure on resources in local authorities, it may still take time for Local Plans to be put in place. The ultimate challenge for Local Authorities will be to ensure that all local plans are brought into conformity with the NPPF.

It is the RICS view that the proposed presumption is a signiﬁcant step forward in creating the conditions for growth by seeking to ensure the planning system “delivers” development. Key policies to protect the natural environment remain in place such as Green Belt protection, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Special Scientiﬁc Interest (SSSIs). Areas protected by these policies will not be affected by the presumption. The Government’s recent Natural Environment White Paper will also be a key document in delivering protection of the natural environment by setting out how communities will be able to safeguard vitally important green spaces whilst ensuring necessary development occurs sustainably.

RICS welcomes the overall approach of examining whether a Local Authority has fulﬁlled its “duty to cooperate” as a measure of soundness for Local Plans. Further guidance on what standard of co-operation is required to past the test of soundness would be welcome, possibly from The Planning Inspectorate.

RICS welcomes the this concise outline of national planning policy at a strategic level rather than the thousands of pages of guidance that currently lose the thrust of what the Government is trying to achieve and often alienates communities. These thousands of pages of guidance required a large amount of evidence to satisfy it which was challenging for communities and created delay and uncertainty for developers. The NPPF’s reference to a “proportionate” evidence base and requirement that the Local Plan is based on adequate, relevant and up-to-date evidence about economic, social and environmental factors in the local area is to be welcomed.

The “measure of soundness” that Local Authorities prepare their plans positively to meet objectively assessed need and infrastructure requirements may be challenging in the current era of ﬁnancial constraint. If the NPPF made it clear that Local Authorities have a duty to take into account the needs and requirements assessed by other bodies and interests, and, to the extent they agree with them, adopt them, Local Authorities would be able to meet the requirements for evidence more easily. RICS would welcome a clearer deﬁnition of this measure of soundness.

RICS is now consulting with members on the NPPF and will be responding to Government in detail in due course. Professional guidance and standards will be key in ensuring the delivery of a workable planning system that operates in the public interest. RICS is consulting with members on two pieces of guidance to accompany the NPPF, “Financial Viability in Planning”, to support paragraphs 39–43 and “Place Making and Value” to support paragraphs 114–123. September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w201

Written evidence from the British Aggregates Association

Please ﬁnd enclosed our comments and evidence on the NPPF and the speciﬁc questions posed by the Committee.

We would request that this information is also made available for the consideration of the Environmental Audit Committee.

Summary and Brief General Assessment of the Fitness for Purpose of the draft Framework as a Whole — We strongly support the principle of reverting back to a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is absolutely vital to ensure national growth and encourage investment in the nation. — We support the reduced size of the policy statement and that minerals has its own section. However we are not sure whether this alone will actually speed-up the planning process without more use of “will” than “should” and with potential redress and penalties for default. — From a business perspective there is too much emphasis on “housing” rather than on the general business development which will drive growth and future prosperity. — From a minerals perspective it is essential that a proper balance between economic, social and environment factors in sustainable development is ensured. The current draft we believe is still slanted towards environmental factors. Minerals can only be extracted where they occur and this needs clearly stating in the introductory statements. This becomes more critical for the rarer industrial minerals which predominantly are located in National Parks and AONBs and a clear statement of national need from government is long overdue and much needed.

We welcome the recognition in para 100 that minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth. This needs to be stated “up front” in the Introduction sections para 1–8 to emphasise the importance of a steady and adequate supply of minerals as the building blocks for all other sustainable development. This should also recognise the special nature of mineral development in that minerals can only be extracted where they occur. The deﬁnition of sustainable mineral development must recognise this key locational criterion.

We are concerned about the loss of current important technical guidance given for example in MPS2 in relation to dust and noise. Clear guidance of sufﬁcient weight is an essential tool in securing new permissions. We are concerned that para 102 bullet 7 (102.7) appears to be proposing, for example, that local authorities develop their own set of noise limits which could lead to major inconsistencies across the country.

Minerals are excluded from neighbourhood plans in the Localism Bill and this requires stating more clearly in the NPPF, perhaps in para 6 of the Introduction.

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

This needs some clariﬁcation to ensure the NPPF is not unnecessarily preventing development or gold- plating EU Directives. Speciﬁcally para 19 and 170 imply there are no-go areas for development under the Habitats Directive which is not a correct interpretation of the Directive.

Speciﬁcally for minerals we believe the NPPF should explicitly state that development that meets the Government’s objective for minerals as set out in para 100 is sustainable. Unlike other forms of development, minerals can only be extracted where they occur in economically viable quantities and that sustainable minerals development means balancing the need for the minerals to support economic growth against the impact of working them where they occur.

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

Yes, except bullet 5 of para 19 (19.5) which is somewhat confusing. While we recognise the need to seek to protect and enhance environmental and heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their signiﬁcance we do believe allocations of land for development should not only prefer land of lesser environmental value but also land of lesser heritage value. This is particularly important in respect of minerals development because unlike other forms of development minerals can only be worked where they occur. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w202 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? There is an apparent lack of coordination and communication between government departments, and this is possibly due in part to different departmental priorities and lack of crystral clear central guidance. Eg since Planning and Environment were split between CLG and DEFRA some years ago there are policy conflicts over developments in National Parks and AONBs. There have been similar problems between the Environment Agency and Planning responsibilities (and in some cases HSE) over the “new” Permits (EPP) and the EU Mining Waste Directive leading to duplication and additional cost and regulatory burden on business. Central Government should he aware of these conflicts and we need clear statements to avoid. Eg a clear and unequivocal statement of “National Need” for all minerals is long overdue and would assist. This would also be in line with the EU Raw Materials Initiative. Minerals do not currently have a central sponsor. Indeed much of the sector has little or no support and overall is not coordinated; except through an industry initiative “UK Minerals Forum” with hill stakeholder participation. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/ukmf/home.html

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? There is a need to ensure that this is more widely stated and clearly interpreted to cover where mineral is extracted and where it is used which may be in a different part of England or indeed elsewhere in the UK. September 2011

Written evidence from the Commission for Rural Communities 1. About the Commission for Rural Communities 1.1 The Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) was established in April 2005 and became an independent body on 1 October 2006, following the enactment of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006. 1.2 The Commission has the following three roles: (1) Listening to and representing the views of rural communities. (2) Giving expert advice. (3) Acting as an independent watchdog. 1.3 We have a statutory responsibility to act as an advocate for rural communities and businesses and provide independent advice to government and others to help ensure that policies and programmes reﬂect the needs of people living, working and doing business in rural England. We have a particular focus on tackling disadvantage and economic under-performance. 1.4 In June 2010 the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced the abolition of the CRC as an independent arms length organisation. In the period leading up to our planned closure in 2012, we are continuing to fulﬁl our statutory functions via our Chairman and nine Commissioners. Some of the CRC’s previous work has transferred to a new Rural Communities Policy Unit within Defra.

2. General Assessment of the Fitness for Purpose of the Draft Framework 2.1 It is important when assessing the proposed changes to the planning system to strike an appropriate balance between the beneﬁts of new developments to the social and economic sustainability of rural communities and protection of the countryside’s visual amenity and environmental qualities. 2.2 The Government’s priority in favour of economic growth has raised understandable concerns regarding the future of the green belt, even though this is explicitly protected under the draft NPPF. The CRC favours a plan-led approach rather than a deregulated free-for-all: local plans are central to striking an appropriate balance between countryside protection and economic and social sustainability. In this plan-led context, a presumption in favour of sustainable development should help provide much needed housing in villages where the default position has all too often been “no”. Current policies have meant that in many rural areas, development necessary for the ongoing viability of communities has been prevented. It is vital for our countryside’s future that planning policy strikes a better balance between the social and economic sustainability of rural communities and their environmental sustainability. 2.3 England’s villages need more housing if they are going to survive, and thrive as vibrant communities for the next generation. That is the best way to keep the ever decreasing number of rural shops, post ofﬁces and pubs open, all of which provide a lifeline for local people. Not huge developments which dwarf the existing village, but small developments of perhaps ten or twelve dwellings, in keeping with the environment. Not just cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w203

affordable houses, though that is essential in many areas, but some market as well. These are the clearly evidenced conclusions of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission, the Matthew Taylor Review and many other studies.

3. Comments on the Committee’s Speciﬁc Questions Please note we have responded only to questions where we feel our views are most relevant.

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 over planning decisions? 3.1 There is ambiguity when the framework describes Local Plan making, and later Neighbourhood Plans. This is causing considerable confusion for rural housing associations over how the various plans will interrelate. 3.2 For example, the framework states that local planning must set out the strategic priorities for the area, including housing and economic development, and allocating sites to promote development. It also states that local authorities should prepare a strategic housing assessment but it doesn’t say whether this should contain numbers—presumably because the Government wants to move away from a target driven culture. In the section on neighbourhood planning, the framework makes clear that these “must be aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider local area, and therefore must be in general conformity with the strategic policy of the local plan.” However, if the strategic plan contains no allocations on a site specific basis, it would be open to legal challenges which drag out the planning process.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 3.3 The presumption in favour of sustainable development should help provide much needed housing in villages where the default position has all too often been “no”. This should also be viewed in the context of the abolition of regional targets which were often a restraint on building in villages as the numbers were often used up in urban areas. In the same way the abolition of the brownfield target should help in villages as there often hasn’t been enough brownfield land to provide sites. This has delayed development, especially of affordable housing, and increased costs unnecessarily. 3.4 There is some ambiguity about the concept of sustainable locations, which might be open to legal challenge. The NPPF says that “To promote sustainable development, housing development should not be located in places distant from rural services.” This could be used to perpetuate the old “key villages” hierarchy for development, which would undermine the sustainability of smaller rural communities, and exacerbate the problem of a lack of affordable rural housing in smaller communities, thus contributing to a spiral of decline, as highlighted previously by both the 2006 Affordable Rural Housing Commission and more recent 2008 Mathew Taylor report. The CRC has always advocated looking at communities as “clusters” rather than in isolation. It rejects the idea that rural communities are inherently unsustainable, and believes that people in rural England should be allowed to find ways of making their communities more sustainable, including through new housing and employment.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 3.5 The CRC welcomes many of the principles outlined in the NPPF, including those concerning a plan-led approach based on wide consultation with decisions taken at the lowest level possible, and the reference that planning policies should make effective use of land, and promote mixed use developments that create more vibrant communities. Many rural settlements are becoming the increasingly exclusive preserve of wealthier households, especially in smaller settlements. 3.6 We also wish to acknowledge the welcome references to particular rural circumstances in relation to business and transport. The housing section also refers to the need for “inclusive mixed communities”. 3.7 However, the core planning principles in the NPPF, as well as the section on plan making, are not sufﬁciently clear as they don’t specify the detail the “positive long term vision” should contain.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 3.8 In order to fully understand the Government’s proposed changes to the planning system, the draft NPPF has to be seen in conjunction with the Localism Bill. Through the Localism Bill, the CRC understands that the government is making provisions to ensure that councils will be able to protect the green belt as part of their Local Plans. This important check, if carried out properly, will be crucial in ensuring that the countryside is preserved, whilst also assisting the people who live in rural areas to thrive. We would strongly recommend that concerns of loss of countryside protection might be assuaged by increasing the time permitted for local plans to be prepared, such that in the vast majority of rural England locally agreed plans would provide the context for the application of the presumption for sustainable development. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w204 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

3.9 There is though scope for confusion over how the Localism Bill and NPPF are to relate, in particular for example concerning referenda. The NPPF makes clear that if Neighbourhood Plans don’t conform with the Local Plan, they won’t be put to a referendum. However, elsewhere in the Localism Bill the Government is proposing that local people should be able to trigger a referendum on any issue they want. This gives rise to the question of what will happen if a community demands a referendum on a proposed development and says no if that development is in the local plan. This has the potential to create real problems for local decision makers.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? 3.10 It is essential that the NPPF stresses the importance for Local and Neighbourhood Plans to be based on a strong evidence base which informs plan making and therefore helps to ensure that resulting activities are fit for purpose and address the real needs of an area. 3.11 It is important that any collection and analysis of evidence recognises the distinctiveness of rural areas, and the barriers to and opportunities for growth in these areas. This may not be a straightforward task. Due to their size and dispersed nature, the characteristics of for example some rural economies may not initially be visible. Using datasets at the lowest spatial level available, for example at lower super output area level, will help local authorities and communities understand what is happening in their communities. 3.12 The CRC has a wealth of evidence available which can be used to assist the above, for example our report177 on filling gaps in the evidence base on rural deprivation, which estimates the overall rural share of deprivation at a national, regional and output area level, and identifies very small area “hotspots”, highlighting the existence of rural deprivation even in areas which are relatively prosperous and are not picked up by the Indices of Multiple Deprivation.

Additional Comments 3.13 The current planning system has meant that in many rural areas, development necessary for the ongoing viability of communities has been prevented by the lack of brownfield land available, and the fact that the housing targets laid down in regional plans were often used up by urban areas, leaving little scope left for development in villages—a point highlighted by the 2006 Affordable Rural Housing Commission, which found many people in villages frustrated about their inability to build because the allocations within the Regional Spatial Strategy had already been used up nearer towns. This has been reinforced by subsequent detailed research. 3.14 Another concern for CRC is the future of exception sites, namely sites which are provided exclusively for affordable housing in perpetuity—ie they cannot be sold on the market. Under this provision, landowners have sold land to housing associations and community trusts at substantially discounted prices to enable affordable housing to be built in the smaller rural settlements. There is an urgent need for clarification that exception sites will be allowed to continue, as the framework does not explicitly refer to them. This has led to considerable concern from Rural Housing Associations as over half—57%—of affordable housing in settlements under 1,000 has been on exception sites, and just over a third in settlements of over 3,000. 3.15 The NPPF does state that local authorities in rural areas should be responsive to local circumstances, particularly for affordable housing and goes on to say that “local planning authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs.” We welcome these proposals, which will not only ensure more balanced communities and help young people seeking to form new households; this may also assist the financing of affordable rural housing through cross-subsidy so long as land prices are not inflated as a result, which is a serious worry among rural housing associations. 3.16 The NPPF’s accompanying Impact Assessment includes a heading on “removing exception sites”, which states that “the rigid requirement for sites to be only for affordable housing limits local councils’ options for meeting the full range of housing needs”. This heading suggests that exception sites are being removed, but an exemplary case study is then offered of an exception site policy operated in Cornwall. Clearly there is some confusion and clarification is required. If local authorities were no longer allowed to operate a rural exception sites policy, there is real concern that communities may be less receptive to proposed developments with no assurance that the houses will go to local people in need. Furthermore, there is concern that the economics of some small developments will be undermined by the reluctance of landowners to continue selling land at discounted prices if they think the land will be used for some market housing. There is also a related worry that where local authorities have no adopted plan, local planning applications relating to green fields will be judged against the national policy framework. If that does not contain an exception sites policy, they might have no legal basis. This underlines the earlier recommendation that local authorities should have more time to prepare up to date plans. Alternatively, it might be possible to deal with this through supplement planning guidance. 177 Deprivation in Rural Areas: Quantitative analysis and socio-economic classification http://crc.staging.headshift.com/2008/05/20/deprivation-in-rural-areas-quantitative-analysis-and-socio-economic-classification- exec-summary/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w205

The CRC commends this submission to the CLG Committee and hopes that it provides helpful assistance to informing the Government’s thinking on the NPPF. September 2011

Written evidence from South Bucks District Council Summary This Memorandum responds specifically to the following questions: — 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 over planning decisions? — Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? — Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? — Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than- local strategic planning? In summary, South Bucks District Council is concerned that: — The much briefer statement of national planning policy in the draft NPPF is likely to result in the local plan making process taking longer to effectively complete, with more matters of principle to be resolved (and evidenced) by each local planning authority at the local level. The relationship between Local Plans / Local Development Framework Documents and Neighbourhood Plans requires further clarification. — The proposed definition of Sustainable Development (and related supporting guidance) appears to give too much emphasis to economic growth and development, at the expense of environmental considerations. — Although each of the core planning principles has merit, the wording (when read in the context of the objective to promote growth and development) appears to give undue weight to promoting growth and development, at the expense of protecting the environment. — The duty to cooperate will not adequately address the gaps that will be left by the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies—leading to significant delays in the plan making process, and a likely return in many parts of the country to planning by appeal.

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 over planning decisions? 1.1 In keeping with the wider localism agenda, the introduction to the draft NPPF states: “The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s requirements for the planning system only to the extent that it is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. It provides a framework within which local people and their accountable councils can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities.” 1.2 South Bucks District Council welcomes the objective of reducing the amount and complexity of national planning policy, and the aim of giving local planning authorities more flexibility to prepare locally distinctive plans, which reflect local needs and priorities. In addition, in theory, further flexibility will be afforded by the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (through enactment of the Localism Bill). However, there is the potential downside that with less policy and guidance at the national level, and no regional tier of planning policy, the local plan making process will take longer to effectively complete, with more matters of principle to be resolved (and evidenced) by each local planning authority at the local level. The need for additional evidence will also result in increased costs for local planning authorities. 1.3 In relation to giving local communities sufficient power over planning decisions, South Bucks District Council believes that further clarification is required over the relationship between Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans. The draft NPPF suggests that Neighbourhood Plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan, although the draft NPPF then goes on to confirm that “….when a neighbourhood plan is made, the policies it contains take precedence over existing policies in the Local Plan for that neighbourhood, where they are in conflict”. 1.4 This places considerable importance on the examination process for Neighbourhood Plans, ensuring that policies and statements in the Neighbourhood Plan do not intentionally (or otherwise) undermine the “strategic” policies in the Local Plan. Clarification is required over whether the reference to the “strategic policies of the Local Plan” relates to just those policies that are truly strategic (for example, those relating to the overall scale cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w206 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

and distribution of development in the District) or whether the statement relates to all policies that apply to an area beyond that to be covered by the Neighbourhood Plan.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 1.5 No on both counts. The Foreword to the draft NPPF from Greg Clark MP emphasises the role that planning has to play in achieving sustainable development. The Foreword states: “Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations. Development means growth. We must accommodate the new ways by which we will earn our living in a competitive world. We must house a rising population, which is living longer and wants to make new choices. We must respond to the changes that new technologies offer us. Our lives, and the places in which we live them, can be better, but they will certainly be worse if things stagnate”. 1.6 Whilst the first part of the definition is similar to that which has been used in the planning system for many years, the second part has a noticeably stronger pro-growth message. It suggests that growth is non negotiable, leading to the inference that in seeking to deliver sustainable development (through the plan making process), local planning authorities may be “forced” into making more compromises in relation to environmental considerations (than in relation to the economic and social aspects of sustainable development). 1.7 In the main body of the draft NPPF (section on “Delivering Sustainable Development”) reference is made to the longstanding definition of Sustainable Development—“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.178 The three main tenets of sustainable development are set out (as they are in current national planning policy), but it is considered significant that the economic role of planning is now listed first (whereas in current national planning policy the environmental and social roles of planning policy come before the economic role). 1.8 In relation to the presumption in favour of Sustainable Development, the draft NPPF states: “Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible. Local planning authorities should: — 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. — 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.” 1.9 Whilst in the current period of economic uncertainty South Bucks District Council understands the Government’s general wish to promote growth and development, there is concern over how this desire is articulated in the draft NPPF, and the implications it may have for Green Belt Districts such as South Bucks. It is felt that the Government’s objective to promote growth and development could be retained, but expressed in a more proportionate, less unequivocal way, which would allow for the consideration of legitimate local concerns. 1.10 The first bullet above relates to the preparation of Local Plans. It proposes that these plans should be prepared on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Although some comfort can be taken from these words, it is likely to mean that rather than coming at the issue of future development needs from the perspective of what can be accommodated given the development constraints in any particular District, in moving forward, Councils may need to demonstrate why development needs cannot be reasonably met, with reference to the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighing the benefits. This is a subtle shift, but the balance of consideration now weighs more in favour of growth and development. 1.11 South Bucks District Council is also very concerned about the proposal that local authorities should approve all development on which their plan is silent (or indeterminate) or where relevant policies are out of date. The section of the draft NPPF dealing with “Plan-Making” provides further guidance in this regard, stating that “….in the absence of an up-to-date and consistent plan, planning applications should be determined in accord with this Framework” (ie the NPPF). Whilst South Bucks remains in the minority of local authorities who have an adopted Core Strategy, it is clear that it will take some time to prepare and adopt Development Management policies for the District. In the interim period and subject to what happens to the saved policies in the 1999 South Bucks Local Plan, the current wording of the NPPF will provide most applicants for planning permission with a more attractive policy context for their proposals (given its pro-development stance). This policy context is not one that is directly capable of reflecting local circumstances. 178 Taken from the Report of the Brundtland Commission, Our Common Future (1987). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w207

1.12 More generally, the proposal in the draft NPPF that local authorities should approve all development on which their plan is silent, will encourage authorities to try and draft plans which anticipate every eventuality, working against the goal of speeding up the planning process and having shorter Local Plans.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 1.13 South Bucks District Council feels that although each of these broad principles has merit, the wording (when read in the context of the objective to promote growth and development) appears to give greater weight to promoting growth and development, than protecting the environment.

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 1.14 No. It appears that via the proposed duty to cooperate, the Government is intending that development needs will be considered over an area beyond local authority boundaries, and that as was the case with the Regional Spatial Strategy, development needs across a wider area will be assessed and the spatial distribution of development agreed, taking into account development constraints (including the Green Belt). 1.15 South Bucks District Council is concerned that this duty to cooperate will not adequately address the gaps that will be left by the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies. In relation to development needs, the approach presupposes that there is always a consensus waiting to be arrived at. The reality is that some strategic issues will not be readily resolved, and it would therefore be helpful if the draft NPPF could advise on what should be done in the event of such an impasse. 1.16 The practical issues associated with the duty to cooperate should not be underestimated. Local authorities are likely to have fewer resources in moving forward, and will inevitably have different priorities given the different stages they will be at in the plan making process. This is likely to mean that either the effectiveness of the cooperation will be compromised, or there will be signiﬁcant delays as one authority waits for one or more other authorities to be in a position to effectively resource a particular piece of work or study. 1.17 As importantly, given the highly contentious nature of the matters to be discussed, it will take a number of years for Council’s to work up an appropriate evidence base, agree (or be forced to agree) a distribution of development across the wider area, and enshrine this level of development in their Local Plan. In those areas that are yet to adopt a Core Strategy document, some form of transitional arrangements could usefully maintain the Regional Housing targets until such a time as each local authority area (acting within the duty to cooperate) has a new (locally evidenced) housing target in place. Without any transitional arrangements proposed (following abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies), the concern must be that in those areas without an adopted “Local Plan” there is a period of planning by appeal—contrary to the stated intentions of the draft NPPF, and in all likelihood, resulting in a less sustainable form of development than could be achieved through plan- led development. September 2011

Written evidence from Cemex UK Summary Points — The Company supports the presumption in favour of Sustainable Development. — Clarity required with in the NPPF that Mineral development is excluded from Neighbourhood Plans. — Deﬁnition of an up to date local plan. — The role of guidance within the NPPF, the need for technical guidance and weight associated. — The recognition of two tier planning systems. — Additional weight given to primary resources that will support economic growth and built development eg Minerals.

Q1. 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 over planning decisions? The NPPF needs defined policies and supportive guidance that is clear to all. The NPPF does not clearly recognise two tier planning authorities throughout the document. Definition of a local plan relative to the planning authority (eg Mineral planning authority—local plan is the Minerals Local Plan). The framework has been drafted for Built Development and is not directly applicable to minerals. Minerals are a national commodity and resources are restricted by geological factors and therefore need a national strategic overview and cross boundary understanding and communication. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w208 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Paragraph 23 makes reference to infrastructure and minerals; it is considered that an additional bullet point is required to support the supply of minerals to the built environment in addition to the infrastructure necessary to release the resources. Minerals are a strategic priority and a national and local supply is essential to achieve sustainable development and economic growth. Clarification on the definition of an-up-to-date plan. To ensure a national approach and sustainable development all local plans should have a certificate of conformity. Paragraph 32 is considered vague and open to misinterpretation. Although best available information should be used the strategic importance of minerals it is important to clarify the role of MASS and a national overview to mineral resources (not reserves) to enable sustainable development across the country. Paragraph 101 needs to be expanded and provide more guidance related to non aggregate minerals for example cement, silica and clay. MPG10 provided beneficial guidance and related landbanks which needs to be reaffirmed within NPPF.

Q3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? It should be recognised that primary requirements are necessary to facilitate new development and economic growth eg minerals and energy. A steady supply of minerals is necessary.

Q4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? The quantity of international and national regulation is vast and not covered by the current draft of the NPPF. The document needs to recognise other regulations their impacts, relationship and role within planning and weight given. Although it is the intention to remove current MPG’s/MPS’s it is requested that the technical date and guidance is retained to support applicants, Local Planning Authorities and regulators.

Q5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? Minerals are of national strategic importance and require cross boundary communication. The AWP’s and AWP secretaries can play an important role in communicating discussions regarding supply of minerals and this should be reinforced within the framework. The definition of “greater local important mineral” should be clarified to ensure adequate supply across the country.

Q6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? There is limited evidence for amendments identified within the draft NPPF for example removing reference related to Cement landbanks as stated in MPG10. Existing guidance and figures provide valuable support to the Cement industry and Planning Authorities. Any emissions or amendments should be quantified. September 2011

Written evidence from the Inland Waterways Association’s Restoration and Navigation Committees Executive Summary — IWA registers its strong support in principle for the review of the planning system which is necessary to provide greater encouragement for sustainable growth and job creation. — IWA does not believe that the measures put forward constitute a threat to the countryside, to Green Belts, or to heritage assets as the emphasis is clearly on Plan-led and sustainable development. — IWA consider that the role of tourism is underplayed in the Framework’s text and the untapped potential for urban and rural tourism in regenerating local economies should be stressed. — The importance of sustainable transport is also highlighted in the Framework’s text but the omission of any speciﬁc reference to sustainable freight transportation along estuaries and inland waterways should be rectiﬁed. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w209

— IWA’s key concern is the operation of the Duty to Co-operate in order to provide effective larger- than-local strategic vision. Linear waterway restoration schemes often cross many Local Authority boundaries and there needs to be a uniﬁed approach in the preparation of related Local Plans. — Whilst the IWA support the examination of the Duty to Co-operate and the requirement to involve of stakeholders in Local Plan preparation, the different preparation and processing timescales for Local Plans may pose difﬁculties for Local Plan Examination Inspectors in assessing and judging this requirement. — In order to ensure that wider strategic considerations are understood and provide the context for Local Plans, IWA believe there is a need to establish this coordinated thinking and “common ground” at the outset. — IWA consider that such problems could be resolved via a requirement for Local Authorities to produce a Strategic Context and Priorities (SCAP) document at the outset of the Local Plan process. — A requirement to produce a SCAP to set out common ground and purpose with other Local Authorities where there are joint interests would pave the way for joint working at later stages of Local Plan formulation and assist larger-thanlocal strategic planning issues and the Duty to Co- operate to be assessed by Inspectors at Local Plan Examinations.

Representations

The Inland Waterways Association (IWA) has carefully considered the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) document and regards its contents as highly relevant to the future of the country’s inland waterways system. The NPPF is timely because it immediately precedes the formation of the National Waterways Charity which will come into effect in April 2012.

IWA broadly welcome the contents of the NPPF because it shares the Government’s view that action is needed to stimulate the national economy and to generate growth and jobs. The development and redevelopment of Britain’s canals and rivers has been a major factor in securing investment in urban and rural regeneration schemes with new waterfront development stimulating investment and delivering sought after sites for both housing and job creation. There remains a huge untapped potential which can be encouraged and sensitively exploited through the positive operation of the planning system.

IWA is very conscious of the need to ensure that the operators of the planning system are fully aware of the potential for growth and job creation that waterways offer and the very active role of the private and voluntary sectors can continue to play in this field. The starting point for unlocking this potential must be the inclusion of suitable proposals and policies in future Local Plans in order to stimulate and manage change. In some cases such change is confined to specific sites such as run down canal or riverside frontages but it also extends to the whole length of a canal restoration scheme crossing Local Authority (and sometimes Local Enterprise Partnership) boundaries. Examples of this are found in the very active work being conducted on the Wey and Arun navigation in Surrey and Sussex and along the Wiltshire and Berkshire Canal.

Clearly, the IWA and the Canal Societies and Trusts wish to ensure that those projects which have the potential to regenerate the local economies along the lines of these navigations are recognised and fully safeguarded in Local Plans. For a wide variety of reasons in the past, this has not always been the case. In its submissions to the Government on the National Waterways Charity the IWA stated as follows: “The planning system is unduly restrictive in encouraging the protection of the line of disused waterways only when there is a reasonable degree of certainty of a restoration project proceeding in whole or in part within the development plan period. Such lines should also be protected when there is clear potential for restoration outside the time span of the development period”.

It went on to say: “Derelict waterways are linear entities which often cross planning authority boundaries. It’s not good for one planning authority to protect a part of a proposed restoration, perhaps because work has started or is about to start, if another then fails to protect the route because no work is planned in its area for the foreseeable future. Restoration schemes may take several decades to achieve their aims and routes crossing authorities’ planning boundaries are vulnerable to disparate attitudes.”

It will be appreciated from this that the IWA regard it as crucial that Local Planning Authorities act in concert and co-ordinate their plans, proposals and policies where waterways pass through two or more Local Authority areas. IWA have therefore examined the Draft Framework to establish whether the “Duty to Co- operate” is sufficient to achieve the larger-than-local strategic aims where linear waterway restoration, regeneration and management needs to be co-ordinated and reflected in the formulation of two or more Local Plans. These issues are raised in the penultimate question posed, namely: “Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to co-operate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than- local strategic planning?” cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w210 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Detailed Points

TWA support the following: — The requirement for each local planning authority to produce a Local Plan. (Para.22) — The setting of strategic priorities, especially the inclusion of references to leisure and transport. (Para.23) — The emphasis on engagement and collaboration in Plan making (Para.25), subject to the reservations set out below. — The requirements for “Planning strategically across local boundaries” (Paras. 44Ð47) subject to the reservations set out below. — The need for planning policies to support economic development. (Paras. 73Ð75) — The emphasis on promoting sustainable forms of transport (Paras. 82Ð84), subject to the reservations set out below. — The objective to create sustainable communities with access to open spaces and recreational facilities. (Para.124) — The protection of open space and the concept Local Green Space. (Paras.128Ð132) — The safeguarding of the historic environment and heritage assets and the identiﬁcation of these assets most at risk. (Paras.176Ð191)

IWA consider the Framework could be strengthened by reference to, or greater emphasis being placed on the following: 1. Tourism: the role of tourism is underplayed and is not the same as “leisure”. Tourism is only referred to in its rural context in Para. 81 in the section entitled “Planning for prosperity/Business and economic development”. 2. Waterway Freight Transport: reference to opportunities for the use of estuaries and inland waterways for sustainable freight distribution should usefully be made in Para. 89.

Key Concerns

Whilst registering wide-ranging support for the Framework, IWA remains concerned that, notwithstanding the Duty to Cooperate, the provisions for cross-boundary strategies and joint working, and the testing of these factors at Local Plan Examinations, there will still be a tendency for some Local Planning Authorities to be too insular to deliver a larger-than-local strategic dimension. Where there is a failure to achieve common ground between Local Authorities on key larger-than-local issues, with Local Plans being examined independently at different times, it will pose difﬁculties for Inspectors’ in assessing “soundness” based on the Duty to Co- operate.

Local Authorities with high levels of environmental and historic assets, for example, may see it as reasonable that they should plan to absorb relatively lower growth than less well-endowed areas and seek to decant some growth to other areas. Furthermore, priorities for housing provision or transport may well be very different in one Local Authority compared to another with, for example, some willing to protect the line of a disused canal and others not. Unless there is some clearly deﬁned mechanism for the establishment of common ground and securing compatible local strategies at an early stage in the formulation of the new Local Plans, the overall jigsaw puzzle of plans, proposals and policies could be dysfunctional. Whilst the Framework goes some way to point Local Authorities in the right direction and urges them to embrace engagement and collaboration, strategic and wider interests may well be lost in a myriad of local issues and problems.

In order to ensure that wider strategic considerations are understood and form the basis for Local Plans, TWA believe there is a need to establish this co-ordinated thinking and “common ground” at the outset. TWA advocate that the NPPF should require for Local Authorities to produce a Strategic Context and Priorities (SCAP) document to set out common ground and purpose with other Local Authorities where there are wider interests, thereby paving the way for joint working at the later stages of Local Plan formulation.

The SCAP will assist larger-than-local strategic planning issues to be assessed by Inspectors at Local Plan Examinations to ensure compliance with the Duty to Cooperate. IWA believe its concerns are well-founded and that the solution must be to require Local Authorities at the outset of the Local Plan process to prepare, consult on and adopt a SCAP document. September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w211

Written evidence from the Institution of Civil Engineers Summary — ICE is a non-commercial organisation obliged by Royal Charter to act in the public interest. Its membership has extensive experience of England’s planning system, often in dealing with its more difﬁcult subjects and projects. We are in process of consulting more widely with members. — ICE is strongly pro-planning and pro-sustainable development. Major infrastructure investment is vital to the transition to a low carbon economy, to economic recovery and to social wellbeing. ICE welcomes the Government’s intention to simply planning guidance and to make sustainable development the purpose of the planning system. ICE’s ambition can be characterised as “the right development, in the right place, at the right time”. — We believe that the draft NPPF gives a good general overview of the Government’s objectives for planning policy but that there are important clariﬁcations and drafting amendments required to ensure that these objectives are achieved. — ICE has particular concerns about the impact of the NPPF in a period where there is limited local plan coverage. The Framework rightly establishes the importance of local plans—but does not appropriately address the implications of their short-medium scarcity. — The Framework does not provide a clear vision of a future England. It—and other planning policy—seems largely “placeless”. Without addressing the widely disparate patterns of growth across England, it may be that planning can never reconcile the intense and competing demands of growth and conservation in the south eastern corner of the country.

Introduction The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Communities and Local Government Committee’s inquiry. England’s planning system is of critical importance to all its citizens, and is has a major influence in the professional activities of civil engineers. Founded in 1818, ICE is the professional organisation for the civil engineers responsible for construction of the infrastructure—transport, energy generation and distribution, water supply and treatment, waste management, and flood defences—required for a successful low-carbon economy and an enhanced quality of life. We are a UK-based international organisation with over 80,000 individual members and are recognised as a public voice for the profession. ICE has a Royal Charter which obliges us to act for the public benefit and it is in this spirit, and drawing on our expertise in infrastructure planning, investment and delivery, that we contribute to debate on planning reforms. ICE has been closely following the Coalition Government’s planning reform activities over the past year. We established an expert member panel to analyse and contribute to the development of the Localism Bill and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and have published views on both (at the pre-consultation phase of the NPPF in February). Our interests in both documents (as in the planning system generally) is in ensuring that they provide the most appropriate environment for timely provision of the infrastructure essential to a successful, low carbon economy.

General Observations ICE is in process of consulting with its members on the draft NPPF—so our contribution at this stage may be regarded as interim. In places we have identified what we consider to the important questions for investigation—rather than the answers. Our view will become more fully-formed in the next few weeks and we would be pleased to contribute further at a later stage. The Committee specifically invited comments on a number of questions: our responses to these are given below. We feel that the following general observations may provide a helpful context for our answers: — We endorse the Government’s objective of simplifying England’s planning system, with the intention of making it more efficient and effective. — The planning system has been a frequent source of frustration to the development of infrastructure, sometimes imposing major—and we believe not always necessary—obstacles of delay and increased cost. — Despite the difficulties often faced, ICE is strongly pro-planning. We want to see a strong, positive, efficient and comprehensive spatial planning system which gives certainty to investors and developers, provides an effective vehicle for local residents and businesses to shape the future development of their area, and realises national social, environmental and economic ambitions. — We favour strong, clear and concise national planning guidance which provides a robust framework for local interpretation—allowing different areas to realise their contribution to national objectives. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w212 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— We are not automatically of the view that the shortest possible national planning guidance is the best. While there is a case to say that the current system had become unwieldy and impenetrable, planning deals with many, complex and competing subjects and interests. Local interpretation is vital but detailed national guidance can be useful. ICE, while a non-commercial organisation, represents professionals whose job it often is to build things. We have represented our approach to planning reform as seeking “the right development, in the right place, at the right time”. We believe that, in practice, this also means, “more development, in more places, and more quickly”. It does not, however, mean “any development, anywhere, as quickly as possible”. Indeed, poorly- planned development can create more problems than opportunities for infrastructure providers and managers.

ICE’s View on the Committee’s Specific Questions 1. 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 over planning decisions? Our interim impression is that the draft NPPF gives a good flavour of the Government’s ambitions for sustainable development. We endorse the general sentiments in the document. However, there are a number of areas where we wonder if the more detailed content undermines the higher purpose. On the issue of empowering local communities, we endorse the importance that the NPPF places on the production of up-to-date local plans (and the associated efforts to make these easier to produce), as well as the emphasis on neighbourhood planning and on early consultation on planning proposals. The question of whether the power is “sufficient” goes to the heart of what planning is for. Should local communities have the right to veto development in their area, even if this might be against the wider public interest? ICE member regularly face this challenge. The NPPF appears to suggest that developers’ and the wider public interests (as expressed in national and local authority policy) should generally be predominant, with communities given the opportunity only to influence the ways in which these interests are met. Front- loading the planning process through good local planning and pre-application consultation are important in reconciling competing interests. A specific issue that the Committee may wish to investigate is the NPPF’s statement that local planning authorities should “Grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date”. Given the limited local plan coverage (many of which will not be NPPF-compliant), we think this could—in the short-medium term, at least—significantly disempower both communities and planning authorities. A further issue is that Government has a tendency to discuss communities’ views as if they could be expressed as a single, homogenous voice. More than in many areas of public policy, in planning, this is often not the case—there may often be differences of interest and opinion (even if they are not equally vocal). There can be rational reasons for local communities (or members of them) to oppose development that is in the wider interest. We welcome the Government’s intention to redress the balance of incentives for communities to accept development through the likes of financial compensation. Specific efforts—including the New Homes Bonus and Community Infrastructure Levy—to date do not appear to have been well-considered, however, and may not have the desired effects.

2. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? We have noted that “the presumption in favour of sustainable development” has been the focus of much debate and media attention. However, the planning system has long contained positive presumptions—even if it wasn’t always widely-understood. ICE considers that such a presumption is appropriate as an overarching goal—the difficulty arises in defining what “sustainable development” is, and how that can be channelled through local plans. At a very broad level, the Brundtland definition is good. The Government further recognises broad environmental, social and economic dimensions relevant to the planning system. Unfortunately we envisage that the direction to “Grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date” will compel many less sustainable proposals to be consented. This is particularly the case in the short-medium term, as most local authorities do not have NPPF- compliant local plans in place. Government assures us that plan coverage will increase quickly but we can see strong incentives for developers to rush to submit applications in the interim, perhaps to slow plan development, and to seek out less restrictive (but potentially less suitable)—locations. Such tactics are not new in planning but the draft NPPF risks exacerbating them. We can see that a period of laissez-faire would boost short-term economic growth consider that the long-term implications of poor development may be worse than a slowing of the reform process. The Committee may wish to consider the feasibility of transitional arrangements. There is a further issue in the relationship between a “plan-led” system and the presumption. Local plans have a vital role in defining sustainable development in their areas, and it is to be expected that there will some cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w213

geographic variation. ICE is uncertain that the draft NPPF recognises that some local plans may, for good reasons, decide that some forms of sustainable development are not desirable in specific locations. In such cases, which has primacy? There are also some drafting points in the Framework which we fear may serve to undermine the Government’s ambitions for sustainable development. The use of terminology such as (eg) “Where practical” (in paragraph 83) seems likely to allow developers to argue too easily that reducing congestion and carbon emissions isn’t practical in their current application. The relaxation of the “town centre first” policy for offices and removal of car parking caps for major non-residential developments also needs to be carefully considered.

3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? Our interim view is that they are. Our view is that most of the general sentiments and ambitions expressed in the draft NPPF are appropriately expressed—it is in the important details and exceptions that issues arise.

4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? The draft NPPF appears to be largely a standalone document. In many cases this is not a problem but there are situations where other planning policy will come into contact with other policy, perhaps particularly—in the case of infrastructure—the new National Planning Statements (NPSs). The NPSs are referred to on a few occasions in the draft NPPF, and we suspect that—in practice—the two will generally co-exist comfortably. The relationship with the National Infrastructure Plan should be clarified and strengthened when that document’s second iteration appears shortly. The generally “light touch” and permissive nature of the draft NPPF will not hinder other parts of Government concerned with development. However, it is unclear whether the Framework would do much to encourage better planning and sustainable development practices either. We also think the Committee might wish to investigate how helpful the draft NPPF is to the conservation and environmental protection interests in Government. We think that the removal of waste policy should be reviewed: while the forthcoming waste strategy may contain excellent coverage of planning issues, why was this approach adopted for only one sector? Is it an appropriate treatment, and—if so—would it be appropriate to other infrastructure or other planning issues? Or are there cross-cutting planning goals that may be lost if policy is distributed amongst sector-specific (and perhaps not primarily) planning-focused strategies?

5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? ICE specifically identified the duty as a potential weak point in the original Localism Bill, and was heartened by the overwhelming support on this point from other organisations. We were concerned that there was a lack of clarity about when planning authorities must co-operate, on what issues, and how effective collaboration would be assessed. While some authorities already co-operate effectively on a voluntary basis (and may continue to do so), others do not and would not. We feared that larger-than-local strategic planning might become a nice—rather than a need—to do, with the result that vital infrastructure such as for transport and energy would not be properly planned and delivered in many areas. We were encouraged by the Government’s amendment of the duty in the Bill, developed further in the NPPF. In recognition of the Government’s wish to use positive incentives to encourage enlightened behaviour, we wonder whether there might be scope to use the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as a tool to incentive better strategic planning. Given the larger-than-local nature of much infrastructure, CIL seems better-suited to this level than to the neighbourhood incentives that Government is currently considering.

6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based? While the current system provides plenty evidence to justify its reform, it is much less clear what evidence the Government has used to develop the new proposals in the NPPF. Much of the current planning reform seems based on assertion. The ICE is currently consulting members for their views on the new Framework. Many of our members have practical experience of managing major projects through various versions of the English planning system and will be able to bring an “evidence-based” perspective to the new policy proposals. We would be happy to relay these views to the Committee in due course. There are a number of speciﬁc points in the draft Framework where we think there is a lack of evidence or clarity that may hinder the delivery of the “right infrastructure, in the right places, at the right time”. We are still considering these but can already draw attention to: cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w214 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— Changes to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). We have clearly expressed our view to Government that CIL should be protected for its original purpose of providing new and upgraded infrastructure required by, and necessary to accommodate, development. This is still the purpose against which the Levy is justified but the Government’s changes make it increasingly unlikely that Levy income will be used in this way—it increasingly appears to be simply a tax on development. ICE will continue to address CIL through the Localism Bill’s Parliamentary process. — We are concerned that the wording of some sections, particularly on Transport, allows unsustainable development to be permitted. Paragraph 83 is a case in point. While much of the Transport section appears to reflect good practice, it seems rendered more optional than compulsory by the use of phrases like “Where practical”. — Related to our transport concerns, we would like the Committees to investigate the likely effects of removing the “town centre first” presumption on office development. Out-of-town is often easier to develop but sustainable transport—greener modes and shorter distances—is often less suited to such locations. There seems scope for increased car dependence and emissions—and greater strain on already hard-pressed road infrastructure while public transport (which tends to serve town centre locations better) is undermined. — Removal of housing density requirements. While respecting the removal of top-down targets, the Committee may wish to reflect on the impact of lower densities on sustainable development, particularly the need to travel and by which mode and the impact on infrastructure. The same questions apply to development in countryside locations and the relaxation of the emphasis on “brownfield first” development. Brownfield development is not always more sustainable, and is often more challenging for developers, but it is often better- served by existing infrastructure. — The provisions for “Local Green Space” (paragraphs 130–132) designations are somewhat unclear. Where there are particularly valuable and irreplaceable spaces not covered by existing designations then protection is appropriate. It should not be possible to use the designation as a general anti-development tool, however. — Neighbourhood Development Orders (NDOs). It is unclear how scale-based requirements (eg traffic impact assessments, Section 106 or Community Infrastructure Levy payments) might be applied where planning permission has been given under an NDO. There are plenty examples of different approaches to national planning and guidance across Europe, including in other countries of the UK. Not all are applicable, of course, but it is not clear to us what has been learned from these.

Witnesses may also like to offer a brief general assessment of the fitness for purpose of the draft Framework as a whole Overall, ICE considers that the general objectives of the draft NPPF are commendable. They represent a positive step in reforming a planning system that has become unwieldy. While we think there are improvements that should be made to the document, we also consider that it can achieve sufficient “fitness for purpose” with some relatively small (but significant) amendments. It is unfortunate that much public debate on the Framework has become polarised between business and Government on one side and some conservation interests on the other. We agree that sustainable development should be the underpinning objective the NPPF, and of the planning system generally. We are also like the clarity that “development [in spatial planning] means growth” (as stated in the Framework’s Ministerial foreword) but have some concerns that “sustainable” is more open to interpretation, particularly in the absence of effective local plan coverage. In the short-medium term, there appears to be some danger of poor quality development gaining approval. Poor choices in the built environment tend to have long lasting public consequences. There are a number of specific statements or loopholes in the draft NPPF that give cause for concern, and may threaten the commendable objectives. We suggest the Committee pays particular attention to these. ICE will continue to test the document against the practical experience of our members over the coming weeks. Finally, ICE also contributed to DCLG’s pre-consultation exercise on the NPPF in February. While some of the arguments that we and others made at that point have been accepted, the call for a national spatial vision was resisted. The draft NPPF is largely “placeless” (the words “city” and “cities” do not appear once). Yet much of the controversy about the document reflects England’s (and the UK’s)—unusually for such a populous “Western” nation—spatial concentration. Demand for development in the South Eastern corner appears insatiable, leading to the conflict we currently see over scarce land resources. Meanwhile, many parts of northern England wonder where development is going to come from. It may be beyond the Committee’s immediate remit but it seems a question that should be addressed. September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w215

Written evidence from GreenSpace GreenSpace is a national charity solely dedicated to the conservation and improvement of public parks and all other forms of publicly accessible green space. We represent professionals working in the sector and community groups that are actively working to improve green space. Around half the local authority parks and green space teams in England are members of GreenSpace and we maintain a network of around 1,000 community based voluntary groups. We provide networking opportunities, support benchmarking, undertake area and national based research, dissemination of good practice through advice, conferences, training and publications and deliver campaigns and advocacy.

Summary — Improving on the work started in PPG17 to define and recognise the value of different types of green space including defining the terms “community green space” and “local green space”. — Use the opportunity of new definitions to provide greater enhancement and protection from development to different types of green spaces. — Provide a clear translation of the definition of sustainable development to ensure that the principles can be more effectively applied by planning authorities, developers and communities. — Do not rely on local interpretation of the framework to ensure that green infrastructure is enhanced and protected — Commit to a balanced strategic supply of green space as not all green space is beyond the scope of development. — Ensure that neighbourhood panels are supported in the to make informed decisions. — Use the community infrastructure levy to place greater emphasis on a duty upon developers to ensure that the increased burden that they place on surrounding infrastructure is addressed through their contributions, thus enhancing developer’s commitment to big society and localism.

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 over planning decisions? No. The Minister suggests that the replacement of over 1,000 pages of national policy and guidance with around 50 pages should be a cause for celebration. We suggest that this is indicative of the dumbing down and over simplification of the complex issues involved in relation to an effective planning policy framework. As an example of this, we were extensively involved in the development of PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation. Whilst PPG17 was useful, within our sector it was felt that it still didn’t sufficiently recognise the value of community green spaces and green infrastructure, and certainly didn’t offer sufficient protection from potential development. What it did provide was a set of good practice principles, around which a community, desperate to safeguard its right to access good quality, green space could develop an effective defence. Within the new Draft Planning Policy Framework there is nothing in terms of open space provision and open space protection that compares to PPG17. Given that PPG 17 was already ineffectual, this can only mean that open space provision has even less protection. In saying this, we need to highlight that we do not believe that all public green space is sacred and beyond the scope of development. We are instead committed to a balanced strategic supply ensuring that all communities have good access to a diversity of high quality green spaces and that the totality of the local green infrastructure supports and provides vibrant and sustainable ecosystem services as well as meeting the social, recreational and health needs of communities. Part of the problem with the draft Framework, and its justification for the abandonment of the raft of specific and detailed guiding principles, is its reliance on local interpretation. Where communities and their local authorities are equally committed to protecting and enhancing green infrastructure, the new Framework offers the scope for appropriate interpretation. Where a local council, with or without the support of the local community, cares less about environmental quality than economic growth and local business, it can choose to apply a polar opposite interpretation of the framework and lay waste its green infrastructure in a comparatively unfettered manner. We note that local planning authorities are now required to prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment, but there is no longer a requirement to produce an Open Space Strategy or Regional Spatial Strategy. The protection and enhancement of green infrastructure, ecosystem services and biodiversity is too important to be dependent on the whims of local interpretation. Its role in climate change mitigation and adaptation alone dictates that more is needed than is offered in the draft framework. Add to this its contribution to public health and wellbeing, community cohesion, cultural heritage and sense of place and it soon becomes obvious that the 50 or so pages represent a potential threat to sustainable environmental management. We welcome opportunities for increased community involvement and decision making influence in the planning process. In general parks and green spaces are massively appreciated by the communities they serve cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w216 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

with most communities inclined towards their protection rather than their loss. However, we are reminded of the adage “you don’t know what you don’t know”, and in the absence of good guiding principles and examples of good practice, supported by detailed and specific planning guidance, there is a danger that communities will come to regret many of their decisions in relation to development approvals they are a party to: if they haven’t seen what has been achieved elsewhere through different approaches to that which is being locally championed then how can they make a truly informed judgement? Well-meaning but ill-informed decisions that lead to the loss of elements of the green infrastructure or heritage assets are likely to be irreversible and may well erode the quality of life of individuals living within these communities, both now and across generations to come. We have major concerns about the level of support that will be available to Neighbourhood Panels to ensure that they are representative and that they have access to the information and advice they will need in order to make informed decisions and make a genuine and meaningful contribution to the decision making process. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is presented as supporting and incentivising development rather than placing the emphasis on a duty upon developers to ensure that the increased burden that they place on the surrounding infrastructure is addressed through their contribution. The burdens created by new development often extend well beyond the immediate confines of the neighbourhood in which the development takes place. The proposed use of CIL appears to be more about “oiling the wheels” to achieve planning consent than meeting genuine strategic needs, effectively bribing communities with financial enticements to approve proposals that may cause long term harm to communities far in excess of the relatively small financial reward they receive. Proposals should first be assessed for sustainability, then for need, then for appropriateness and only when these tests have been positively met, should there be a calculation of an appropriate level and use of the CIL; is it good? Is it needed? Is it appropriate? What costs need to be met?

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? No. The statement “sustainable development means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” is a wholly insufficient descriptor in planning and development terms. Clear and consistent guidance needs to be developed to translate the tenets of sustainability into practical terms that can be applied to planning and development processes. The definition is too vague to be applied accurately by planning authorities, developers and communities. This issue is at the heart of most of the concerns about the draft. If the Government were to adopt the established and recognised definition of sustainable development, that which is provided by the World Commission on Environment and Development, many who currently oppose the framework would find themselves instead supportive and even excited by its potential. As it is, the Government’s use of the term “sustainable development” is seen as a cheap trick; a smoke screen for allowing business and economic development to take unchallenged preference over any concerns about the environment, historic and cultural heritage and community cohesion and distinctive identity. Economic prosperity cannot exist in a vacuum; it is in itself only sustainable within the context of material, societal and environmental sustainability.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? With such an insufficient commitment to and definition of sustainable development, at present the core planning principles can be interpreted as; “if there’s a market demand and therefore money to be made, development proposals should automatically be approved”. The notion that Local Plans should set out a “positive” long term vision for an area, reads as if the term positive only refers to economically growing. The statement “decision-takers at every level should assume that the default answer to development proposals is ‘yes’ is simply dangerous”. A better position would be to say that “provided a proposal can demonstrate and meet the tests of sustainability (in its true sense) and meets a recognised need within the community, then the default answer should be ‘yes’”. In the fifth bullet point provided, there is a disconnection between enhancing environmental and heritage assets and the issue of reducing pollution; why are these two issues connected in this clumsy and inappropriate manner? The statement “where practical and consistent with other objectives, allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value” should read “wherever possible, allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value” and should be established as a presumption. The term “lesser environmental value” will require careful definition based on sound evidence, as some may argue that even contaminated land has a high environmental value as that land can be restored, even after years of heavy industrial use. If the statement provided in the sixth bullet point “recognising that some open land can perform many functions” refers to green space then it should recognise that all green space (to greater or lesser degrees) performs many functions. There should be a stronger statement about the multiplicity of functions provided by green space and green infrastructure in relation to ecosystem services and recreational and social opportunities. The commitment to the re-use of resources and the use of renewable resources provided by the seventh bullet point just isn’t strong enough as a guiding principle. The technology, tools, materials and knowledge exists to ensure that all future approaches to development are much more sustainable and can mitigate rather than compound climate change issues. Development can be carbon neutral, but requires a genuine commitment cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w217

within the planning policy framework. How long will we continue to ignore the issues of environmental sustainability? The ninth bullet point refers to supporting local strategies to improve health and wellbeing for all but fails to highlight that this should include strategies for protecting and enhancing access to quality green spaces and managing green infrastructure.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? No. In relation to the significance of green spaces, as highlighted in the recent Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) and in the Marmot Review which informed the Health White Paper (Healthy Lives Health People) this draft framework seems completely unconnected; worse than this, at times it seems completely conflicting with these two documents. The NEWP highlights the massive economic value of ecosystem services, warning that economic growth cannot be sustainable unless there is effective stewardship of the environment. The Health White Paper highlights the vital role of green space in addressing health inequalities between rich and poor communities. The planning policy framework completely fails to recognise these issues and the imperative to properly consider these issues within planning based decision-making frameworks. There seems to be a lack of joined up thinking and cross-departmental working by government in relation to other policy developments, particularly around the Localism Bill. The Bill makes provision for local neighbourhood planning and abolition of regional spatial strategies, whilst attempting to make it easier for communities to challenge the way services are run and buy and develop their own services. Provision for these “localism” activities will need to be more comprehensively detailed in the NPPF. Similarly, Defra’s proposal’s to charge a fee for village green registration applications by communities seems to conflict with the principles of the localism bill. Conversely placing greater duties on developers to make contributions that mitigate the burden placed on infrastructure by their development may support the big society agenda.

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? No. From the perspective of our organisation, our entire sector and indeed Defra, sustainable management of green infrastructure demands that strategic management approaches operate at a landscape level and necessitate cross boundary working beyond county and neighbouring authority level. There is no connection with the Local Nature Partnerships, Nature Improvement Areas and Green Infrastructure Partnerships outlined in NEWP which will be essential if the planning framework is to support cross-boundary green infrastructure initiatives in the future.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? GreenSpace would like to work with government to assist to ensure that the new NPPF is based on sound evidence from the green space sector. The NPPF makes some commitment towards the delivery of open space, sports and recreational facilities and draws on the current approach of assessing needs and opportunities at a local level to assess provision. In addition, the NPPF recognises the contribution that open space makes to health and well-being, but there are many other cross-cutting agendas that high quality green infrastructure can support, such as the economy, climate change, social cohesion. GreenSpace has produced “Blue Sky Green Space” as evidence that supports those contributions, and would like to see the value of all types of green spaces recognised within the NPPF. Accurate measures and indicators for the true impact of the loss of green space in favour of development will be essential components to enable the effective delivery of sustainable new developments. The Green Flag Award is at present the only formal quality measure of green space, however since this was dismissed by the previous administration as a national quality indicator, there now lacks accountability of quality green space provision at local government level. The new “open space assessments” proposed in the NPPF should follow the latest socio-economic thinking around cost benefit analysis, and link to asset management strategies. Nevertheless, the loss of the requirement for authorities to provide broader green space strategies, that aim to assess access, quality and provision of green spaces and puts local provision in a wider context, may create a serious hierarchical gap in the planning and delivery structure of new developments versus broader open space provision. Parks and green space assets should not be managed on an individual case-by-case basis but strategically, and in a wider green infrastructure context if our society is to benefit from the rewards these ecosystem services provide. There is a general lack of clarity around terminology used in the NPPF “community green spaces” and “local green spaces”, and green spaces versus open spaces, aren’t presented this way within the PPG17. PPG17 offers a reasonable definition of other types of green space such as outdoor sports facilities, cemeteries and allotments. There is a real opportunity for the NPPF to improve the classification of habitats and definitions of PPG17s “Parks & Gardens” which at present is vague, to be usefully applied within the local planning process. Parks for Life, the international parks alliance of which GreenSpace is partner, is working towards developing cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w218 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

a new international classiﬁcation system which may help to support the development of new deﬁnitions in the NPPF. September 2011

Written evidence from Anglian Water We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Environmental Audit Committee inquiry into sustainable development 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 around 0.75% per annum—the equivalent of a town the size of Peterborough every five years. Our long term strategy179 recognises that this level of growth and the associated impacts of climate change are two of the most important challenges 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 think there are a number of ways that the NPPF could help achieve this and I enclose a note to explain these in more detail. In summary: — We welcome the inclusion of a clear definition of sustainable development within the NPPF but would like to see it aligned with the principles set out in the UK Sustainable development strategy to avoid confusion. — A clear definition of sustainable development in the NPPF, which has cross-departmental support throughout Government, is particularly important for meeting the no deterioration requirement 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 this principle. Therefore, we feel that the presumption should be removed. — The core principles set out within the NPPF already set a clear expectation on planning authorities to plan positively to promote development. However, we feel that these principles should be further strengthened by establishing a statutory basis for the NPPF within the Localism Bill. — Should the presumption remain we feel that it would become imperative that water and sewerage 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 the guidance to support the preparation of local plans and development management.

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 the UK sustainable development strategy. We recognise the importance of having a definition of sustainable development within the NPPF that has cross-departmental support throughout Government, and we like to see these 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 timely provision 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 in uncertainty for infrastructure providers. However, we would like to acknowledge that steady progress is now being 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” running through both plan making and decision taking. We think that the potential to circumvent local plans contradicts the core principal of a plan-led system, may be a disincentive to the development of local plans, and could divert planning away from many of the principles of empowerment that deﬁne Localism. Therefore, we feel that the presumption should be removed from the NPPF. 179 Anglian Water (2008) Strategic Direction Statement. http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/about-us/statutory-reports/strategic-direction/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w219

We support the principle behind the presumption for planning positively to promote development, and as infrastructure providers we will continue to work with planners to ensure this. We believe that the core principles set out within the NPPF already set a clear expectation for this. In particular, the principle that “local planning authorities should be proactive in driving and supporting the development that this country needs” is very clear. However, we do feel that these principles should be further strengthened by giving the NPPF a statutory basis within the Localism Bill. In support of this, as with local development frameworks, we would wish to continue to be a statutory consultee for local plans. In addition, we also support the view that water and sewerage companies should have a statutory right to be consulted over planning applications, which was recently recommended by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee after their inquiry into Future Flood and Water Management Legislation.180 Should the presumption remain, due to the “right to connect” (established in the Water Industry Act) we have signiﬁcant concerns for the potential impact on sewerage systems. Therefore, if the presumption were to remain within the NPPF it would become imperative to us that this statutory right for water and sewerage companies 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 rigorously enforced by Government. However, we would seek to go further by establishing a statutory basis for it within the Localism Bill. We consider this to be important given the fundamental nature of the policy contained within the 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 to comply with the Directive are not subject to cost benefit assessment. Therefore, this requirement of the Directive has the potential to drive a need for energy intensive wastewater treatment, which is normally reserved for the purification of drinking water. “No deterioration” results in a dichotomy between environmental limits set to maintain local river water quality, and the global impact of greenhouse gas emissions from the treatment processes required to meet them. This presents a significant challenge to sustainable development. There is very little flexibility for application of the “no deterioration” principle, but Article 4.7 of the Directive may permit some deterioration from “high” to “good” status (the latter being the target) where certain conditions 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 for sustainable development in the planning context, which meets the requirement for sustainable development in the 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 to the context of the WFD. This consideration is supported by our view that the NPPF should contain a definition of sustainable that is aligned with the UK sustainable development strategy, which has cross departmental support 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 and effectively 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 published similar aims for reducing our embodied and operational carbon.181 We also welcome NPPF guidance for local planning authorities to adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change. We consider it important to the future sustainability of our region that these strategies promote water efficiency, which is inextricably linked with carbon mitigation. They should also promote sustainable drainage, which will be vital for adaptation to climate change if we are to manage flooding effectively. 180 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 181 http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/_assets/media/greenhouse-gas-emissions-annual-report2011.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w220 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

We note the recommendations of the NPPF Practitioners Advisory Group on the provision of guidance to support the preparation of local plans and for development management. We recommend that this guidance covers sustainable drainage and water efﬁciency measures. September 2011

Written evidence from Colin Johns Summary — The draft NPPF does not provide sufficient and clear guidance — The definition of “sustainable development” is not adequate and does not emphasis the vital importance of the careful management of land use — The policies contained in the NPPF are not sufficiently evidenced-based or the evidence base is not explained.

Guidance As is outlined in Planning Policy Statement 1—Planning for Sustainable Development, planning exists to ensure that decisions on future land use and activity are undertaken in the public interest. The draft NPPF does not present this essential message but instead places too much emphasis on the promotion of development as a short-term means of seeking a way out of the present economic crisis. The value of clear and concise Planning Policy and Guidance is that it provides a framework for decision making that is of beneﬁt to all that are involved in the process. The draft NPPF seems to be predicated on its brevity but in so doing loses a valuable opportunity to create certainty in the development process. Certainty creates conﬁdence and this should be that aim of the NPPF.

Sustainable Development The definition of "sustainable development" in the context of planning for the future is too vague and too much open to interpretation and in this respect the attention of the Committee is drawn to the valuable work undertaken in the production of the Foresight Land Use Futures Project Report (2010) published by the Government Office for Science.1 This report highlights the importance of land use and the need for an integrated perspective. To quote the report: “Land and its many uses provides the bedrock of the country and the foundation for our well being, prosperity and national identity. The pervasive effects of change in land use and management underline the need to take the broadest possible perspective in developing future policies and strategies on land. While much has been achieved over recent decades there is a strong case to do more.” The report goes on to confirm what has long been recognised that land is one of our greatest assets. How it is used and managed affects everyone's prosperity and quality of life. The productive capacity of land underpins the whole economy through its provision of food, timber and other goods, and through its use for housing, business, transport, energy, recreation and tourism. Land also plays a crucial role in providing services that are vital for the physical well being of the population such as clean water and healthy soils. With some of the most beautiful and historic landscapes in the world, it underpins our national identity and cultural heritage. It is against this comprehensive and far reaching analysis that the draft National Planning Policy Framework needs to be judged. The five principles of sustainable development quoted in the Foresight Report (Figure 1.1 page 46) are more coherent and relevant and should be used to inform the NPPF. A careful reading of the aims of the NPPF against the comprehensive analysis within the Foresight Report is essential. The definition of sustainable development in the draft NPPF is incomplete. It is fundamental to effective planning that providing for the needs of the present does not jeopardise the future and this means that decisions should not always follow the market. Planning decisions are for the most part irrevocable. Substantial investment in infrastructure and in major projects cannot be reversed without huge cost, which indicates that decision-making must be based on sound principles. The presumption in favour of sustainable development can only be valid where a comprehensive definition of sustainable is both stated and understood.

Evidence Base There is little sign that the policies contained in the draft NPPF are in any way evidence based. There is a strong presumption in favour of development simply on the basis that it is said that it will provide much needed economic growth in the short term. This is not a sensible way for the country to proceed because there are numerous examples of development that has taken place to meet immediate needs, or to achieve high proﬁts, that make no long-term contribution to the well-being of society. The general tone of the NPPF is heading in the same direction. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w221

The essential component missing from the NPPF is putting it in the wider long-term sustainable context. In a country with limited availability of land and with a large population, it is simply not realistic to rely on the promotion of development to achieve the county's needs and aspirations unless placed within a proper context. There should, ﬁrst of all, be the identiﬁcation of key assets and how they should be protected together with a recognition that decisions are of vital long-term importance. A proper assessment of existing problems and opportunities and a full examination of long-term potential should provide the starting point for the scale and pace of change. September 2011

Reference 1 Foresight Land Use Futures Report (2010) Final Project Report by the Government Ofﬁce for Science London URN 10?631

Written evidence from the Liverpool and Merseyside Theatres Trust

Liverpool and Merseyside Theatres Trust is a major performing arts organisation running the Liverpool Playhouse and Everyman theatres. The over-arching mission is to create theatre of the highest quality which is firmly rooted in our community, yet both national and international in scope and ambition. An integrated programme across the two buildings has generated critical acclaim and audience growth and has been the springboard for forward-looking programmes of artist development and youth and community engagement. The Everyman is a converted chapel built in the 1830s, extensively modified since and no longer fit for service so demolition has just begun to make way for a new Everyman on an extended site, which will offer a much more adaptable and safe main performance space, a youth and community studio, rehearsal and technical spaces and 21st century facilities for artists, audiences and public use. The redevelopment of the Everyman has taken eleven years to get on site, much of that time taken by the need to convince funding bodies of the value of theatre and the performing arts to the lives of the local community, attracting visitors and the regeneration of the Liverpool City Region. That task was made considerably easier by the success of the European Capital of Culture in 2008. Extensive studies of its effects have been made and are documented in Creating an Impact: Liverpool’s experience as European Capital of Culture. There is now a new understanding and appreciation of the value of the arts and culture by the local authority, other public bodies and private partners. Culture is now a cornerstone of the strategy for the improvement of the city. Liverpool City Council Leader, Cllr Joe Anderson, has endorsed the new Everyman describing it as “a vital redevelopment for the City’s future”. At the launch of It’s Liverpool on 8 September Ed Vaizey, Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries said “In my first year as Minister for Culture, I have visited Liverpool more than any other UK city, and these visits have largely been a result of its wonderful cultural offer. Not only can Liverpool boast a world class gallery in the Tate, it also houses a number of excellent museums and a hugely respected contemporary art biennial. The newly refurbished Everyman will be a freshly polished jewel in an already impressive cultural crown. “A great cultural offer not only gives any city a sense of identity, it also helps to make it a much more attractive proposition in which to live, work and study.” We believe that the life of a city or region is vastly enriched in all ways by a strong arts and cultural sector and that provision of suitable buildings should be a basic requirement recognised by all involved in planning the built environment. Therefore we urge the committee to ensure that culture, the arts and theatres are explicitly recognised alongside leisure, sport and heritage in the National Planning Policy Framework and we fully endorse the comments on the committee’s specific questions and the NPPF generally as expressed by The Theatres Trust in their response dated 5 September 2011. September 2011

Written evidence from EDF Energy

Executive Summary — EDF Energy welcomes the introduction of a simple and consolidated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that covers all development under the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) regime. We actively support the overarching principle of having a “presumption in favour of sustainable development” but believe that more emphasis should be given in the NPPF to the role of energy infrastructure within the TCPA regime, and as a crucial component of the Government’s growth agenda. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w222 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— We believe that there are significant benefits to be realised by streamlining and rationalising the current suite of planning policy documents. However, we are concerned that there are some instances where useful detailed guidance for developers and local authorities, for example that in Planning Policy Statement 22 (“Renewable Energy”), has been omitted. — EDF Energy is concerned that the relationship between the designated National Policy Statements (NPS) and the draft NPPF has not been adequately articulated. It is essential that the two regimes are consistent in content, and that NPSs remain, beyond doubt, the primary decision-making documents for major infrastructure projects that fall under the Planning Act 2008. It is important that, in cases where developers may need to make applications for separate infrastructure as part of the same project under both national and local planning processes, national policy takes precedence. We believe that the NPSs should be a material consideration under the TCPA regime, and that this should be stated explicitly in the NPPF, in line with the wording in the NPSs. — We recommend that the NPPF should be non-spatial and non-prescriptive in nature, in line with the majority of the NPSs, as it is our view that the market is best placed to determine where energy projects should be developed. This should be the case, unless there are compelling reasons, of national interest and practicality, as to why a proposed development should be restricted to a specific site or sites, eg nuclear power stations and associated development. We are concerned that a spatial approach runs the risk of local planning authorities rejecting legitimate proposals simply because a proposed site sits outside an area identified for energy generation. We believe that planning policy should retain a criteria-based approach (as per Planning Policy Statement 22), as opposed to an area/location-based one. — EDF Energy supports the requirement for local authorities to co-operate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries but still believes that this duty needs to be strengthened further and that guidance is required on how this criterion will be enforced and fulfilled in practice.

Introduction 1. EDF Energy is one of the UK’s largest energy companies with activities throughout the energy chain. Our interests include nuclear, renewables, coal and gas-fired electricity generation, combined heat and power, and energy supply to end users. We have over five million electricity and gas customer accounts in the UK, including both residential and business users. 2. EDF Energy recognises the fundamental importance of a robust and predictable planning system to delivering sustainable development. We believe that large scale investment in electricity infrastructure is urgently required to replace existing plants, ensure security of supply, and meet our climate change targets, in particular the legally binding target to deliver an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, as established in the Climate Change Act 2008. It is important that the transition to a low carbon economy is progressed efficiently to ensure that the competitiveness of UK energy supplies is maintained, while also ensuring the stability and affordability of energy prices. It is essential that the right decisions are made now to secure investment in large-scale low-carbon electricity generation and promote the transition to a low carbon economy incorporating a diverse energy mix. 3. We also recognise the valuable role that smaller scale energy infrastructure will play in meeting the Government’s statutory energy and climate change objectives. We therefore welcome the introduction of a simple and consolidated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that defines the UK’s national economic, environmental and social infrastructure, and clarifies the planning priorities that covers all development under the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) regime. 4. We believe that there are significant benefits to be realised by streamlining and rationalising the current suite of planning policy documents such as Planning Policy Statements (PPS). We support the high-level, strategic nature of the draft NPPF and believe it will reduce the administrative burden for both developers and local authorities alike. However, as we will discuss, we believe that there are some instances where key policy aspects and useful guidance for developers, particularly those in PPS 1 (“Delivering Sustainable Development”) and PPS 22 (“Renewable Energy”), have been omitted. The absence of a PPS 22 type document removes important key principles which have helped to ensure planning authorities do not adopt policies that essentially discourage certain forms of renewable energy development e.g. onshore wind proposals. We would welcome further guidance from the Government as to how such aspects may be retained following the abolition of the PPSs.182 5. EDF Energy also strongly supports the principle of proportionality in paragraph 59, and the requirement that local planning authorities “only request supporting information that is relevant, necessary and material to the application in question”. This will prevent over-burdening developers and making potential projects non- viable from the outset. However, we are keen to ensure that its implementation does not simply result in local planning authorities adopting a “tick box” approach to validation, and we would welcome further guidance from the Government on this. 182 We note that even the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) states that “Policy on consent for renewable energy projects is set out in Planning Policy Statement 22” (footnote 12 on p15). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w223

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

6. EDF Energy actively supports the principle of having a “presumption in favour of sustainable development,” based on economic, social and environmental considerations, as a starting point for all local planning authority plans. We agree with paragraph 11 that “all three components should be pursued in an integrated way, looking for solutions which deliver multiple goals”.

7. We believe that more emphasis should be given to the role of energy infrastructure in the NPPF as a crucial component of the Government’s growth agenda. As currently drafted, energy infrastructure is simply a subset of the “climate change, ﬂooding and coastal change” section, when there are compelling reasons for this to be the other way round. The NPPF should also recognise that low carbon energy infrastructure not only helps address climate change but also contributes to another key Government energy policy objective, security of supply.

8. We note that the deﬁnition of sustainable development in paragraph 10 incorporates the need for using the planning system to mitigate/adapt to climate change. However, we believe that given the urgency of the matter, explicit reference should be made in this section for the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as is the case in paragraph 150, and in line with other existing planning documents such as PPS 1 and PPS 22. We recommend that instead of simply referring to “the Government’s published objectives” (paragraph 148 of the draft NPPF), the text should explicitly refer to the Climate Change Act 2008 and the UK’s 2020 Renewable Energy Directive obligations. This will help ensure that sufﬁcient weight is given by local planning authorities to the urgent need for low carbon energy infrastructure in meeting the UK’s energy and climate change obligations.

9. We seek further clarity on paragraph 16 of the draft NPPF (and its repetition in paragraph 170), which states that “development likely to have a significant effect on sites protected under Birds and Habitats Directive would not be sustainable under the terms of the presumption in favour of sustainable development”. We are unclear as to whether such a statement creates a presumption in favour of refusal in such circumstances, and whether this is consistent with PPS 22 (paragraph 11) that states that renewable projects can still be granted if “any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by the environmental, social and economic benefits”.

10. EDF Energy believes that the presumption in favour of sustainable development will encourage local planning authorities to promote low carbon energy infrastructure. However, following the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (and as a result an absence of regional targets for renewable energy), we do not believe there is sufﬁcient clarity in the draft NPPF as to how the Government intends to incentivise local planning authorities to promote such developments on the scale needed to meet the UK’s energy policy objectives. It is critical that local planning authorities are required to align local priorities with national targets, and this should be monitored. We recommend that there should be a speciﬁc bullet point requiring Local Plans to “contain a clear strategy for supporting the delivery of the Government’s energy and climate change policies and targets and other national objectives” as opposed to simply requiring local planning authorities to have a “positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low-carbon sources” (paragraph 152).

11. Communities, just like investors, need to have appropriate incentives to encourage investment in national infrastructure but this has to be in a way that does not override the fundamental principles of planning (ie that planning permission cannot be bought or sold). The benefits accruing to local communities from the increase in development must be appropriately balanced with the need to mitigate and/or compensate for specific impacts. We would encourage the Government to explicitly refer to some of the incentives that will be available to local planning authorities in paragraph 18 of the draft NPPF, including Community Infrastructure Levy, Section 106 agreements, and the recent proposals for the retention of business rates. However, it should be made clear to local planning authorities that community benefits should be proportionate to the development being proposed, and should be considered against the context of the overall urgent need for energy infrastructure and its affordability, as articulated in the National Policy Statements (NPS).

12. We note that paragraph 60 of the draft NPPF states that developers and local planning authorities should consider entering into Planning Performance Agreements (PPA). However, it should be made clear that this is by no means an obligation on developers and should not be used to fund any statutory duties that the authority should already be providing.

Relationship with the National Policy Statements

13. The necessity of stable long-term policy framework is one of a number of reasons that we welcome the Government’s recent designation of the National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure. We believe that the NPSs establish a clear policy framework for nationally signiﬁcant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), and will help ensure more timely and transparent decision making. Crucially, the NPSs work under the principle that consenting decisions will be taken on the basis of whether the overall beneﬁts outweigh adverse impacts, after having taken account of mitigating actions. This principle should also apply to the NPPF. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w224 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

14. However, our concern is that the relationship between the NPSs and the draft NPPF has not been adequately articulated. As currently drafted, the only reference to the NPSs is in paragraph 6 which simply states “Nationally signiﬁcant infrastructure projects are determined by the decision-making framework set out in national policy statements, which are part of the overall framework of planning policy”. It is essential that the two regimes are consistent in content, and that NPSs remain, beyond doubt, the primary decision-making documents for major infrastructure projects that fall under the Planning Act 2008. Local planning authorities and community stakeholders already have opportunities to question and analyse such projects through the NSIP planning process, giving scope for the positive and negative impacts to be weighed as part of the decision- making process undertaken by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (to be superseded by the Major Infrastructure Planning Unit). It is important that, in cases where developers may need to make applications for separate infrastructure as part of the same project under both national and local planning processes, national policy takes precedence. We believe that the NPSs should be a material consideration under the TCPA regime, and that this should be stated explicitly in the NPPF, in line with the wording in the designated NPSs.183

15. We note that paragraph 173 of the draft NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should aim to “avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life”. This is in contrast to the more specific guidance in paragraph 22 of PPS 22 which specifies that “the 1997 report by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry should be used to assess and rate noise from wind energy development”. We believe that the policy in the NPPF should be consistent with that in the NPS for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) which states that the Infrastructure Planning Commission “should use ETSU-R-97 to satisfy itself that the noise from the operation of the wind turbines is within acceptable levels” (paragraph 2.7.57).

Location of Energy Infrastructure

16. EDF Energy notes that bullet three of paragraph 152 states that local planning authorities should “consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources”. However, in line with the majority of the NPSs, we recommend that the NPPF should be non-spatial and non-prescriptive in nature, as it is our view that the market is best placed to determine where energy projects should be developed. This should be the case unless there are compelling reasons, of national interest and practicality, as to why a proposed development should be restricted to a speciﬁc site or sites, eg a nuclear power station and its associated development. Additionally, the resource intensive nature of undertaking detailed spatial planning (be it centrally, regionally or locally), would inevitably lead to delays to the consenting of many projects with the result that the UK may not be able to meet its energy supply and climate change objectives.

17. We are concerned that a wider application of a spatial approach runs the risk of local planning authorities rejecting legitimate proposals simply because a proposed site sits outside an area identified for energy generation. A range of technical, operational, commercial, ecological and environmental factors must be considered when determining where to build a project e.g. the proximity of the grid network for all forms of generation. We do not believe that local planning authorities have the necessary expertise in-house to carry out such site identification exercises. The reality is that searching for suitable sites, such as for onshore wind, involves a proactive approach by developers to locate willing landowners, areas with favourable physical factors (eg wind speed), and where significant environmental effects can be sufficiently be mitigated. The resource intensity of this process should not be underestimated.

18. We also have reservations with regard to the reference in paragraph 153 of the draft NPPF to “opportunity areas for renewable and low-carbon energy”, and the expectation that development proposals outside these areas will be required to demonstrate that they meet “the criteria used in identifying opportunity areas”. We believe that this provides further encouragement to local planning authorities to adopt an approach based on identifying preferred areas. While we welcome the acknowledgement that it may be possible to propose areas outside “opportunity areas”, without knowing the criteria used in the identification of such sites, it may be difficult for developers to obtain planning consent. The determination of most wind farm proposals involves a planning balance between environmental issues and the benefits of securing renewable energy capacity. In light of the above considerations, we believe that the underlying assumption that local planning authorities can assist the process by identifying opportunity areas is likely to be unrealistic.

19. Paragraph 153, in line with the Supplement to PPS 1, states that planning authorities are precluded from questioning the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy. However, the Supplement to PPS 1 also states that local planning authorities should not question “the energy justiﬁcation for why a proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location”. We note that this has been omitted from the draft NPPF, and are concerned that this will potentially lead to protracted arguments at the planning application and appeal stages over site selection. We believe that planning policy should retain a criteria-based approach (as per PPS 22), as opposed to an area/location-based one. 183 For example 1.2.1 of EN-1 states “In England and Wales this NPS is likely to be a material consideration in decision making on applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Whether, and to what extent, this NPS is a material consideration will be judged on a case by case basis.” cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w225

Duty to Co-operate 20. EDF Energy supports the requirement for local authorities to co-operate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries but still believes that this duty needs to be strengthened further and that guidance is required on how this criterion will be enforced and fulﬁlled in practice. September 2011

Written evidence from Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants This submission responds to the Committee’s question: “Is the deﬁnition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?” This submission is endorsed by several other leading thinkers and practitioners, listed at the end.

Summary The deﬁnition of “sustainable development” in the NPPF is inconsistent with international agreements, the UK’s sustainable development strategy, the academic literature and general usage. It misrepresents one of the two most important and distinctive features of sustainable development, namely the aim to advance human wellbeing understood in broader terms than just economic development. It ignores the other, namely the need to do this without compromising the interests of future generations, including by maintaining environmental support systems. The “presumption in favour of sustainable development” as deﬁned in the NPPF is no such thing. It is simply a presumption in favour of business-driven growth dressed up in misleading language. It is not “balanced” in any meaningful sense. It is all too “workable” in the sense that developers would be able to use it to get permission for bad developments which planning authorities could currently stop or make the developers improve.

Full Response International and UK definitions of sustainable development There is a notoriously huge number of definitions and interpretations of sustainable development in circulation, reflecting the wishes of many different organisations and interests to claim its support. Pedantic argument about definitions can easily be sterile and inconclusive. But this does not mean the concept is meaningless or can be stretched to cover anything. The edges may be fuzzy and disputed, but it is entirely clear what the central idea of sustainable development is. It is also entirely clear that the NPPF definition lies outside any reasonable interpretation of it, as we will aim to show in this submission. Two international definitions are very widely quoted and invoked: the Brundtland Commission’s: “development which meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” and the IUCN/UNEP/WWF’s “Caring for the Earth” formulation “improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems”. What is distinctive about both these definitions is that they combine an aspiration to make life better for people (“meeting the needs of the present”, “improving the quality of human life”) with recognition of a constraint—the need to avoid undermining the future, and specifically the limits of the capacity of natural ecosystems to act as life support systems, provide resources and assimilate wastes. The aspiration and constraint are to be reconciled and integrated, not traded off: the aim is to make life better without betraying the future, not to decide how much future damage we are willing to cause for our current convenience. The UK sustainable development strategy does not state a definition of sustainable development but does highlight the following “purpose”: “The goal of sustainable development is to enable all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations”. This is clearly the same idea as the two international definitions just quoted—indeed it amounts to an amalgamated paraphrase of them. The only element it does not explicitly refer to is “living within environmental limits”. However this is one of the strategy’s five “guiding principles”.

Meeting needs, quality of life What these deﬁnitions mean in practice depends on what “meeting human needs” and/or “improving the quality of life” entail. They have to entail more than just economic growth: if they didn’t, sustainable cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w226 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

development could have been deﬁned simply in terms of delivering economic growth, saving a great deal of time and trouble researching and arguing over them. However the result of all this time and trouble is a very wide consensus that material prosperity is only one component of quality of life, with other components including good physical and mental health, good relations with family and friends, safety and security, freedom from fear and stress, pleasant, safe living environments, and freedom of conscience, faith and expression.

It is also now very widely acknowledged that economic growth is only a partial and unreliable measure even of material prosperity, because such matters as levels and distribution of employment and unemployment, economic security, poverty, work/life balance, social (im)mobility, access to education and the costs of necessities such as housing, worth and food relative to disposable incomes matter too. In wealthy, developed countries such as the UK, if there are still basic needs being unmet, this is more due to how the wealth—and means of generating it—is distributed than to a lack of overall economic growth. Considerable research on wellbeing and quality of life suggests that in developed economies such the UK further economic growth may not improve wellbeing and may even undermine it.

This complexity is acknowledged and reﬂected in the UK sustainable development strategy: “The issue of wellbeing lies at the heart of sustainable development, and it remains important to develop appropriate wellbeing indicators. Many of our existing indicators cover issues that affect people’s wellbeing, for example employment, community participation, education, housing conditions, health, income, and the environment more generally. What is missing is a means of making sure that wellbeing issues are being tackled consistently, in the right way, and that we are genuinely making a difference to people’s lives. Some appreciation of this may in part be provided by extending our indicators to include such issues as mental health, access to sport and culture, green space, neighbourliness, which we will explore.”

Consistent with this, of the 11 “issues that affect people’s wellbeing” named in the strategy (seven already covered by indicators, four to be explored) only two are economic. One of these is “employment”. Only one, “income”, is directly related to growth.

How does the NPPF interpret sustainable development?

A whole section early in the NPPF is devoted to “delivering sustainable development”. We consider this in detail.

Para 9 quotes the Brundtland deﬁnition and paraphrases the UK strategy “purpose”.

Para 10 offers a new version of an old formulation that sustainable development involves economic, social and environmental aims. So far as their very general wording allows us to judge, the “social” and “environmental” indents are consistent with sustainable development principles as stated above. However the “economic” indent is at best irrelevant to sustainable development, and provides a reminder that one reason this once popular “three rings” or “three legs of the stool” interpretation of sustainable development has fallen out of favour in recent years is that it implies that the economy is an end in itself and not just a means to meet human needs.

Para 11 states that goals should be integrated and reconciled, which is a central tenet of sustainable development thinking (and indeed of good public policy generally), and para 12 states that the policies as a whole set out the Government’ view.

So far so harmless.

Paragraphs 13 and 14 are where things start to get sticky. We quote the key passage in full: “13. The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. A positive planning system is essential because, without growth, a sustainable future cannot be achieved. Planning must operate to encourage growth and not act as an impediment. Therefore, signiﬁcant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. 14. 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.”

By using “sustainable economic growth”, “growth”, “economic growth” “sustainable development” and “new development” interchangeably, and without deﬁning any of them, this passage seeks to imply that they are all the same thing. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w227

This systematically fails to understand—or perhaps deliberately tries to muddle—several important distinctions, which the definitions discussed above mark out, and which the extensive literature on sustainable development policy and implementation explains: — “Development” as in “sustainable development” means human progress, advancement, realisation of potential and search for fulfilment in a broad sense. Increases in material consumption and prosperity are at best only a part of this. It is questionable whether, in already prosperous economies such the Britain, further economic growth will in itself make any significant contribution to development in this sense. Indeed there is a considerable body of evidence and opinion that materialism and consumerism are now obstacles to it. — Economic growth is in any case a partial and unreliable measure even of material prosperity since it includes things which reduce prosperity (such as traffic accidents, oil spills, war) as well as excluding things which add to it (such as community cohesion, most artistic activities), and says nothing about how economic costs and benefits are distributed, which makes a big difference to how much welfare a given total amount of economic activity will achieve. — “Development” in this broad sense of human advancement is also quite different from what “development” means in the planning system, which is physical buildings and infrastructure. Using the desirability of the former as a justification of the latter is a like assuming that members of the nobility (earls, barons etc) have noble (in the sense of altruistic, generous etc) characters.184 Thus the NPPF’s “presumption in favour of sustainable development” is no such thing. It is simply a presumption in favour of business-driven growth dressed up in misleading language.

How would the NPPF affect sustainable development? Actions speak louder than words: it would not matter much if the NPPF defined sustainable development in an eccentric or defective way if its policies still promoted the real thing. Would they? A great deal of policy in the NPPF is supportive of aspects of sustainable development. However it is generally weaker and vaguer than the regulations and guidance it is intended to replace: better than no national planning policy or guidance at all, but worse than what we currently have. (The NPPF’s Impact Assessment is misleading because it frequently compares the NPPF to nothing, rather than to the current position or to other possible reasonable alternative planning reforms, let alone the full “toolkit” of potential government interventions to motivate and incentivise good development.) The NPPF does not even mention environmental limits, let alone discuss how this central concept of sustainable development should be recognised and applied through the planning system. At a more detailed level the NPPF removes current requirements and guidance on: — prioritising development of previously developed land, which helps to make best use of land, reduces the need to travel, and preserves the countryside; — maximum car parking spaces, which help to support the move to non-car travel with associated social and economic benefits, and to make neighbourhoods more liveable; and — noise exposure categories, which protect residents from noise. The NPPF also weakens and provides much less detail than the existing PPG/PPSs on green infrastructure (which provides health and biodiversity benefits) and regional scale infrastructure (which prevents unacceptable impacts such as flooding and contaminated water). However the most serious and alarming problem with the NPPF’s treatment of sustainable development is its prominent and repeated insistence, in language that can only be described as threatening, that economic growth must take priority over other objectives. For instance: — “the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth” (para 13) — “Planning must operate to encourage growth and not act as an impediment” (para 13) — “Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible” (para 14) — “plans should be prepared on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” (para 20) The NPPF does not define what is meant by “objectively assessed development need”. At least one government document—the National Policy Statement for energy—conflates “proving need” with “developer application for development consent”. — “To enable each local authority to proactively fulfil their planning role, and to actively promote sustainable development, local planning authorities need to ... : attach significant weight to the benefits of economic and housing growth” (para 54). 184 An example, and an insight, we owe to philosopher Ernest Gellner. The way the NPPF passage quoted conflates description of the desired planning system as “positive” in the sense of “saying yes to developers” with “positive” in the sense of “good” is a further example of the same linguistic/ideological trick. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w228 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

These statements give planning authorities a very strong steer only to apply the admirable aspirations set out in the “Planning for people” and “Planning for places” chapters of the NPPF to the extent that they are either backed by other, non-planning, laws and regulations such as statutory environmental designations, or will not hamper developers’ pursuit of private proﬁt: in other words, only where they will not make any signiﬁcant difference to what would have happened anyway. This would reduce the planning process to little more than a decorative ritual prelude to development where, when, and how developers want.

A missed opportunity to reconcile private and public goods There is, as para 11 correctly notes, “no necessary contradiction between increased levels of development and protecting and enhancing the environment”. (Emphasis added.) It is in principle possible to reconcile the two. It is also in principle possible for economic growth to advance human development, and for physical construction to serve human development. Reconciling these is what planning is for. In asserting that sustainable development means nothing more than economic growth and that planners should not hinder development, the NPPF seeks to suppress the main purpose and pivotal function of plans and planning authorities: to deﬁne, and apply, constraints, conditions and criteria to ensure, so far as possible, that the physical development of land which companies and households wish to bring forward for their own commercial and private reasons does improve the quality of life, meet human needs, safeguard the future and minimise environmental damage.

Conclusion “Sustainable development” as defined in the NPPF cannot honestly be given this name. It reflects either remarkable ignorance of the most basic and simple ideas of sustainable development, or—we think more probably—a cynical attempt to distort and misrepresent the concept to provide spurious support for a pro business agenda. The NPPF’s combination of pressure for economic growth and weakening of counterbalancing controls would lead to thoroughly unsustainable development. The NPPF’s reference to the presumption in favour of sustainable development (misdefined as growth) as a “golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking” reminds us of King Midas who learned too late that turning everything you touch into gold is a calamity not a blessing.

Levett-Therivel Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants are leading specialists in planning and public policy for sustainable development. This submission draws on our partners’ experience including: — A series of detailed assessments, for the Sustainable Development Commission and others, of UK policies for sustainable development and their effectiveness. — Reports, analyses and guidance publications on the application of sustainability to policy areas including economic development, urban and rural policy, energy, transport, food farming and agriculture, sport, heritage and environmental health. — Developing, promulgating and applying tools and instruments for sustainability, notably Eco- Management and Audit for public bodies, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Sustainability Reporting, indicators and Quality of Life Capital. — Research for Government departments and others on wellbeing and its policy implications. — Producing Government guidance on sustainability appraisal in the planning system, carrying out numerous sustainability appraisals and other related appraisals of plans and strategies at all levels from national to local, and comparative assessments of how different plans and kinds of plan deal with sustainability. — Producing a plain language summary of Agenda 21 (the 600 page “blueprint for sustainable development” agreed at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit). — Researching and writing much of the UK local government guidance on sustainable development through the 1990s. We have provided our contact details separately for data protection reasons as the Committee asks. However any search engine will easily ﬁnd us and our work.

Other Signatories This submission is also endorsed by the following individuals (names in bold type, listed alphabetically.) They sign in a personal capacity: organisational afﬁliations are stated only to illustrate signatories’ experience and expertise, and do not imply that the organisations endorse this submission. Alan Bond, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Management, based in the School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, with over 20 years experience in environmental and sustainability assessment including: — Development of Guidance on scoping in environmental assessment for the Environment Agency. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w229

— Research for Government (Defra) related to application of strategic environmental assessment and sustainability assessment related to radioactive waste. — Training a large proportion of local authorities in England and Wales in Environmental Assessment in the 1990s. — Publication of articles and a forthcoming book on sustainability appraisal. — Research for a variety of health organisations and the Welsh Assembly Government on interfaces between health and planning. — Technical advice to Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment on environmental assessment since 2003. — Provision of health component of UNECE SEA Protocol Guidance. Professor Andrew Dobson, Professor of Politics at Keele University. Scott D. Johnson, BSc MSc AIEMA, sustainability consultant who coordinates sustainability appraisal and strategic environmental assessment practitioners for an international, multi-disciplinary consultancy. His clients include national Government agencies, national and regional utilities companies, local authorities and private developers. He conducts sustainability work in a wide range of sectors, including spatial/town planning, energy, nuclear, minerals, waste, passenger tranport and sea / rail freight transport. Mark Southwood of Temple Group, a consultancy that carries out EIAs and SEAs including the SEA for HS2. Jo Treweek and Orlando Venn of Treweek Environmental Consultants, who specialise in ecological aspects of environmental impact assessment at project and strategic levels as well as providing advice to businesses on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Much of our work is focused on identification of development solutions which are compatible with sustainable use of ecosystems. We work with engineers and planners to develop mitigation strategies which avoid impacts at source, maintain them within the limits of environmental capacity or offset them. Examples of our experience include: — Advice on biodiversity offsets to DEFRA. — Development of biodiversity targets for Regional Spatial Strategies. — Appropriate Assessment under the EU Habitats Directive. — Participation in IEMA’s EIA Quality Mark review process. — Research on assessment of impacts on ecosystem services with the World Resources Institute. — Technical inputs to the Business and Biodiversity Offset Program. Elizabeth Wilson, BA MPhil MRTPI Reader in Environmental Planning Oxford Brookes University Elizabeth has experience in local government planning, and in research and teaching in the fields of spatial planning, environmental assessment, and climate change. Her research has included contributing to the EPSRC-funded Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change in Urban Environments (ASCCUE), to the Defra-funded review of Climate Change and the England Biodiversity Strategy, and to EU 6th Framework funded research Minimisation of and Adaptation to Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity (MACIS). She is the author, with Dr. Jake Piper, of Spatial Planning and Climate Change (Routledge, 2010). Dr. Graham Wood, Reader in Environmental Assessment and Management at Oxford Brookes University, specialising in environmental decision-making, with an emphasis upon the use of information and the exercise of value judgements within planning. He has particular interests in the field of information analysis, evaluation, and communication for decision-making. He has 14 years of relevant research and consultancy experience for a range of clients including the Economic and Social Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council, DEFRA, European Commission, European Investment Bank, Transco, Vodafone, and Associated British Ports. September 2011

Written evidence from the Highgate Society I write on behalf of the Highgate Society, which is the recognised Civic Amenity Society for the whole Highgate area, covering the N6 postal district of London. It has about 1,400 members. The Society was established in 1966 and has continued since then to be active in local planning, transport and open space issues, and has worked closely with the four local authorities covering its area. Its Environment Committee and its Planning Working Group include active and retired professionals in the planning and related ﬁelds. There has been a very well publicised reaction against this Framework from the countryside lobby, in particular from the National Trust. But we are of the view that the urban environment is as much under threat. We are assured under the Historic Environment section of the draft framework that the “heritage assets” will be protected, but it excludes the everyday places which contribute so much to the urban fabric. Having studied the document, the Highgate Society has major concerns regarding the loosening of planning controls, the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the impact this will have on our speciﬁc neighbourhood and London as a whole. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w230 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

We fully recognise that the Planning System could benefit from a well-considered re-examination. However, making it easier to understand and operate, which we interpret as the overt aim of the proposed reforms, is not the same as making it easier to develop, regardless of impact, which appears to be the underlying motivation. Whilst unfortunate, we believe you will find that there is an overriding perception among groups such as ours that the process is being driven not by any wish to refine and improve the planning system, but by aggressive lobbying from the development and building professions. We urge the select committee to understand the major concerns which have been expressed nationwide about the proposals, and to recommend that: (i) the document be sent back to the drawing board as it is seriously flawed and unfit for the purpose of guiding and directing good Town Planning, and with the potential to open the flood-gates to virtually unrestricted development; (ii) all the existing PPSs should be reviewed independently by separate (and widely representative) groups of experts in each field (rather than the limited four “practitioners” who, we understand, compiled it). (iii) the resultant documents should be put out for consultation in the normal way.

General Comments on the Draft NPPF from The Highgate Society 1. Summary — The NPPF disempowers, rather than empowers local communities. — Potential for confusion with other relevant legislation. — The deﬁnition of “sustainable development” is not appropriate. — Relationship between NPPF and other planning statements is inconsistent. — Concerns that Local Plans will be considered “out of date”. — Evidence on which the policies are based on is deeply ﬂawed. — Committee urged to recommend the rejection of the draft NPPF.

2. 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 over planning decisions? We are of the view that the NPPF, linked with the Localism Bill, actually disempowers communities through its pro growth agenda, thus removing the right for communities to object to more development regardless of how inappropriate it might be. The document states that “Neighbourhoods will have the power to promote more development than is set out in the ... local plan”. However, the Localism Bill specifically prohibits communities from arguing for “less” development. Indeed, the NPPF and the Localism Bill together constitute, in our view, a dangerous denial of local democracy, by specifying this. What, then, is the point of a Local Plan? What dangerous precedents might the preferences of a single neighbourhood set for neighbouring ones who do not want the same policies, when it comes to appeals? The instruction that “the default answer to development proposals is ‘yes’” is not only a denial of local democracy, but illogical. The implication is that this means “any development proposals” however bad will be approved. The answer is surely that a decision should be in accordance with the local development plan. It should explain where LPAs should put weight when making decisions—as the NPPF stands, it is effectively a presumption in favour of development. Similarly, the instruction to Local Authorities that they must “approve all individual proposals wherever possible” is illogical, and promising a field day for developers and their lawyers, since it is surely possible to grant permission?

3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? The simplistic “core planning principals” underlining the change in legislation are expressed repeatedly throughout the document. These are pro growth, presumption in favour of sustainable development (although what this is, is not explained—see below), and the need for more housing. Whilst we agree that that current regulations could certainly be shortened and consolidated to make them more comprehensible and less opaque, not least for the benefit of community groups like ours who have to navigate their ways through a legislative labyrinth. However, there appears to be no recognition of the need to take a holistic look at the PPS in combination with existing legislation, which will always take precedence over guidance. This will create not only confusion, but conflict which, as with many other aspects of the NPPF, will benefit few but the legal profession. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w231

4. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? No, the definition is not appropriate. While the document’s basic premise is that there should be “a presumption in favour of sustainable development”, the terminology used is unclear and conflicting and suggests to us that the Government do not understand what this means. The end result will, we have no doubt, mean a presumption in favour of all development, because developers with sufficient resources will employ the best legal consultants to establish that their development is sustainable (would any developer ever claim that their development is not?), while local authorities and community groups will not have the resources to contest this. The word “sustainable” has been diverted to mean something different from everybody else’s understanding of what the planning system is trying to do. Under the current planning system, the great majority of planning applications are permitted, often against reasoned local objections, and not infrequently because the Local Authority has neither the skills nor the resources to counter expensive legal opinion or repeated applications and appeals aimed at wearing them down. In our view, the only acceptable phraseology should be a “presumption that all development must be sustainable.”

5. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? We believe the relationship is inconsistent and this inconsistency is compounded by stating that the policies of a Neighbourhood Plan “take precedence over existing policies in the Local Plan, where they are in conflict”—but the Neighbourhood Plan has to be approved, and must not be in conflict with the Local Plan. Since the Local Plan has been drawn up by the democratic process with local involvement, a separate neighbourhood plan which will override it or set precedents which will affect other areas, will surely be in conflict with the principle of local democracy. We consider that the document is largely the result of intense lobbying from the development industry, and is predicated on the fallacy that the Planning System is standing in the way of economic recovery. Our experience, and that of other groups like ours, is that even with a relatively strong planning control system, it is all too easy for badly-designed, selfish and unnecessary development to get permission. We are all in favour of good new development; the problem is that we all too rarely get it. The planning system is weak enough already; it can be rationalised and modernised, but must not be weakened. It offers only ambiguity, rather than certainty—although it might cynically be argued that the only certainly it offers is that planning permission will normally be given.

6. Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? We are unable to respond in detail to the query regarding integrating national policy across Government Departments as we, as a community group, are not party to the inner working of these. That being said, from our own experience, we are aware of occasions where there is a direct policy conflict. An example of this is Lifetime Homes, which is being integrated into Local Plans but which directly conflicts with Environment Agency advice on flooding, is impossible to integrate into inner urban site and blocks the unlocking of family housing for families. A major omission, in our view, is that there appears to be no indication of how the NPPF is intended to relate to, or in the case of conflict will be reconciled with, existing legislation—for example, the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990—which will still apply, and which will carry the superior weight of statute.

7. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? Local Plans will be required to be consistent with the NPPF; but many London Borough Local Plans have only been recently approved, and some are still awaiting ﬁnal approval. Since it states that permission must be given if a Local Plan is out of date, developers will be able to argue that all Local Plans are out of date.

8. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? We believe the evidence supporting this document is deeply flawed and reflects the lobbying from certain interested parties. The make up of the Practitioners Group advising on the document reflects this, consisting predominantly of those with a vested interest in unrestricted development, the one representative of a “community group” being the RSPB. The draft document reflects this by failing to provide any supporting evidence for the policies. There is nothing in the document to support the core planning principals and to justify the view that planning legislation is stifling the economy and restricting the provision of housing. In fact all the evidence points to the contrary, with 80% of all planning applications being approved and the example in London (an area of housing deprivation) where 170,000 units of housing have gained planning approval but have not been implemented. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w232 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

We believe that the document is a representation of vested interests and has not looked at the other factors stifling growth and in particular the provision of much needed housing. The reasons for the lack of housing are largely economic and reflect the difficulty in obtaining mortgages, high building costs, the hoarding of land in land banks until the market “picks up” and the reduction in financing of social housing. The impact of loosening the planning regulations will not help this, but will just lead to unrestrained development resulting in a severe deterioration in the quality of the environment:

9. Conclusion We trust that the above will assist you in understanding the major concerns held by ourselves and community groups like ours with long experience of the planning system, and other individuals and bodies (including experienced planners, architects and other professionals) with whom we have discussed the issues, that the whole document is deplorably deficient and will result in a major deterioration in the overall living and working environment—urban and rural—for the sake of a flawed and narrowly-focussed economic thesis. We should add that the reactions of the numerous people—previously unaware of the draft NPPF—to whom we have explained our perceptions of it, are incredulous that any responsible Government should contemplate a weakening of the planning system on such a scale and for such unacceptable reasons. We therefore urge you, once again, to recommend the rejection of the NPPF and the re-commencement of the whole debate on modernising and consolidating the planning system along the lines suggested in the final paragraph of our covering letter. September 2011

Written evidence from the Country Land and Business Association The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee on the National Planning Policy Framework. The CLA represents over 35,000 members in England (and Wales). Our members both live and work within rural areas and operate a wide range of businesses including agricultural, tourism and commercial ventures. At the last count the CLA represents some 250 different types of rural businesses. The quality of the countryside, and its natural resources, is of vital importance to our members. Most objectives for the countryside— economic, social and environmental—rely on landowners and managers for their success, and frequently bring them into contact with the planning system. The CLA’s key priorities for the NPPF are: — To ensure that rural areas, and the businesses and communities that live and work there, are given the same opportunities to benefit from sustainable development as urban areas. — That the concept of sustainable development, as it is applied to rural development whether for economic, social or environmental purposes, is defined and applied by decision-makers in a balanced manner and does not focus solely on the environment but takes account of all three pillars. — To ensure the NPPF recognises that whilst rural areas will have the same concerns over economic development, jobs, housing and services as urban areas, the solutions for rural areas will be different but also more capable of flexible application. This requires the NPPF to be properly rural proofed to remove the unintended consequences that urban-biased policy has on rural areas. — That rural businesses are provided with “investor certainty” through a flexible planning system. — To ensure that communities drawing up plans and taking development decisions have access to the “toolkit” of policies which they need if they are to be equipped to do this effectively.

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 power over planning decisions? The CLA welcomes the shorter and clearer draft National Planning Policy Framework (draft NPPF) document. We support its ambition to promote new and better quality job creation and necessary housing development and infrastructure, whilst at the same time conserving and enhancing the environment (landscape and biodiversity etc…). Against this backdrop, we believe the Government has largely succeeded in producing a framework that is comprehensive, balanced and short. The succinctness of the NPPF means that guidance will be required both from the Government and from other bodies. The NPPF policies must be underpinned by the guidance and templates communities need to create better places to live and work in. Without guidance, local communities may feel disinclined to get involved in planning at local or neighbourhood levels. Armed with succinct, and where necessary detailed, national policy and guidance they can use their time effectively. They can choose to simply let the national cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w233

planning policy, on a topic or series of topics operate in their area, or decide to overwrite some or all of it as it applies to them. If they did choose the latter they would be starting from an informed position. Clearly local and neighbourhood plans have to be in conformity with the NPPF and so any “rewriting” of national planning policy will be subject to examination. Those areas of Government-related policy, such as neighbourhood planning, community right to build and Local Green Spaces designation, for example, are likely to require detailed Government guidance. However, we are aware that the Government is saying that it is not up to them to produce guidance and therefore it will be up to trade and industry bodies to produce informal guidance to underpin policies set out in the NPPF. There are two problems in relation to this. Firstly, the status of this “informal guidance” is unclear, and secondly, it is unclear how much guidance will be produced or is necessary. If the Government do not badge “informal guidance” in future, then this begs the question of how much weight it will carry, and whether or not adherence to it will be a material consideration when determining planning applications and appeals or developing local or neighbourhood planning policies. As a result, there is a very real potential for a number of competing bodies to simply produce “guidance” to support their own aims and objectives thus leading to vast quantities of competing and confusing advice for communities and applicants alike. Much of this guidance will not have been subject to widespread consultation because of the cost implications, and some of it may not be underpinned by a proper evidence-base. We suggest that the Government must give a much clearer indication about the weight that informal guidance will carry? What it should include and what it can and cannot be used for?

Does the NPPF give communities sufﬁcient power over planning decisions? Yes, the NPPF promotes a plan-led approach with local plans produced by elected members and subject to widespread community consultation. The NPPF sets out the Government’s proposals for neighbourhood plans which allow communities to get involved in decision-making as to where development should be best placed within a community and what it should look like. The NPPF requires local plans to reﬂect the needs of communities for employment, housing, services. All of the above is to be underpinned with evidence-based analysis.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? “Sustainable development” is the concept that underpins the planning system and is rightly a key topic for the Government and society. For a number of years Government has expended a great deal of effort refining the concept of sustainable development as it applies to the planning system, largely through planning policy, to give it operational significance. However, for rural areas, this effort has been unsuccessful because the planning system allows the turning down of planning applications on “sustainability” grounds, without the grounds for the refusal needing to be explained. Sustainable development has suffered from too narrow an interpretation, the outcome being to prevent much-needed economic development and new housing in rural areas because there is “no bus stop”—an oft quoted reason given for refusing rural diversification planning applications. The concept has three limbs: economic, social and environmental. Crucially, both the policymaker and the decision-taker are expected to take a balanced approach to all three. Unfortunately, in the recent past the concept has been allowed to promote an unbalanced approach to decision-making especially in respect of potentially beneficial rural development. This unbalanced approach is financially and socially unsustainable in rural areas. The Government’s draft NPPF sets about rebalancing the three pillars of sustainable development so that all the pillars are of equal length. As an organisation that has long campaigned for a balanced approach to be taken to the concept of “sustainable development”, we broadly support the draft National Planning Policy Framework’s focus on providing for “sustainable development” in both rural and urban areas. It will, however, always be extremely difficult to define. At a national level the definition will become very general and often and as potentially beneficial rural economic development proposals have experienced to their detriment, too general to be of much help in making decisions. It can leave open wide areas for dispute or discretion as one can see from the current press coverage. The draft NPPF discusses the three components of sustainable development being delivered in an integrated way “looking for multiple wins”. With a generalised definition, how can the concept of “balance” (or in new parlance “trade off” or “multiple wins”) applicable generally, be incorporated? The other option is to go for an itemised more specific definition which ends up long, complex and looking remarkably like the present combination of detailed central advice-come-statute plus development plans with strings of policies. Perhaps the Government should consider issuing guidance on “sustainable development” or at the very least reintroducing the definition of sustainable economic growth that figures in PPS4. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w234 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Turning to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is a pity that much of the recent press coverage has been somewhat misleading. The presumption will be part of a plan-led system which at local plan level will have been through a variety of public consultations. Local plans are required to be formulated on the basis of up-to-date objectively assessed development needs and flexible enough to respond to rapid shifts in demand or other changes. If planning applications accord with the local plan then the presumption can be used to approve it rapidly. Lastly, the presumption comes in to play if a local plan is absent, silent or indeterminate or a policy is out of date. The criticism in the press is that communities could find inappropriate development imposed on them because the presumption would be used to determine planning applications. We believe this criticism is wrong. The presumption is about delivering the sustainable development i.e. development that accords with the principles of the NPPF. This requires that decisions in respect of development proposals are made in a balanced manner by reference to the economic, social and environmental factors that apply to that particular development proposal. Given that putting in place and maintaining an up-to-date local plan is one of the most important activities of a local planning authority, it is astonishing to us that even today around approximately 53% of local planning authorities do not have an up-to-date local plan in force. We do not understand why it is taking some local authorities so long to put an up-to-date plan in place. Without an up-to-date local plan, then presumption in association with policies set out in the NPPF can be used to make decisions on planning applications, as long as consideration is given to economic, social and environmental factors. In those local authority areas without a local plan in place, the only way of providing some certainty for investors is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Given the number of out-of-date local plans today and the uncertainty that this provides to investors, we do wonder whether more enforceable requirements could be placed on local authorities to produce new local plans. The sequential test—the draft NPPF has omitted offices from the sequential test and this has been raised as concern in the press. The CLA views the omission as helpful for farm-based diversification proposals for conversion of redundant farm buildings to office space in that these development proposals should no longer be turned down because of a sequential test requiring all office space to be located in towns and cities. Low key office space can and should be located in rural areas to accommodate those businesses who wish to work in more pleasant surroundings. This office space is likely to be accommodated in converted farm buildings, but some CLA members are providing new build incubator office units in farmsteads or in villages. Brown field land—again this matter has been raised in the press. The presence of a brownfield land target in PPS3 had the unintended consequence of putting a housing development premium on the small amount of brownfield land located in rural areas that had been allocated for employment use. The practical effects were that for example a farm machinery dealership wanting to buy rural brownfield land to expand its outlets could not afford to do so because of the residential premium.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? The core planning principles summarise the key elements of the existing PPGs and PPS. It also requires decisions to be based on the key sustainable development principles set out in the NPPF which we support. We strongly support the following principles: — The primary objective of development management should be to foster the delivery of sustainable development rather than hinder it/ — To focus on viability and deliverability of development. — The need for high design standards. — A strong emphasis on pre-application advice. — That information required of an application is proportionate to the scale of the development and its likely impact. — The need to involve neighbours and neighbourhoods in, respectively, planning applications and neighbourhoods.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government departments? No, it is not clear that the NPPF is the overarching statement of national planning policy. Rather it appears to be one of portfolio of documents which also includes the National Planning Statements. This lack of clarity was one of the reasons why the CLA lobbied for mention of the NPPF on the face of the Localism Bill.

Does the NPPF together with the “duty to cooperate” provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? Local planning authorities will have to address a range of cross-boundary planning matters eg housing, transport, minerals, waste etc. The NPPF requires planning authorities to plan strategically and this coupled with a strengthened Duty to Cooperate clause in the Localism Bill moves things in the right direction. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w235

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based? We are very pleased to note the requirements in the NPPF for up-to-date evidenced-based assessments of economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of an area, and that housing, economic and other uses are integrated. We believe however that assessing the need and supply of employment land should not be undertaken at the same time as housing land assessments only “where possible”. It is our opinion that no housing assessment or land provision exercise should be done prior to a thorough employment land study. Employment is what leads the demand of housing, and not the other way round. A similar misconception prevails in rural areas—rising employment in rural areas is what is leading to the demand for housing development. There are very strong sustainability arguments about being able to site housing land next to employment land—something rural areas used to be good at achieving. It is fundamental to a successful process that the NPPF is changed to reﬂect the fact that employment land studies must be undertaken before housing land assessments. September 2011

Written evidence from The Wildlife Trusts Introduction The Wildlife Trusts185 welcome the opportunity to provide evidence to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee Inquiry on the National Planning Policy Framework

Summary The core purpose of the planning system is to achieve sustainable development not economic growth at any cost. The draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is not fit for this purpose and must: — include a robust and practical definition of sustainable development which is integrated throughout all policies to ensure planning delivers for the economy, the natural environment and society as a whole — reflect within its policies the considerable inherent, social and economic value provided by the natural environment and the wealth of evidence that supports this — integrate with other Government policies and the commitments for the natural environment expressed in the Natural Environment White Paper including clear policy to achieve the objectives of Local Nature Partnerships, Nature Improvement Areas and Green Infrastructure — provide greater recognition and stronger protection for Local Wildlife Sites

1. 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 over planning decisions? 1.1 The Wildlife Trusts (TWT) support in principle the aims of Government to consolidate national planning policy, but the reduction of existing planning policy to just 52 pages has gone too far, resulting in loss of clarity and guidance in many areas. The brevity and language of the new framework will leave some policies open to interpretation, causing confusion and conflict at the local level and ultimately slowing the planning process rather than speeding it up. A healthy natural environment requires a positive and spatial approach to planning. The NPPF needs to be better integrated with other Government policies and provide more policy guidance.

Local Wildlife Sites 1.2 TWT are concerned that the proposed new Framework makes no speciﬁc reference to Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) within the body of the text. With statutory sites, LWSs represent the minimum habitat in need of protection to maintain current levels of wildlife. However, unlike SSSIs, they are not a statutory designation. The only form of protection afforded to LWSs is through the planning system, making it crucial that their role in national planning policy continues to be recognised, valued and strengthened. 185 There are 47 Wildlife Trusts across the whole of the UK, the Isle of Man and Alderney. We are working for an environment rich in wildlife for everyone. With more than 800,000 members, we are the largest UK voluntary organisation dedicated to conserving the full range of the UK’s habitats and species whether they be in the country, in cities or at sea. We manage around 2,300 nature reserves covering more than 90,000 hectares and last year, we reviewed more than 70,000 planning applications. The Wildlife Trusts have a vision to create A Living Landscape and secure Living Seas for the whole UK. A Living Landscape is a recovery plan for nature championed by The Wildlife Trusts since 2006 to help create a resilient and healthy environment rich in wildlife and to provide ecological security for people. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w236 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

1.3 Current planning policy (PPS9)186 has gone some way to achieve this, by recognising LWSs as having “a fundamental role to play in meeting overall national biodiversity targets; contributing to the quality of life and the well-being of the community; and in supporting research and education.” It also states that “Criteria- based policies should be established in local development documents against which proposals for any development on, or affecting, such sites will be judged.” But despite this, more than 170 LWSs were lost to, or damaged by development in the last 12 months.187 Making Space for Nature188 recognised the need for greater protection for LWSs and recommended “Planning policy and practice should: provide greater protection to other priority habitats and features that form part of ecological networks, particularly Local Wildlife Sites, ancient woodlands and other priority BAP species.” 1.4 We welcome the proposals in the draft Framework stating, planning policies should: “identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including: international, national and local sites of importance for biodiversity, and areas identified by local partnerships for habitat restoration or creation” and “promote the preservation, restoration and recreation of priority habitats, ecological networks..” But, the specific value and importance of LWSs is not reflected strongly enough in proposed planning policy to ensure their safeguard and the contributions they make to securing the ambitions of Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP)189 and Making Space for Nature.190 1.5 There are more than 40,000 LWSs in England, covering 711,201 hectares—an area more than 4.5 times the area of Greater London. Collectively, LWSs play a critical conservation role by providing wildlife refuges, acting as stepping stones, corridors and buffer zones to link and protect nationally and internationally designated sites. Together with statutory protected areas, they support locally and often nationally, threatened species and habitats. In some counties, the proportion of LWSs or a particular habitat covered by LWSs exceeds that of nationally protected areas. For example, in Wiltshire, 75% of broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland is found in LWSs, compared with just 10% in Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In Nottinghamshire, SSSIs cover 1.5% of the county compared with LWSs which cover 10%. Similarly, in Birmingham, LWSs account for 6.8% of land area compared with just 1.7% for SSSIs. 1.6 While we accept Government wants to consolidate national planning policy, it cannot be assumed that those applying the policy locally know about the importance of recognising and protecting LWSs anymore than they do about the new Local Green Space designation (LGS), specific policy for which has rightly been included in the proposed Framework (see 1.10). The NPPF should provide policy for the identification and protection of LWSs equivalent in scale to that allocated to the LGS designation; specifically identifying them as important components of ecological networks and referencing Defra guidance.191

Nature Improvement Areas 1.7 In June 2011, Government committed to enabling the establishment of new Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs) when it published the NEWP.192 In the White Paper,193 Government identified a clear role for the planning system in identifying NIAs within Local Plans. The White Paper also gave direction that “When planning for development in their areas, they (local authorities) can specify the types of development that may or may not be appropriate in component parts of the NIA (such as existing designated areas), design aspects and how development can contribute to NIA objectives.” Yet the draft planning framework, published just one month later omits to reference or provide any specific policy guidance relating to them. To deliver on its commitment, Government policies must be joined up and the NPPF must provide the appropriate recognition and policy guidance on NIAs. The NPPF must provide guidance on the identification and spatial mapping of these areas within local plans and on the cross-boundary cooperation required to achieve NIA objectives and support the identification, protection and enhancement of ecological networks. This could be more effectively achieved through county level structure plans. Equivalent recognition and guidance is needed for Green Infrastructure (GI) which receives minimal reference within the NPPF. GI should be identified and defined as a widely recognised concept for the services it provides in rural and urban areas. 1.8 TWT support the reference at the beginning of the NPPF to enhance, as well as protect the natural environment and welcome a number of the natural environment policies which promote landscape-scale conservation and the restoration and recreation of priority habitats. Although protection of the natural environment remains important, protection alone is not proactive enough to bring about the recovery of the natural environment. The NPPF needs to place greater emphasis on positive planning for a healthy natural environment in terms of management, enhancement, restoration and recreation. Further guidance is needed to achieve this. While we accept the Framework may not be the place to provide detailed guidance, there must 186 ODPM (2005) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. 187 The Wildlife Trusts (2011) Status of Local Wildlife Site systems 2011 survey results. 188 Lawton, J H, Brotherton, P N M, Brown, V K, Elphick, C, Fitter, A H, Forshaw, J, Haddow, RW, Hilborne, S, Leafe, R N, Mace, G M, Southgate, M P, Sutherland, W A, Tew, T E, Varley, J, and Wynne, G R (2010) Making Space for Nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. 189 HM Government (2011), The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. 190 ibid 191 Defra (2006) Local Sites: Guidance on their Identification, Selection and Management. 192 HM Government (2011), The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. 193 ibid cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w237

be much better synergy between, and cross-referencing to, other Government policy and legislation such as the NEWP,194 EBS195 and the Water Framework Directive.196

Local Green Space designation 1.9 We welcome the new LGS designation, but greater clarity is needed on the deﬁnition and criteria, particularly if the NPPF is to provide the full extent of guidance on this new designation. Where, what and how much green space is eligible for designation and its relationship to other designation remains unclear. The ambiguity that lies in statements such as “not an extensive tract of land” and “in reasonably close proximity to a centre of population” will lead to confusion and inconsistency in application of the criteria and subsequent site designation.

Evidence 1.10 We welcome the reference within the draft Framework, that Local Plans, policies and decisions should be based on up-to-date evidence/information about the natural environment (paragraphs 27 and 34). However, the evidence base required to establish the local strategic priorities for the protection and enhancement of the natural environment is inadequately covered by the subsection on environmental assessment (paragraphs 34 to 36). The first key principle of PPS9.197 states that up-to-date evidence should include “..the relevant biodiversity and geological resources of the area” and that “In reviewing environmental characteristics local authorities should assess the potential to sustain and enhance those resources.” This requirement, along with the need for Strategic Environmental Assessments, need to be included in the NPPF. Local Record Centres have an important role to play in providing this data. 1.11 To deliver on strategic priorities, the evidence base section needs to clearly define the natural environment requirements so that local authorities can objectively assess environmental needs (including what is needed and what is lacking) and adequately plan for the natural environment. It is also important that local authorities have access to ecological expertise to interpret and apply this information. The evidence requirements for the historic environment (paragraph 37) are much stronger. Particularly in relation to unidentified assets of interest. Identification of existing or potential sites is equally important for the natural environment—demonstrated by the Life on the Verge Project,198 where surveys have identified over 100km of LWSs on road side verges in two years.

Cross-boundary partnership working 1.12 The policy on partnership working and cross-boundary cooperation, does not provide adequate policy guidance for local plan-makers and decision-makers. It omits any reference to the new NIAs (see 1.7 above) and Local Nature Partnerships (see concerns under Q5), both introduced by the NEWP.199

Transitional arrangements 1.13 There is no guidance on how to deal with the transitional period between the abolition of existing national planning policy guidance and Regional Spatial Strategies and the new NPPF. This is of particular concern, given that the draft proposals state that “Local Planning authorities should: grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date.” Guidance on this issue needs to recognise that existing Local Development Frameworks are required not to duplicate national and regional policy. As a result, once existing national and regional policies are abolished, a number of important issues will not be covered by any existing Plan. Guidance on transitional arrangements must therefore allow for “saved policies.”

Local Communities 1.14 As a body of local organisations working in communities, with communities, TWT feel disempowered by the proposed reforms. Communities often feel disengaged from planning because of the lack of power to inﬂuence the location and appearance of development within their area. The NPPF states that “Neighbourhood Plans give communities direct power to plan the areas in which they live.” But the policy guidance on Neighbourhood Plans focuses purely on housing and economic development, and gives no regard to identifying green space or assets of community value. The policy only provides for one-sided involvement, with communities allowed to propose more development, but not less than the Local Plan allocation. Furthermore, individuals and businesses residing outside the area of the plan can be involved in its development. While we welcome the ambitions to give greater decision-making powers to local communities, the provisions in the NPPF will not achieve this in a balanced way nor encourage greater levels of community engagement. 194 ibid 195 Defra (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services. 196 European Union (2000): Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the ﬁeld of water policy. 197 ODPM (2005) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. 198 http://www.lifeontheverge.org.uk/ 199 HM Government (2011), The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w238 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

1.15 The NEWP200 states that “The NPPF will provide communities with the tools they need to achieve an improved and healthy natural environment as part of sustainable growth, taking account of the objectives set out in this White Paper.” If local communities are to make sustainable choices for their areas, they need to be given the policy direction to effectively integrate neighbourhood decision-making with strategic cross-boundary planning for the protection, enhancement and restoration of ecological networks. The NPPF does not equip communities with the “tools” they require to achieve this, despite Government’s commitment in the White Paper.201

2. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 2.1 No. The Framework does not provide an adequate or clear definition of sustainable development and more crucially, the current wording of the NPPF will not promote genuinely sustainable development. TWT support the statutory purpose of planning to achieve sustainable development and we welcome the recognition of this purpose in the Ministerial foreword to the draft NPPF. 2.2 In defining sustainable development, the Framework references the Brundtland202 definition and recognises the importance of the planning system in delivering the economic, social and environmental components of sustainable development in an integrated way. While these are reasonable introductory anchors to sustainable development, they do not provide practical tools for its application. The NPPF fails to reflect more recent principles set out in the UK’s 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy, Securing the Future.203 This strategy established the adoption of clear principles for sustainable development of: living within environmental limits and providing a just society by means of a sustainable economy, good governance and sound science. In order to provide clarity and certainty to those applying national policy, the NPPF needs to provide a definition of sustainable development which integrates these principles, draws on the sustainable development policies established in PPS1204 and references Securing the Future.205 2.3 Aside from calling for a clearer definition on sustainable development, we are concerned that any positive statements on sustainable development covered in paragraphs 9 to 11 of the NPPF are completely undermined by wording on the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” in the paragraphs that follow (start paragraph 13), which read purely as a “presumption in favour of economic development.” This section sets the tone for the whole document, dramatically shifting the framework from one that recognises the importance of integrating the three pillars of sustainability and achieving multiple goals, to one that is very much economically weighted and driven. 2.4 The first paragraph on the “presumption” introduces Government’s commitment to ensure “…that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth” and concludes with the words: “Therefore, significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system”. Losing the word “sustainable” from economic growth and promoting the need for significant weight on just one pillar of sustainable development conflicts with earlier messages and biases much of what follows. These biases, whether real or simply drafting anomalies need to be eradicated and a stronger, practical definition of sustainable development needs to be integrated with the policy on the “presumption”. 2.5 The planning system should deliver on many objectives, not just economic growth. The National Ecosystems Assessment (NEA)206 confirms that the natural environment is critically important to our wellbeing and economic prosperity and reported that “the natural world, its biodiversity and its constituent ecosystems...are consistently undervalued in conventional economic analyses and decision making.” The report also stated that “government and society need to account better for the value of nature, particularly the services and resources it provides.” At the launch of the NEA207 the Minister of State, Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP, described the report as a “paradigm shift”—this is not reflected in the NPPF. 2.6 While we recognise that growing the economy is important and that the planning system could facilitate this, we are concerned that the draft NPPF is written with the prime goal of economic recovery rather than an integrated set of policies aimed at achieving sustainable development. The value of the natural environment to our economy and well-being is not strongly reflected within the draft NPPF. Instead, with a core principle that states “the default answer to development proposals is “yes” and policies that state “the sites and scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened” (paragraph 39), the framework is clearly weighted towards economic growth and unsustainable development. The “presumption” cannot therefore be considered balanced or workable. 2.7 TWT are not anti-development but we do want to see development of the right type, in the right place; and for decisions to be based on the sound principles of sustainable development (see 2.2). The current 200 ibid 201 ibid 202 Brundtland Commission (1987), The Report of the Brundtland Commission, Our Common Future. 203 HM Government (2005), Securing the Future: delivering UK sustainable development strategy. 204 ODPM (2005), Planning Policy Statement 1:Delivering Sustainable Development. 205 HM Government (2005), Securing the Future: delivering UK sustainable development strategy. 206 UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011), The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the key findings. 207 ibid. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w239

deﬁnition of sustainable development coupled with the proposals for a presumption in favour of sustainable development, will not achieve the core purpose of planning as set out in section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Furthermore, the conﬂicting messages arising from the draft Framework would, if published lead to confusion on the ground, with sustainable development hindered rather than advanced.

3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 3.1 TWT support some of the core principles. However, the bias towards economic growth introduced in paragraph 13 (see comments 2.3 to 2.6) and the lack of clarity on what is meant by “development”, clouds the interpretation of some of the principles. For example, “…the development that this country needs…” (paragraph 19, bullet 2) should include Green Infrastructure (GI). But the uncertainty established earlier in the document and the lack of speciﬁc reference to GI alongside housing and business needs, introduces ambiguity, and leaves this principle and others open to interpretation. 3.2 There are also a number of fundamental omissions from the core principles. The core principles of the NPPF should recognise the natural environment and the natural resources it provides as a foundation for sustainable economic growth and quality of life. The value of the natural environment to sustainable economic growth and quality of life has been afﬁrmed by the NEA208 and is at the heart of Government’s NEWP,209 which is described by The Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP in her foreword as placing “the value of nature at the centre of the choices our nation must make: to enhance our environment, economic growth and personal wellbeing”, but this is not recognised as an underpinning principle within the draft NPPF. The core principles should also promote planning policies and decisions that help to mitigate climate change and aid adaptation to its potential impacts. 3.3 Finally, the core principles within the draft Framework must include the “precautionary principle” which is currently included within several Planning Policy Statements, including PPS23210 and PPS25.211 With “a presumption in favour of sustainable development” and with the brevity of policy guidance in general, the inclusion of the precautionary principle as a core principle of National Planning Policy is absolutely crucial to safeguard against environmental degradation.

4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 4.1 The draft NPPF will not serve to effectively integrate National Planning Policy across Government Departments because it is not consistent with other Government and Departmental ambitions. The recently published EBS212 has a mission to “halt biodiversity loss, support healthy well-functioning ecosystems and establish coherent ecological networks, with more and better places for nature for the benefit of wildlife and people.” Yet this is not a feature of the proposed new planning policy, which only goes as far as “minimising impacts” and “providing net gains...where possible” The commitment to halt biodiversity loss is also embedded in the NEWP213 in which Government promotes “an ambitious, integrated approach, creating a resilient ecological network across England” moving “..from net biodiversity loss to net gain”. The White Paper214 also introduces key reforms to protect and improve the natural environment that fail to feature within the planning policy proposals. For example, NIAs, LNPs and piloting biodiversity offsetting. 4.2 The planning system is an essential delivery mechanism for achieving Government’s ambitions for the natural environment, and the NPPF will be the first key policy document to articulate the commitments and recommendations made in NEWP,215 Making Space for Nature216 and the EBS.217 Failure to effectively reflect these will be a grave omission and will result in poorly integrated policy, siloed working and conflicting goals across Government Departments.

5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 5.1 We welcome the promotion of strategic planning and cross-boundary cooperation within the NPPF. The natural environment cuts across administrative boundaries and planning for its protection and recovery requires a “larger-than local” approach. In the absence of Regional Spatial Strategies, the NPPF must set out clear policy direction for strategic planning across local authority boundaries which will deliver for the natural 208 ibid. 209 HM Government (2011), The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. 210 ODPM (2004), Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control. 211 Communities and Local Government (2010) Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk. 212 Defra (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services 213 HM Government (2011), The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. 214 ibid. 215 ibid. 216 Lawton, J H, Brotherton, P N M, Brown, V K, Elphick, C, Fitter, A H, Forshaw, J, Haddow, R W, Hilborne, S, Leafe, R N, Mace, G M, Southgate, M P, Sutherland, W A, Tew, T E, Varley, J, and Wynne, G R (2010) Making Space for Nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. 217 Defra (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w240 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

environment and people as a whole and not just economic growth. We are concerned however that the Framework requires local authorities to work collaboratively with Local Enterprise Partnership (LEPs) on strategic planning priorites but fails to recognise the role of Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) in this process. 5.2 Local Nature Partnerships were introduced in the NEWP218 to support nature restoration and “strengthen action at the right scale”. LEPs and LNPs are described as “having complementary roles both of which will help grow a green economy”. They are expected “to work in a cooperative and constructive fashion” and “work together to forge strong links that capture the value of nature”. Given the key purpose of a LEP is to determine local economic priorities, drive economic growth, and create local jobs,219 omitting reference to LNPs means the framework is once again weighted towards economic development. The framework needs to redress this imbalance and include policy that requires cooperative working between local authorities and LNPs to effectively plan for the natural environment.

5.3 The duty to cooperate on the face of the Localism Bill is welcome, but as currently drafted, it does not place sufﬁcient emphasis on the cooperation required to secure nature’s recovery. In our written evidence on the Localism Bill to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee in March 2011, we expressed concern that the duty does not go far enough to ensure effective and proactive cooperation between local authority partners to achieve a strategic and spatial approach to sustainable development and planning for the natural environment. As currently presented in the Bill, clearer guidance will be needed from the Secretary of State to enforce the level of cooperation required. This needs to recommend partners build on existing good practice and initiatives that have already been developed. For example Living Landscape schemes and biodiversity and habitat opportunity mapping.

6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? 6.1 No. The Framework fails to recognise that planning constraints are actually rarely the impediment to growth. Most planning applications are granted consent. The Impact Assessment for the proposed Framework220 shows that in 2009–10 approval rates for applications were 85% with fluctuations to this figure of between 82 and 87% over the last 10 years. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of outstanding planning commitments for major urban growth and house building which the market has not taken up. 6.2 Successful, sustainable and prosperous economies are founded on a healthy, functioning natural environment. There is a wealth of evidence (NEA,221 the 2006 Stern Report on climate change,222 EEB report223 and UNEP Green Economy report)224 that recognises the economic and social value of the natural environment that does not appear to have been embedded in the proposed planning polices which are weighted heavily in favour of economic growth rather than genuine sustainable development. October 2011

Written evidence from the Friends of the Earth

Friends of the Earth is the UK’s most inﬂuential environmental campaigning organisation, with the world’s most extensive environmental network, with around 2 million supporters across ﬁve continents and more than 76 national organisations worldwide. Friends of the Earth has a network of campaigning local groups working in more than 220 communities throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Friends of the Earth works with directly affected communities to engage in the planning system. Friends of the Earth has been involved in the planning reform agenda to promote the principles of sustainable development, public participation and environmental justice, and to tackle the climate challenge.

Summary — Friends of the Earth believes that the planning process provides one of the most important mechanisms for delivering sustainable development that is fair and democratic. — It is recognised however that the current planning system is difﬁcult for communities to engage with, and policy could be made more accessible. — Friends of the Earth is concerned that the NPPF fails to recognise environmental limits, and therefore encapsulates a fundamental misinterpretation of what it means for development to be sustainable. 218 HM Government (2011), The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. 219 http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/local/localenterprisepartnerships/ 220 Communities and local Government (2011) Draft National Planning Policy Framework: Impact Assessment. 221 UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011), The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the key ﬁndings. 222 Stern, N (2006) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Her Majesty’s Treasury, London. 223 European Environmental Bureau http://www.eeb.org/index.cfm/activities/sustainability/7th-environmental-action-programme/ 224 United Nations Environment Programme (2011), Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w241

— The NPPF must deliver a clear framework for the development and use of land in England in line with the principles of sustainable development that is directive, appropriate and consistent in order to be fit for purpose. There must be integrated policies which give sufficient detail to allow for clear decision-making and mediate conflicting priorities. — Planning has an important role to play in rebalancing power to give both people and the environment greater emphasis in the management and use of land. It must also ensure that we are able to build energy efficient and affordable homes, and grow green industries in order to meet people’s needs and the climate challenge. — Reducing complexity will be useful for planners, developers and communities, but should not be at the expense of tried and tested policies. — There is a lack of regional planning guidance which is necessary to address “larger than local issues” such as adaptation (and an absence of the necessary governance structures at regional level). — Friends of the Earth is profoundly concerned that the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was prepared without sufficient research into the benefits and outcomes of the land-use planning system. There has been insufficient transparent dialogue and discussion with a wide range of stakeholders, or collection of evidence, which would have been necessary to ensure a sound outcome.

Fit for Purpose 1. The NPPF is a document which simultaneously undermines the concept of sustainable development, particularly by failing to recognise environmental limits, and also fails to set out clear policy which describes sustainable development on the ground. It also fails to build on previous successful policy and practice, and planning research on the implementation of sustainable development.225 2. In order to be ﬁt for purpose the NPPF should set out key decision-making principles which are based on the UK Sustainable Development Strategy 2005.226 This can then provide a means to make consistent judgements by checking whether the outcome of the proposed development would be compatible with the principles set out. The detail of the document should both describe sustainable development in the relevant areas and be fully integrated eg so that housing is not described in isolation. There should also be associated tests which help improve decision-making such as the retail need and impact test, the sequential approach, the waste hierarchy, modal shift and car parking standards for example. There needs to be regional planning guidance (within the context of boundaries and governance structures) to address larger than local issues. 3. In order to restore public legitimacy, it must be clear that the NPPF is based on sound evidence of effective policies in practice that deliver sustainable development, and with proper support for public participation in planning decision-making.

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 over planning decisions? 1. The guidance presented is very thin overall. The issue with the lack of detail is that it makes it unclear what sort of quality of development is expected and will be promoted. For instance the prioritisation of viability tests will reduce the ability of local authorities to press for measures eg such as reducing the need to travel by car in new developments. 2. There is a lack of clear transitional arrangements that will affect the implementation of this guidance. There are also areas where the guidance is open to legal challenge and these should be darified—for instance where Neighbourhood Plans “take precedence” (para 51) over local plan policies, as this is not the case in law. 3. There are policy conflicts between the section on climate change and that on transport and housing. The complexity of the impacts and benefits of large developments are not properly explored which will lead to delay as these are argued through on a case by case basis. 4. As the impetus for planning reform has come from BIS (announced in The Plan for Growth)227 this has led to a flawed starting point. Focussing the planning system on approving growth will not give local communities more power over planning decisions. If local authorities are told that the “default answer to development is yes”, this is in conflict with the plan-led system if the development is outside the plan, and clearly puts communities in a defensive position. In development management the local authority role is to “influence development proposals to achieve quality outcomes” (para 54). Saying no to development is not possible unless “the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” (para 20). There is no guidance on what the terms “significant” and “demonstrably” and “benefits” mean in 225 For research on implementing sustainable development see Land and Limits: interpreting sustainability in the planning process 2nd Edition, Susan Owens and Richard Cowell, Routledge/RTPI, 2011. 226 Securing the Future, Delivery the UK’s Sustainable Development Strategy (HM Government, Dept for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs, 2005) http://archiye.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/publications/uk-strategy/documents/SecFut_complete.pdf 227 http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget growth.pdf, para 1.34, p 27. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:47] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w242 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

this context. It goes on to say “when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole” but as the policies are generally pro-development this is a cyclical argument, and again grounds for refusing unsustainable development are not clear. 5. Everyone has an interest in an efficient planning system which delivers timely decisions. Fulfilling this objective requires a clear understanding of what is “delay” and what are the vital components of the process of decision making. Unnecessary delay due to administrative failure should be effectively dealt with. But developers and builders in the UK must also raise their game. The standards employed here lag behind countries such as Germany228 and Denmark. Where delay is caused by the submission of poor quality developments that local authorities attempt to improve, the response should not be to blame delay on the planning system. Instead, methods to improve the quality of new developments should be examined. The industry should also be incentivised to make the improvements necessary to address rising household and business energy costs and the need to reduce carbon emissions. There are many factors in the time taken to make decisions on applications and these vary between local authorities and between individual developments. 6. The Committee on Climate Change’s report Adapting to Climate Change in the UK -Measuring Progress229 pointed out that “In almost all of the nine English local authorities studied, development in areas of flood risk had increased, and in four of them the rate of development was higher than across the locality as a whole” (p 9). This means that guidance needs to be improved to deal with these risks, not lessened or weakened, or made optional at local level. 7. There is a vital distinction between consultation, which is essentially about communicating the results of decisions which have already been taken, and participation, which is meant to genuinely include people in the formulation of ideas and the development of proposals, and therefore to give them power of influence. Participation requires a range of operational principles, particularly honesty and responsibility, by all participants. 8. If the Government wanted to give communities more power, it would say that communities should be involved in planning decision-making. It fails to say this in the core planning principles of the draft NPPF (para 19). PPS1 stated in its core principles: “In developing the vision for their areas, planning authorities should ensure that communities are able to contribute to ideas about how that vision can be achieved, have the opportunity to participate in the process of drawing up the vision, strategy and specific plan policies, and to be involved in development proposals.”230 9. It should be the purpose of the planning system to mediate between differing interests. Greater emphasis should also be placed on quality decisions which have fully engaged the local community, and must be part of the core planning principles. The draft NPPF states that the planning system is important in facilitating social interaction and creating inclusive communities. But it does not mention issues of equality in outcomes, and instead talks about “designing places which promote: opportunities for meetings between members of the community who might not otherwise come into contact with each other,”(p 35, para 125). This is not sufficient guidance in helping to address rising social inequalities and disenfranchisement. 10. The local authority is also given very directive guidance eg in relation to housing—which does not include ensuring that communities are able to contribute to a vision for housing needs in their area. The impact assessment states that “Other research has shown that national targets decrease the attention decision-makers give to community groups” but the NPPF has set out an effective target in one of the most contested areas, namely housing, by stating a need to demonstrate a five year housing supply with an added allowance of at least 20% (para 109)231 and for permission to be given where this cannot be demonstrated (para 110). The question is how much community involvement (which is not mentioned in the section on housing) will be possible in the bounds of this policy. 11. The question is also whether the local authority will have the power to refuse if the housing development is on greenfield, without good transport links, lacking local services and of poor standard, or without an affordable component. The local authority will be struggling to find policy in the NPPF that helps them deliver energy efficient and affordable homes in sustainable bcations which reduce the need to travel by car. 12. The draft NPPF will cause confusion because of the internal conflicts eg in how to address climate change.

Is the deﬁnition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 13. The heart of the concept of sustainable development is that economic, social and environmental progress are seen as an integrated whole and not as individual sectors whose interests are crudely traded off against 228 First UK homes meet German eco-standard 2009, Inside Housing magazine, http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ihstory.aspx?storycode=6502423 229 Adaptation Sub-Committee Progress Report, 14 July 2011. 230 http://www.communities.g0v.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpolicystatementldraft national planning policy framework, July 2011, http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/draftframework 231 Draft National Planning Policy Framework, July 2011, http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/draftframework cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w243

each other. The Government states in para 13 that it “is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. A positive planning system is essential because, without growth, a sustainable future cannot be achieved.” In fact, a sustainable future cannot be achieved without the recognition of environmental limits. 14. The definition of sustainable development is flawed—it is really about the prioritisation of economic growth “therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth throughout the planning system.” (para 13). 15. The treatment of economic considerations inside the paradigm of sustainable development should be founded on the spatial expression of “Securing the Future”, the UK’s sustainable development strategy.232 In particular the NPPF should seek to build upon the principles set out in Chapter 3, “One Planet Economy”, which addresses sustainable consumption and production. 16. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is merely a presumption in favour of development if the term sustainable is not clearly defined. As Owens and Cowell (2011)233 point out in Land and Limits there is a “fundamental dislocation between competing interpretations of what it means for development to be sustainable.”(p 41). 17. Friends of the Earth supports the introduction of a definition of sustainable development based on the five principles of the UK strategy as the purpose of planning on the face of the Localism Bill. 18. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is not a “balanced approach” as the presumption operates in a way that undermines the plan-led system. It is inherently an emphasis approach, where development approval is favoured. The presumption is described as a core principle of both plan-making and development management (para 20).

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 19. The core planning principles do not express an accepted understanding of sustainable development as set out in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy. 20. The core principles are conﬂicting—on the one hand saying that “planning should be genuinely plan- led” and on the other that the “default answer to development proposals is yes”. 21. The language differentiates between the wording for allocating land for development eg “should set out a clear strategy” and eg “seek to protect” environmental assets, with weaker terminology for environmental outcomes. 22. There is no mention of community involvement or equality outcomes.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 23. There should be detail as to how the NPPF relates to the Natural Environment White Paper, the National Policy Statements (NPS), the National Infrastructure Plan, and the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan, and the forthcoming National Adaptation Plan. 24. It is unclear as to how the NPPF will relate to waste planning. While the Government have set out that waste planning will be attached to the Waste Plan, it means that developments which are generators of waste, and which need to incorporate resource re-use and recycling, will face a gap in integration. 25. It is unclear what the relationship is supposed to be between the draft NPPF, and the “Mythbuster” on planning which was recently published.234

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 26. There are four paragraphs on “planning strategically across local boundaries”. These seem to be focussed on cross boundary issues, rather than seeing a local authority area as part of a larger region. It seems that there could be co-operation between a local authority and its neighbouring authorities but that this co-operation would take place in bilateral terms rather than multilateral terms. There is no clear model and a number of options are suggested to demonstrate successful co-operation. 27. Friends of the Earth recommends greater regional planning guidance, and support in the form of providing the evidence base collected for the Regional Spatial Strategies to be made available to the relevant local authorities so that time and effort is not wasted, and the most efﬁcient use is made of existing knowledge. 232 Securing the Future, Delivery the UK’s Sustainable Development Strategy (HM Government, Dept for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs, 2005) http://archive.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/publications/uk-strategy/documents/SecFut_complete.pdf 233 Land and Limits: interpreting sustainability in the planning process 2nd Edition, Susan Owens and Richard Cowell, Routledge/ RTPI, 2011. 234 National Planning Policy Framework: Mythbuster, September 2011 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1984490.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w244 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

28. There is a lack of recognition that different regional circumstances regions will require different approaches. There should be a planned approach which attempts to rebalance eg economic activity across England as a whole. The weak co-operation measures will not tackle issues identiﬁed in the Regional Spatial Strategies.

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

29. Overall the policies in the NPPF are driven by an economic growth imperative rather than an evidence base derived from examining the most effective policies in practice to deliver more sustainable development.

30. The Impact Assessment235 looked at six reports in total only, including Kate Barker’s report, which as Friends of the Earth pointed out was ﬂawed at the time and in response to the Planning White Paper published shortly after: “Case studies are used selectively and there is an inability to distinguish between what is essentially hearsay and what is veriﬁable evidence. The failure to distinguish lobbying from hard data has led to major mistakes some of which, such as the analysis of the “need” test, have been acknowledged by Kate Barker herself.”236

31. The lack of an evidence base is apparent for instance in proposals in the NPPF to further weaken provisions to support small and independent retail and town centre ﬁrst policy. Small shops and businesses are vital for the local economy and jobs. Independent retailers are operating in a ﬁercely challenging environment with unfavourable economic conditions and dominance of the grocery sector by a handful of retailers with the power and resources to bend the planning system to their advantage.

32. The language of the policy of the sequential approach to site selection which stipulates retail to be located in town centres only “where practicable” (para 78) is not based on the evidence of what impact this policy has. The presumption in favour of development set out earlier in the NPPF will over-ride the policy intended to support town centre ﬁrst and could lead to a new rush for unsustainable, car-dependent, out-of- town retail sites.

33. The draft NPPF has nothing to say on the role of planning in supporting local businesses and food producers. This is despite the evidence that shows that small shops provide more jobs per retail floor space and recycle more money in the local community. The current system is stacked in favour of the major retailers (82% of all retail planning approved in 2010 went to the big four supermarkets) and the draft NPPF will only make the situation worse, with a significant weakening of the impact assessment (para 80) and town centre first policy.

34. In another example, the policy presented on Transport does not seem to be based on evidence as to the impact that it has for instance on carbon emissions. Transport represents about a quarter of UK CO2 emissions so it is inconceivable that carbon reduction targets can be met without a significant reduction in transport emissions. Yet despite the introduction of cleaner vehides, UK domestic transport emissions are no less than they were in 1990. In the long term, low carbon vehicles will help but they are unlikely to be a significant part of the UK car fleet until well into the 2020s.

35. So, in the meantime policies that reduce the need to travel by car and increase the use of sustainable modes walking, cycling and public transport are essential. They would also enhance personal choice, reduce oil dependency, cut congestion, improve health and help address isolation and inequality—particularly for the quarter of UK households without car access. The NPPF should therefore look at the evidence and ensure that planning policy has a key role to play in reducing the need to travel by car and by facilitating the necessary shift to sustainable travel behaviour. Without adequate consideration of sustainable transport access in planning policy, car dependence is the inevitable outcome.237

36. Paragraph 84 of the NPPF lists the twin objectives of “facilitating economic growth” and “supporting reductions in GHG emissions and congestion” but gives much lower priority to the 2nd requirement i.e. “where practical” and “where reasonable to do so” (para 83). This is not in line with the evidence presented by the Committee on Climate Change that carbon emissions reduction needs to happen as a focus, rather than as an optional extra. Evidence has been presented by the Campaign for Better Transport on the type of planning policies that would achieve more sustainable transport patterns through planning.238

37. What is clear from these two examples is that the evidence as to planning policy that can have effect and positive impacts in terms of more sustainable development has not been properly examined. The rewriting of national planning policy has in effect been based on an ideological frame to promote growth, and not on sustainability in practice. 235 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1951736.pdf 236 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/consultation responses/pwp consultation response.pdf, para iv, p 2. 237 Recommendations on transport policy from PTEG http://www.pteg.net/MediaCentre/PressReleases/20110719.htm 238 Campaign for Better Transport http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/ﬁles/What-NPPF-means-forsustainable-transport.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w245

Recommendations Friends of the Earth recommends: — that the NPPF core planning principles are revised to implement the accepted principles of sustainable development as set out in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy 2005; — that the NPPF retains existing tried and tested effective policies from Planning Policy Statement 1: Sustainable Development; — that the presumption is based on the ﬁve principles of sustainable development and ﬁrmly set in the context of the plan-led system, and not used to undermine it; — that the core planning principles set out the need to reduce of carbon emissions, and promote outcomes that address inequality issues; and — that community involvement is a core planning principle. More detailed recommendations are included in Friends of the Earth’s submission to the consultation on the draft National Planning Policy Framework. September 2011

Written evidence from Urban Design Group Summary — To ensure the efficient operation of the planning system, clear wording and definitions are needed in the NPPF that will withstand legal challenge. — The need for Resources, Skills and Leadership should be mentioned. — A consistent, robust test for sustainable development is needed. — Quality of architectural and urban design is a key contributor to “planning for prosperity”. — Quality design should be fully defined and clarity provided on what should and should not be given planning permission. — Systems for assessing quality of development are already in use and should continue to be used. — Quality architecture and urban design is missing from the list of core planning principles. — There is further potential for integrating policies—transport, planning, sustainability, design quality. — The National Planning Policy should be evidence based, the evidence should be referenced, and in particular referenced to the many completed and on going research projects in British universities. — Existing best practice guidance should be referenced in the NPPF, including: — The Manual for Streets series. — By Design. — The Urban Design Compendium.

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 over planning decisions? Clear wording and definitions are needed that will withstand legal challenge To avoid needless bureaucracy, time wasted at planning inquiries and appeals, and to give certainty to planning applicants, the wording and definitions used in the NPPF must be unambiguous, easy to understand, and robust.

Resources, Skills and Leadership need to be provided The quality of new development passed through the planning system depends on the use of skilled architects and designers. It also depends on local politicians who have a good understanding of and training in design, and who are who are supported by competent and committed staff. It is recommended that the NPPF makes mention of appropriate resourcing.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? A robust test for sustainable development is needed To make the “Presumption in Favour of Sustainable development” operate efficiently, it is strongly recommended that a consistent, simple and robust test for sustainable development is specified in the NPPF, in order that planning authorities and developers may have a clear understanding of whether a proposal is likely to obtain permission. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w246 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Quality of architectural and urban design is a key contributor to “planning for prosperity” In the deﬁnition of sustainable development offered, the section “Planning for prosperity”—omits the role of quality architectural and urban design in creating towns and cities that attract employment and investment.

Quality design should be fully defined and clarity given on what should and should not be given planning permission Allied to the presumption in favour of sustainable development is question of minimum standards for approval. The NPPF states that: “Permission should be refused for development of obviously poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.” While this statement is well intentioned, there is the likelihood of lengthy legal discussion as to the meaning of “obviously poor”. It leaves open the door to development that is only marginally better than “obviously poor”. The NPPF needs to be clear on design quality and what should and should not be given planning permission. Quality design should be fully defined to include: — design that is functional and enables efficient operation of the economy; — design that is attractive; and — design that is sustainable.

Existing systems for assessing quality of development are available—and could be used. There are simple and effective systems for assessing the quality of development including Building for Life OurPlace—2011 Urban design award winner Design Quality Reviewer—HCA BREEAM Code for Sustainable Homes The Gold standard of the Building for Life scheme, or its equivalent, could be used as the target for quality of architectural and urban design.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? Quality architecture and urban design is missing from the list of principles The objective of obtaining quality architectural and urban design in new development should be a key planning principle, in line with international best practice Quality design and quality places are a mark of prosperity, and a sign of a successful and growing economy. Quality of place is a key to maintaining the international competitiveness of England’s major cities.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? Further potential for integrating policies—transport, planning, sustainability, design quality Transport and Planning should be dealt with in an integrated way within the NPPF, rather than as separate subjects with separate objectives. Highways, as well as being the major part of the transport system, also provide the bulk of the public realm, and provide the setting for houses, shops, ofﬁces, and factories. The NPPF should address the need to balance these functions: the balancing of movement and place. Sustainability and design quality should be addressed in an integrated way in the NPPF. Sustainability is a measure of quality of design.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based The National Planning Policy should be based on evidence, and this evidence should be referenced. There is an extensive programme of research being conducted at British universities, paid out of public funds and running into £10s millions. This research should be used to help provide that evidence base. Existing best practice guidance should be referenced in the NPPF, including: — The Manual for Streets series. — By Design. — The Urban Design Compendium. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w247

About the Urban Design Group The Urban Design Group was founded in 1978, to encourage the greater awareness and understanding of urban design, the multi-disciplinary process of providing the setting for life in cities, towns and villages. It has a membership of approximately 1,500 individuals and organisations. September 2011

Written evidence from the National Housing Federation Introduction 1. The National Housing Federation represents 1,200 independent, not for proﬁt affordable housing providers in England. The Federation’s members include housing associations, co-ops, trusts and stock transfer organisations. They own and/or manage more than 2.5 million homes provided for affordable rent, supported housing and low cost home ownership, and offer an increasingly diverse range of community and regeneration services. Our members currently develop approximately 40,000 new affordable homes per annum. 2. The Federation strongly supports the Government’s planning reform. Many opponents of the NPPF have fundamentally misrepresented it, greatly inhibiting a useful public debate. The NPPF will not usher in a planning free-for-all, and several complaints about the proposed changes are not supported by a detailed review of the document, read as a whole. To date, the most vociferous critics have made no real suggestions on changes to the draft to provide a planning framework that genuinely delivers sustainable development. Our submission addresses some of the critics’ main concerns, as well as making some important suggestions to ensure the Government’s approach is brought out fully and correctly in the drafting (see Annex).

Summary 3. The Federation welcomes the draft NPPF. It properly emphasises that the planning system should accommodate housing and commercial needs unless that would prejudice environmental or other interests. Achieving this balance lies at the heart of sustainable development. 4. In summary the Federation: — believes that reform to the planning system to encourage “good growth” is essential in tackling England’s acute and growing housing crisis. With over half of England’s affordable homes currently delivered on planning gain sites (worth £2 billion per annum), the reformed planning system must clearly and effectively support the delivery of affordable homes. Planning reform is, however, only part of the solution to securing more housing. Addressing issues such as the squeeze on mortgage lending and restoring public investment in new social housing is also critical; — suggests it is vital that the NPPF signals very strongly that appropriate new housing and employment development is important everywhere, and is not just consistent with the sustainability of the countryside, but an essential requirement for it; — agrees that the definition of sustainable development derived from the Brundtland Commission is appropriate. Quite properly it emphasises balancing the needs of both present and future generations; — supports the requirement on local planning authorities to ensure that the planning system operates to ensure that much needed housing land, including land for affordable housing, is provided; — believes that the policy on housing in the NPPF needs to make it clearer that affordable housing is a key element of sustainable and balanced communities, and that local plans should contain target numbers for affordable homes and a requirement for affordable housing to be part of market housing proposals; — endorses the emphasis on providing housing for all groups in need, although explicit clarification that this includes vulnerable and excluded groups would be beneficial; — noting the importance of Strategic Housing Needs Assessments (SHMA) to local plans, suggests that SHMA should be subject to separate scrutiny as part of the local plan examination, and should also be required to be “sound”; — believes that the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as part of a plan led system, is balanced, workable and essential. The NPPF should be clearer that where anticipated growth is met by the local plan, that means that development elsewhere can properly be resisted if it would prejudice that local community’s vision of the sustainable development of the area. It would be appropriate to consider delaying the introduction of the presumption in favour of sustainable development for a limited period after the introduction of the NPPF to give local authorities a challenging but realistic window within which to get new development plans in place; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w248 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— welcomes the core planning principles, but believes these need to include a principle stressing the importance of mixed tenure, mixed income communities as well as a stronger emphasis on high quality design; — believes the duty to cooperate is capable of being effective if it is properly, and rigorously, examined as part of the local plan process; — considers there should be a clear statement that the Community Infrastructure Levy (and New Homes Bonus) should be a material consideration. The draft NPPF does not adequately tie together CIL, NHB and the planning system; and — believes there should also be a very clear statement that the Community Infrastructure Levy should not be set at a level that prejudices the delivery of affordable housing.

Is the NPPF Fit for Purpose? 5. England faces an acute and growing housing crisis. There are 1,750,000 households, 4.5 million people, on local authority waiting lists for an affordable home. Around three million people are living in overcrowded homes. 230,000 new households are formed each year, but little more than 100,000 new homes are being built annually, further compounding the problem. Reforms to the planning system are essential as part of any strategy to tackle this crisis. 6. The NPPF should set out the main principles of the planning system, at both the development plan and development control level. The system should be simple and transparent. Local authorities should promote plans that allow communities and economies to function sustainably, efficiently and equitably. Those plans should accommodate identified social and economic needs where that can be done without prejudicing real environmental or other interests. The best spatial form for meeting those needs can best be judged locally, and communities should be encouraged to participate in planning the future of their areas. The aim should be to secure the right development, in the right place at the right time—“good growth”. 7. Against the background of those plans, the main question in dealing with an application should be whether there is any good reason, in the public interest, why the proposal should be refused. Whether the proposal is consistent with, or conflicts with, the plan should be the main determinant. If the plan is not determinative then the main consideration, against the background of relevant policies, is whether there would be material harm. 8. There is little doubt that the wealth of policy, circulars, guidance and manuals, and legislation, has confused the planning picture. This has disenfranchised much of the population and the development industry, over-professionalised the process and made it costly and time-consuming. The proposed reduction of policy to around 50 pages is long overdue and necessary. 9. Overall the draft NPPF sets out a good framework within which local plans can be developed. It identifies the key issues that need to be addressed and sets out a sensible basis for determining applications, while leaving considerable scope for local plans to be developed that respect local issues and priorities—where they meet proper needs. Generally the draft NPPF is fit for purpose. 10. However, in shortening the policy framework some essential earlier guidance is given too little emphasis or has been lost: — the approach to affordable housing and to other needs not met by the market should make it far clearer that mixed, balanced and inclusive communities (which are rightly promoted) must include housing for all, including affordable homes. Local plans should be directed to contain policies setting out how affordable and other housing requirements will be met, including requirements for a proportion of most if not all market led schemes to be affordable. This is especially important given that well over half of all affordable homes are delivered on planning gain sites, even since the economic downturn (the figure was 56% in 2009–10, down from 62%, according to CLG HSSA data). The value of the planning system’s support for new affordable homes is in excess of £2 billion per annum; — the Government should signal a stronger spatial vision about where it would prefer to see development taking place; — it would be helpful to have a paragraph in the NPPF that summarises the main components of sustainabiity, noting that this will be tailored to local circumstances through the plan making process. At the moment the elements of sustainability are scattered throughout the document and it would be useful to have a clear statement of them in one place. 11. After decades of fairly prescriptive central guidance, there is an understandable fear that a lack of central position on an issue means that local plans cannot include policy. If local circumstances justify it then, clearly, there can be a local policy presumption against, for example, development in the countryside or protection for woodland. The NPPF should note that historic policies have not been jettisoned, but have been left for local plans, if appropriate, to apply them locally. 12. The only area where there is a risk that the draft NPPF risks not achieving its intentions is in the way it addresses the period up to the adoption of a local plan conforming with the NPPF. It should be clear that if an emerging local plan, accommodating identified growth, is being prepared then that will be a material cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w249

consideration in deciding applications. It would also be appropriate to consider delaying the introduction of the presumption in favour of sustainable development for a limited period after the introduction of the NPPF to give local authorities a challenging but realistic window within which to get new development plans in place. 13. A structural issue is that the draft NPPF does not, fully, tie together the Community Infrastructure Levy and the planning system. There should be a clear statement that CIL (and New Homes Bonus) should be a material consideration. It should be emphasised that financial considerations are clearly relevant at the development plan stage—and are intended to influence decisions about the scale and location of development. However, it should also make clear that financial considerations should not over-ride proper planning decisions. Permission should never be bought or sold. 14. At a more detailed level, there should also be a very clear statement that the Community Infrastructure Levy should not be set at a level that prejudices the delivery of affordable housing. The Planning Minister has stated that the introduction of CIL should not compromise affordable housing. However there are currently no provisions in the Localism Bill, draft NPPF or CIL regulations/guidance to ensure this, and the Crossrail CIL and other emerging CIL charging schedules are being set at levels that will significantly reduce the number of new affordable homes that can be secured through planning obligations.

Does the NPPF gives 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 over planning decisions? 15. In broad terms the NPPF gives clarity to all parties involved in the planning system about what it is meant to deliver. No one is sensibly saying that planning should not try to accommodate housing needs, including affordable housing requirements, so the real question for local communities is, if those needs can be accommodated, is what would be the best and most sustainable way in which to achieve this. The NPPF makes it clear that these are the issues that need to be addressed. 16. In some cases there will be environmental or other interests that need to be protected, that will prevent growth being accommodated—although the Federation is concerned that, too often, sustainable development in the countryside, needed to support existing communities, is rejected as an option. Rightly, however, if a local community wants to give priority to environmental interests above meeting, for example, housing needs, then they will have to justify that position, and have it examined at inquiry. At that examination the local planning authority will have to demonstrate how it will meet assessed needs in other parts of the plan area or how other authorities are assisting it in response to the duty to co-operate. 17. One of the key components of the NPPF is an ability to understand “objectively assessed” housing needs. The Federation proposed amendments to the Localism Bill that would have placed a clear statutory duty on local authorities to assess housing and other needs on an annual basis, and for the results of that analysis to be made public. Both the capture of information and its publication are important. Local plans will, necessarily, evolve and having up-to-date information is critical in ensuring that they do so. Making that information readily available will allow local communities, elected representatives and the development industry to hold local authorities to account. The NPPF would benefit from a clear statement about the critical importance of rigorous housing needs assessments. 18. The Federation also believes that housing needs assessments should be scrutinised separately as part of a local plan examination. Only if the housing need assessment is, itself, sound can the local plan on which it relies also be sound. If the document itself is examined then that would provide a far stronger, and more rigorous, foundation for the local plan. 19. The NPPF should make it clear that local plans should build on the principles set out in the NPPF. Plans should set out local aspirations about what can be developed, what can be protected, the standards of design that are required and proposed mixes of development. If identified needs can sustainably be met then the plan offers the opportunity to create a local vision and template for the future of the area. The NPPF should make it clearer that the absence of historic policy and guidance at a national level does not prevent planning authorities using those policies that are locally relevant—for example adopting brownfield first principles or providing protection for the open countryside. If the opportunity is seized plans will provide certainty to developers and investors, guidance to the planning inspectorate (and, critically, to elected officials) while giving local communities the chance to shape their areas.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 20. The definition of “sustainable development” derives, directly, from the Brundtland Commission. It is a longstanding and well accepted definition. What the NPPF does is place it, quite clearly, in a planning context. Planning is primarily meant to deal with the use and development of land. It is only one of a number of mechanisms for dealing with environmental concerns, social equity issues and infrastructure funding. 21. In the planning context, land should be available to meet social needs and facilitate economic growth to meet present needs provided that it does not have an unacceptable environmental cost. Part of that equation is cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w250 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

to consider whether development would prevent the enjoyment of a resource by future generations. The NPPF successfully identifies and achieves an appropriate balance. 22. The Federation’s view is that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is capable of working well at a development plan level. Local plans should, normally, be able to accommodate projected growth. As part of the local plan process, judgments can be made about the location of that growth, and the local community’s view on the most sustainable patterns of growth. Where there are important environmental or social interests to protect then the local plan process provides a vehicle to protect them. The Federation’s view is that this is a balanced and workable approach. Indeed, the Federation goes further. This type of presumption is essential at a local plan level to ensure that housing needs, including the critical requirement for more affordable housing, are met wherever possible. 23. The operation of the presumption at a development management stage is less clear. Development in accordance with the local plan should, quite rightly, be permitted. Development which would prejudice the sustainable development aspirations of a community, as reflected in a local plan, should be refused. For example, if a community has concluded that projected development can all be accommodated on brownfield sites, and infrastructure is being planned to accommodate that, then development on an alternative greenfield location could justifiably be refused. Indeed, the local plan might well have included a policy protecting that greenfield, justified on the basis that “can be accommodated elsewhere”. 24. However, the draft NPPF notes that there should be a presumption in favour of development where local plans are, absent, silent, indeterminate or out of date. This is qualified to note that permission should be refused where “the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”. It needs to be made clear that environmental, social and other interests are sufficient, where appropriate, to justify refusal even where the local plan is silent. As noted above, issues and proposals identified in emerging local plans should clearly be an interest to weigh in the balance in making a determination. Additional clarity is required in the NPPF to emphasise that in the period before up to date local plans are adopted existing policies, including those on affordable housing, should still be given significant weight. 25. Many local authorities without up-to-date development plans are concerned about losing all control of development once the finalised NPPF is published. Clearly it is incumbent on these councils to their plans adopted as soon as possible. However it would be appropriate for Government to consider delaying the introduction of the presumption in favour of sustainable development for a limited period after the introduction of the NPPF to give local authorities a challenging but realistic window within which to get new development plans in place.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 26. The principles set out in paragraph 19 are a helpful reminder of the key elements of the planning system. 27. Two additional key issues should be addressed as part of the core planning principles. The first is that, ideally, communities should be mixed. There should be a range of uses and activities within an area. There should be a variety of housing stock available, of varying tenures, at different prices, and for different income levels. We should avoid social ghettos; areas of either all social housing or all expensive homes. 28. The design of both buildings and places contributes significantly to social wellbeing as well as economic value. The need for good design should be a core principle that is reflected in both the development plan and in development management decisions. 29. In both places we have set out proposed wording in the Annex.

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger than local strategic planning? 30. In principle the NPPF and the duty to cooperate can work effectively to provide a basis for “larger than local” planning. However, both are underpinned by a requirement for housing needs assessments and tools to identify the need for other forms of development. To identify housing needs a properly conducted housing needs assessment will look wider than the administrative boundaries. It will have to account for either in migration or out migration. Where appropriate it will cover the need to accommodate demand displaced from areas that cannot, themselves, accommodate it, perhaps for environmental or other capacity reasons. Critically, and this is not presently a statutory duty on authorities when they carry out assessments,239 they should project future housing requirements. 31. For the duty to cooperate to be fully effective it requires local authorities to work alongside each other in preparing the appropriate evidence base and, where necessary, to ensure that they address cross boundary needs. As noted above, this depends critically on there being an adequate housing needs assessment. The Federation continues to advocate, very strongly, for this to be a statutory duty on local authorities, and for the assessment to be the subject of a soundness test itself as part of the local plan examination process. 239 In response to a Federation sponsored amendment to the Localism Bill, Ministers suggested that Section 13 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 covers the issue. The Section requires a survey of the local authority area but does not, critically, require any analysis of future housing or economic requirements. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w251

Conclusion

32. The Federation welcomes the draft NPPF. If the ﬁnal document maintains the same principles it will make a real contribution to the delivery of much needed housing. To meet present and future needs, an important component of all new housing will have to be affordable housing. The Federation’s view is that this growth can be achieved sustainably and without materially prejudicing environmental or other important interests.

33. There are several areas where the NPPF needs to be strengthened. For housing purposes there needs to be a far stronger emphasis on the importance of mixed use communities, and the beneﬁts of affordable housing being provided on site. It needs to be made absolutely clear that CIL should not prejudice affordable housing provision, and that viability should not be used as an excuse for inadequate schemes, including ones that do not provide appropriate levels of affordable housing.

34. In more general terms, the NPPF needs to encourage those preparing local plans, and participating in the development plan process, to embrace the opportunity. The lack of prescriptive national guidance provides real ﬂexibility for local authorities and local communities to deﬁne their sustainable future. As they should, they will have to accommodate need, wherever possible. However, the way in which they do so, and how they protect what is important in their local area, offers a genuinely localist approach to sustainable growth.

Annex

EXTRACTS FROM PARAGRAPHS 19 AND 107–112 OF THE DRAFT NPPF

PROPOSED CHANGES MARKED

19. A set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and development management and should be taken into account by all those engaged in the planning system, from local authorities and developers through to communities.

These principles are: — …[only edited paragraphs included] — 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 development proposals is “yes”, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles in the Framework there are clear and well evidenced reasons for refusal — planning policies and decisions should make effective and intensive use of land, promote mixed use and mixed tenure developments and communities, including housing to meet both market, affordable and other needs, that together create more vibrant and inclusive places — planning policies and decisions should encourage multiple beneﬁts from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, ﬂood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production) — planning policies should encourage innovative and inclusive design both of buildings and places, and should promote high quality development wherever possible

107. The Government’s key housing objective is to increase signiﬁcantly the delivery of new homes; an objective that will contribute to sustainable economic growth. Everyone should have the opportunity to live in high quality, well designed homes, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live [...].

109. To boost the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: — [...] identify and maintain a rolling supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of both market and affordable240 housing against their housing requirements. The supply should include an additional allowance of at least 20% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land [...]

110. The presumption in favour of sustainable development means that Local Plans should be prepared on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. Applications should be considered in accordance with the presumption. Planning permission should be granted for sustainable proposals where relevant policies are out of date or where a local authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. 240 Federation explanatory note: at present five year supply figures relate only to the provision of housing. Given the importance of affordable housing, it is important to have a separate measure to ensure that local authorities continue to promote appropriate development. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w252 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

111. To deliver a wide choice of quality homes and widen opportunities for home ownership, local planning authorities should: — [...] where they have identified affordable housing is required, allocate sites for affordable housing and set policies for meeting this need on site. Unless there is a clear deliverable alternative local approach, plan policies should normally identify an appropriate proportion of homes that will be affordable in any development. Exceptionally off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value will be appropriate where it can be robustly justified for example to improve or make more effective use of the existing housing stock) and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed, inclusive and balanced communities241.

112. In rural areas, local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local requirements, particularly for affordable housing. Local planning authorities should consider allocating and releasing small sites that would not normally be used to be promoted solely for affordable housing. Exceptionally, where site specific viability constraints apply, authorities and communities should242 consider allowing some market housing or commercial uses related to the needs of the community where that would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs. Decisions on housing in rural areas should avoid remote locations which could never realistically have close access to services, but should also recognise that thoughtfully planned expansion of existing communities may maintain and improve the viability of local services.243 September 2011

Written evidence from RenewableUK

1. Introduction

1.1 RenewableUK supports the principle of a National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for England. RenewableUK also welcomes the positive provisions which provide some support for renewable energy included in the draft NPPF, however in our view these need to be strengthened.

1.2 It is important to ﬁnd the right balance in the NPPF in order to ensure that the provision of clear and necessary direction on national policy priorities and appropriate planning procedures are not lost in the pursuit of a single, streamlined document. The NPPF should provide both policy and procedural direction to local authorities on a range of planning matters, from the development of local plans and policies through to the determination of individual applications. RenewableUK consider the Scottish Planning System to be a good model to follow in successfully achieving this balance between national objectives and local interests and recommend that the experiences of Scotland and Wales be given detailed consideration.

Context: The Role of Renewables

1.3 Energy is a vital planning matter and it is crucial that the UK develop a new, sustainable energy infrastructure in order to reduce carbon emissions from the energy sector; maintain security of energy supplies and minimise cost volatility for the consumer. Given the large number of power stations which will close and require replacement over the next 15 years, it is essential that we take this opportunity to rebuild our energy infrastructure—at a local as well as national scale—using renewable and low carbon technologies wherever possible.

1.4 We believe that the UK’s renewable energy targets will be best met through a diverse mix of development where well designed projects, that are in general conformity with requirements stated in the NPPF, National Policy Statements (NPSs) for Energy, Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) and where appropriate the Marine Policy Statement (MPS) should be accepted. Failure to deliver the renewable energy investment needed could leave the UK exposed to infraction proceedings from the European Commission and therefore all areas of England will need to significantly increase their levels of renewable energy generation. 241 Federation explanatory note: the paragraph has been amended in several respects. The first change is to emphasise that local planning authorities should look to allocate some sites for affordable housing. Too few do so at the moment. The second change is to make it clear that normally, the right policy approach will be to set a percentage of homes on market led sites that should be affordable. An explicit statement to this effect, leaving local planning authorities to identify alternative approaches, is important. The third change is to make it clear that it is only “exceptionally” that robust justifications will be able to be made to the “default position” that affordable housing should be provided on-site. 242 Federation explanatory note: the original wording does not encourage exception sites, which have been a valuable source of rural affordable housing over recent years. The proposed wording encourages the continuing identification of exception sites, and notes that market housing should only be used to cross subsidise this where there are good site specific viability reasons for doing so. 243 Federation explanatory note: too often new housing in rural areas is not proposed or refused because, through a simplistic tick- list assessment, settlements are deemed unsustainable. A better approach would be to encourage new housing where it can support or secure services that lead to a community as a whole being sustainable. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w253

1.5 RenewableUK wishes to emphasise the important role that renewable energy technologies play in contributing to the sustainable development of communities, in reducing the country’s carbon emissions and in mitigating the impacts of climate change. Renewable electricity is planned to contribute at least 30% of the UK’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. This will require positive planning and therefore strong support within the NPPF. 1.6 Currently renewable energy is provided for under climate change considerations in the NPPF, however climate change mitigation is just one of the beneﬁts of renewable energy. Renewable energy generation also contributes to economic development; the building of a skills base; manufacturing; and a less fossil fuel dependant society and economy. It is thus fully in line with sustainable development principles. It is a cross- cutting theme to all sections of the NPPF.

2. Summary of Key Areas of Concern: (a) Vision of the NPPF. (b) Sustainable development. (c) Planning for renewables. (d) Duty to co-operate. (e) Overarching vision of the natural environment policies. (f) Local authority resourcing. (g) Relationship with other policy and additional guidance needed.

3. Responses to the Committee’s Questions 3.1 Question 1: 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 over planning decisions? 3.1.1 Despite its pro-development theme, the NPPF does not, in RenewableUK’s view, give sufficient guidance to local authorities and developers. Our main concerns are on the following areas: (a) Structure of the NPPF. (b) Planning for Renewable Energy. (c) Duty to cooperate. (d) Natural environment policies. (e) Local authority resourcing. (f) Relationship of NPPF with Neighbourhood Plans.

(a) Structure of the NPPF 3.1.2 Renewable UK has the following concerns in terms of the current structure of the NPPF: — There is no coherent “story” or direction provided in the NPPF for local authorities and communities in developing their local plans. — There are cross-cutting themes, such as Energy, which have not been given due consideration in the document. — A lack of policy certainty will result in a lack of investor confidence across all development sectors. Renewable energy investment will be diverted outside the U K. 3.1.3 In RenewableUK’s view, it is unclear how the distinction has been made between different sections of the NPPF, such as Planning for People, Planning for Prosperity and Planning for Places. An issue such as Energy is overarching and underlies all three themes. In our view, all subsections within “Planning for Prosperity” are also planning for people and places. Green Belt has been located under “Planning for people” but in our view would it fit much better under “Planning for places” together with the “Natural environment”. 3.1.4 On this basis local authorities and communities would not be able to make a balanced decision as to what policies to include in their local plans, and developers are likely to face great uncertainty in terms of what to expect from planning policy. This could lead to relocating their investments elsewhere. 3.1.5 Should the current structure be maintained in the final version of the NPPF, it is requested that RenewableUK’s suggested provisions for energy and associated infrastructure (including transmission infrastructure) be located under “Planning for prosperity” as well as the climate change section and other relevant sections.

(b) Planning for Renewable Energy 3.1.6 In terms of guidance for investors and developers, some of the provisions in the NPPF, in particular the spatial approach to the development of wind energy, which is introduced within the climate change section, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w254 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

has the potential to deter investment confidence. RenwewableUK has the following concerns on the spatial approach: — Terminology. — A lack of policy certainty. — A lack of detail on spatial policy for renewables. 3.1.7 Currently the NPPF refers to “suitable areas” and “opportunity areas” for renewables. RenewableUK strongly opposes such wording as it is vague and open to interpretation. It therefore recommends that the NPPF instead refer to the well known and understood term “Broad Areas of Search”. 3.1.8 The Companion Guide to PPS22 contains valuable information on the planning process for renewable energy. It includes information on Broad Areas of Development for example, which should not be lost. The Guide states that the boundaries of broad areas of search should not be identified on maps, but rather that criteria-based policies should be used to identify named areas which should be expressed as indicative symbols (if they need to be mapped) rather than as areas with defined boundaries. 3.1.9 Commercial uncertainty is a significant issue which could result from a lack of policy direction in the NPPF and in Local and Neighbourhood Plans. Developers are currently putting resources into developing projects in a way that is consistent with criteria in PPS22 and LDFs. However, unless provisions are strengthened in the NPPF, it would not be clear to developers whether their proposals are in conformity with the proposed policy on renewable energy in the NPPF, thus putting investment in great risk. If there is a lack of investment and delivery of renewables, this will compromise the UK’s security of energy supply and carbon reduction obligations. 3.1.10 There is currently a link to the Energy NPSs in a footnote on page 43 of the document. We consider this to be insufficient. In particular, there could be an opportunity to have a link in an energy chapter as suggested above, as well as in a new paragraph after Paragraph 152, and a bullet point under Paragraph 153. 3.1.11 If spatial planning is to go ahead as currently drafted in the NPPF, RenewableUK recommends the following: — There will need to be a clear methodology for the planning process, to be developed with input from the industry. — There will need to be a clear evidence base, such as studies carried out to underpin the approach ultimately taken. — The duty to co-operate provisions need to be strengthened both in the NPPF and Localism Bill. — It must be made clear that local authorities cannot introduce further delay by trying to refine the overall evidence base for the spatial approach. Landscape and visual studies, for example, can take months or even years to complete. — It must be made clear that there should be no presumption against energy development outside the Broad Areas of Search, provided the criteria are met. — PPS22 advice should be applied to each determination as it applies now.

(c) Duty to cooperate 3.1.12 RenewableUK sees the lack of strong direction or requirements for the duty to co-operate as a signiﬁcant barrier for the deployment of renewable energy. The energy resource the renewables industry is reliant on (such as wind) is a cross-boundary resource and therefore if local authorities are going to be allocating “Broad Areas of Search” it is essential that cross-boundary cooperation takes place effectively and productively. This is addressed in more detail under Question 5 below, which addresses the duty to co-operate speciﬁcally.

(d) Natural Environment Policies Green Belt 3.1.13 RenewableUK recognises the important role Green Belts can play and the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt as set out in the draft NPPF. However, we have concerns that the NPPF as currently drafted would introduce restrictions on development which go beyond the requirements in existing national planning policy. These additional restrictions could undermine the provision of necessary energy infrastructure. 3.1.14 In particular, Paragraph 146—states that “When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development”. The renewables industry has serious concerns about this new policy statement which is not in the existing PPG2. We therefore wish ask that this statement be withdrawn. 3.1.15 At a practical level, a presumption against development of renewable energy projects in the Green Belt could have signiﬁcant negative implications for the achievement of carbon emissions reduction targets and the security of electricity supply. Most of the major urban areas in the country are surrounded by Green cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w255

Belt, which could be the perfect location for appropriate renewables infrastructure, such as wind turbines, which does not detract from the purposes of the green belt. This would allow energy generation to be close to demand and away from more environmentally sensitive areas. At the same time Green Belt land would be able to make a valuable contribution to renewable energy generation, where there are appropriate conditions for it.

Health of the Natural Environment 3.1.16 Paragraph 164 contains the actions needed to achieve the objective of a healthy natural environment. Renewable energy has a key role to play in achieving and maintaining this objective by contributing to a less resource-intensive society and economy. RenewableUK therefore considers that this merits the inclusion of two additional bullet points under Paragraph 164, to cover the promotion of a less resource-intensive society and economy; and the deployment of renewable energy.

Development in the Landscape 3.1.17 Paragraph 167 includes objectives in relation to protected valued landscapes, and bullet point four more speciﬁcally relates to major developments in designated areas. A new item is suggested to be included to cover the need for national and wider considerations (such as climate change and carbon emissions reductions) to be considered in exceptional circumstances where development is in the public interest.

Biodiversity 3.1.18 Paragraph 169 outlines the principles that need to be applied in order to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Bullet point two relates to development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity. A balance needs to be struck between protecting biodiversity locally, protecting biodiversity on a wider scale, and the process of achieving a less resource-intensive society. The achievement of such a society would in itself provide for the protection of biodiversity on all levels. RenewableUK therefore requests that the bullet point be amended to include a weighing up against national considerations, such as the security of energy supply and carbon reduction obligations.

Preventing Unacceptable Risk 3.1.19 Paragraph 173 relates to preventing unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability. Bullet point 3 seeks that local authorities identify and protect “areas of tranquility”. There is no rationale for this as change in the urban and rural landscape is a constant process. Such provisions should not be misinterpreted as barriers to the development of renewable energy. The functions provided by this bullet point are already catered for in the provision of National Parks, hence it is requested to be deleted. Additionally, noise is not a determinative issue for wind energy development and should not be dealt with under the NPPF. 3.1.20 On the basis of the comments above, it is recommended that: — The NPPF should not impose additional and unduly restrictive barriers to the deployment of renewable energy in Local Green Areas and Green Belt. — Renewable energy be included on the list of development which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt. — There should be careful coordination between the NPPF and the Natural Environment White Paper, without introducing additional barriers to the deployment of renewable energy.

(e) Local Authority Resourcing 3.1.21 Given that local authority budgets are being cut by one third, there is signiﬁcant uncertainty in terms of their staff levels and knowledge base. RenewableUK is particularly concerned about how local authorities would be able to take on a number of new tasks, including the reworking of their local plan structure. RenewableUK would be happy to discuss with Government how local authorities could be resourced for the delivery of renewable energy objectives.

(f) Relationship of NPPF with Local and Neighbourhood plans 3.1.22 RenewableUK’s view is that the NPPF should make it clear that Local and Neighbourhood Plans should not preclude renewable energy developments in general or in large parts of their plan. Currently, due to the limitations of some plans, renewable energy developments do not always receive political support at local level, despite the urgent national need for addressing security of energy supply and climate change objectives.

3.2 Question 2: Is the deﬁnition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 3.2.1 The NPPF refers to sustainable development as deﬁned in the Brundtland Report—Our Common Future. RenewableUK agrees that sustainable development is about the interaction of the environment, society and the economy. However, one key point of true sustainability, which is not well articulated in the NPPF, is cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w256 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

that both the economy and society operate within the limits of the environment. The deployment of renewable energy ensures that this can be continued into the future. 3.2.2 Strong sustainability, with renewable energy, should be the overarching concept of the NPPF, and this should be stated very clearly. Only then would the statement in paragraph 11 that “there is not necessarily contradiction between increased levels of development and protecting and enhancing the environment” be put into true context. Sustainable development is only possible if development respects the limits of the environment as a ﬁnite resource. 3.2.3 As currently drafted, the NPPF can be misinterpreted to read that any growth should be encouraged— as stated in paragraph 13 for example. The NPPF needs to clearly state that truly sustainable (in an environmental as 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 other references to encouraging growth throughout the NPPF, such as in Paragraphs 10, 14 and 17, which need to be clariﬁed in the same way.

3.3 Question 3: Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 3.3.1 RenewableUK supports the introduction of “core planning principles”, however we believe that some changes are required in order to make them clearer and more appropriate, as follows: — Bullet point 1 states that planning should be genuinely plan led. This principle is supported, however policy ticking should not be encouraged and decision—making should be a balancing exercise. Due to the limitations of some plans, they do not always contain positive policy provisions for renewable energy at the local level. Thus the NPPF should give as much support as possible to this type of development. — Bullet point 2 states that development should be supported and proactively driven—the type of development needs to be deﬁned, ie “high-quality, less resource-intensive development this country needs”. The bullet point also refers to the key sustainable development principles set out in this framework—these are not clearly stated. If this is a reference to the roles of planning in Paragraph 10, this should be clariﬁed. — Bullet point 7 refers to reuse of existing (eg existing buildings) and renewable resources (eg renewable energy)—this point is supported by RenewableUK with a request for an addition—the development of renewable energy and associated infrastructure should be referred to as well.

3.4 Question 4: Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? NPPF Relationship with the Natural Environment White Paper 3.4.1 RenewableUK has significant concerns about the integration of the Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) and NPPF policy provisions. In particular, the significant role that the planning system is expected to play in bringing forward NEWP proposals is clear and the importance of getting these proposals right at the outset should not be underestimated. In order for these proposals to work most effectively, it is vital that Defra and DCLG work in close cooperation with one another, and with the renewables industry, in open and early dialogue to ensure that these initiatives do not thwart the delivery of wider sustainable development objectives and the long term prosperity of the country. 3.4.2 Proposals for further restrictions on development within the landscape should not unnecessarily hinder the development of much needed green energy infrastructure, and the contribution it can make to carbon reduction obligations. Such measures would be contrary to existing planning policy and the spirit of the 2009 Renewable Energy Directive. Wind energy, and other forms of renewable energy bring significant environmental benefits and should not be subject to further barriers to deployment in areas which would otherwise be suitable for development. 3.4.3 It is vital that proposals contained within the White Paper, and their implementation through the NPPF, do not frustrate the development of other pillars of national policy such as economic growth and sustainable development, including the deployment of much needed clean energy infrastructure. The benefits of renewable energy development in preserving and enhancing ecosystems, through carbon reduction and agricultural diversification should be recognised. Additionally, the NPPF should not impose additional and unduly restrictive barriers to the deployment of renewable energy in Local Green Areas.

NPPF Relationship with other Policy 3.4.4 RenewableUK welcomes the consolidation of existing policy statements and guidance into a single, streamlined document such as the NPPF. However, we believe that its links with the Energy NPSs in particular need to be strengthened. 3.4.5 Given the underpinning technical work, consultations and recent Parliamentary scrutiny/approval of the Energy NPSs, RenewableUK strongly believes that the NPPF should conﬁrm them as a material cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w257

consideration under the TCPA regime, as well as the primary policy document for the nationally signiﬁcant infrastructure project (NSIP) regime. 3.4.6 It is requested that a new bullet point be included under Paragraph 153, instead of Footnote 8 on page 43 of the NPPF, which refers to the Energy NPS, Broad Areas of Search and development size. It is RenewableUK’s view that this would be a clearer and more logical layout of the guidance.

Additional/Compiled Guidance Need 3.4.7 RenewableUK has a concern that some important existing guidance may be lost in the process of policy consolidation. In particular, we wish to see that key aspects of existing guidance contained in PPS22, including on the sequential approach for renewables, be retained. Developments under “Other locational considerations”, paragraph 16 of PPS22 explicitly states that renewable energy projects should not be subject to a sequential approach as they can only be developed where the resource exists and where economically feasible. This position should be retained in the NPPF. 3.4.8 The Companion Guide to PPS22 contains valuable information on the planning process for renewable energy. It includes information on Broad Areas of Development for example, which should not be lost. The Guide states that the boundaries of broad areas of search should not be identiﬁed on maps, but rather that criteria-based policies should be used to identify named areas which should be expressed as indicative symbols (if they need to be mapped) rather than as areas with deﬁned boundaries. 3.4.9 RenewableUK would also suggest that additional guidance be prepared on Broad Areas of Search for renewable energy projects, if the spatial approach as proposed, is to be retained in the NPPF. If required, RenewableUK would be happy to assist the Government in putting together such guidance. 3.4.10 In terms of the NPPF’s relationship with Local and Neighbourhood Plans, we believe that it is essential that the NPPF spell out that Neighbourhood Plans should align with and support the delivery of the strategic aims of the NPPF and Local Plans.

3.5 Question 5: Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger- than-local strategic planning? 3.5.1 Given that the NPPF is not enshrined within the Localism Bill, and therefore it is Government policy rather than part of statute, the renewables industry has consistently called for Government to strengthen the “Duty to Co-operate” provisions of the Localism Bill to place an obligation on local authorities to positively plan for renewables infrastructure, particularly across boundaries. This is vital, since housing and commercial developments in one local authority area could have a major impact on another local authority area, due to the resulting increased energy requirements. Positively planning for this, with early engagement with the energy (and renewable energy) industry, will guard against a piecemeal approach, which is more costly and often has a bigger impact on the environment and surrounding community. This would enable a more strategic approach to energy provision. 3.5.2 RenewableUK welcomes the NPPF provisions to enable local planning authorities to jointly plan for development and infrastructure across boundaries, however we consider them to be very weak provisions which need to be strengthened. We have the following concerns: — A lack of cross-boundary planning will result in ad-hoc approach to much needed strategic infrastructure development, which will have a knock-on effect on all other forms of growth. — Without active assessment of, and planning for, renewable energy (and other) infrastructure, local authorities could be faced with shortfalls in network capacity and/or electricity supplies and the delivery of the UK’s energy needs as well as climate change targets as a whole could be jeopardised. 3.5.3 The NPPF places much emphasis on the need for additional housing and other development, yet it is essential that local authorities talk to energy companies to understand likely increases in demand arising from housing/other growth. Without active assessment of, and planning for, renewable energy (and other) infrastructure, local authorities could be faced with shortfalls in network capacity. 3.5.4 RenewableUK therefore recommends that: — provisions in the NPPF be strengthened to include a speciﬁc duty to jointly plan for strategic infrastructure and renewable energy and associated infrastructure in particular, across local boundaries. — The Duty to co-operate provisions in the Localism Bill need to be strengthened.

3.6 Question 6: Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based? 3.6.1 Renewable energy is not extensively covered within the NPPF, however in the case that the provisions that are in there, including spatial provisions are retained, these should be supported by: cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w258 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— Widely referencing the Energy NPSs which, given the level of underpinning technical work, public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny/approval, provide strong evidence for both the urgent national need for all forms of renewable and low-carbon energy development and provide considerable useful detail/evidence. — Clear wording and explicit references are needed in the NPPF to ensure that natural environment policies, such as Green Belt and Local Green Areas are sufﬁciently evidence based and do not become additional barriers to the development or renewable energy.

3.6.2 In terms of spatial planning, developers already carefully consider the environmental suitability of locations when deciding where to build energy developments. The NPPF encourages local authorities to apply a spatial approach to renewable energy. Should this be implemented, it is vital that any spatial planning should be consistent and rigorous, and take into account the full range of other issues, including: — Natural resource availability/physiological factors (such as wind speed, proximity to water sources, geological suitability etc.) — Physical constraints (access to the grid system, road access, existing infrastructure/other impacts that may constrain a development, such as proximity to aircraft/bridlepaths etc). — Planning and environment constraints (health and safety, environment, air/water quality). — Public consultation and industry engagement.

3.7 Question 7: A brief general assessment of the ﬁtness for purpose of the draft Framework as a whole

3.7.1 In summary, in RenewableUK’s view the NPPF as currently drafted is not ﬁt for purpose for the following reasons: — It lacks policy direction and detail for local authorities, communities and developers. — It fails to properly integrate sustainable development principles. — There is an under-representation of Energy issues in the document. — Lack of integration with other environmental policy. September 2011

Written evidence from the Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC)

The Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) is the professional body of the United Kingdom representing conservation specialists and historic environment practitioners in the public and private sectors. The Institute exists to establish the highest standards of conservation practice, to support the effective protection and enhancement of the historic environment, and to promote heritage-led regeneration and access to the historic environment for all.

The core of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is described as sustainable development. The NPPF covers England but sustainable development must be taken from a UK wide perspective.

In 2005 the government produced “Securing the future, delivering UK sustainable development strategy” and whilst the Government statement in England on sustainable development has been developed in 2011 through “Mainstreaming sustainable development—The Government’s vision and what this means in practice” this approach takes into account England only. The earlier document was UK wide and agreed and supported by the devolved administrations. The application of a UK wide policy cannot be considered to be superseded by the new DEFRA policy covering England. There has been substantial debate about the sustainable development credentials of the NPPF and as a result it can be considered incompatible with the ﬁve principles of sustainable development laid out in UK strategy which stated “These principles will form the basis for policy in the UK. For a policy to be sustainable, it must respect all ﬁve of these principles”.

The NPPF should be considered in the context of, and by extension supported by, contributions by the devolved governments as part of the UK wide approach to sustainable development. September 2011

Written evidence from the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM)

The Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM) is the professional body which represents around 7,000 waste management professionals, predominantly in the UK but also overseas. The CIWM sets the professional standards for individuals working in the waste management industry and has various grades of membership determined by education, qualiﬁcation and experience. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w259

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE EXAMINATION OF DRAFT NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) 1. The waste and resource management sector has the potential to make a signiﬁcant contribution to the green economy, supporting economic development, resource efﬁciency and the energy and climate change agendas. Estimates suggest that between £10 and £20 billion of new waste infrastructure will be needed across the UK by 2020. However, planning issues remain a key barrier to delivery. The draft NPPF is therefore highly relevant to CIWM.

2. Summary: — CIWM is disappointed that waste has been left out of the draft NPPF. — CIWM remains to be convinced that the NPPF properly implements its own deﬁnition of sustainable development. — If waste is dealt with outside of the NPPF, it will be vital to ensure that the interface between speciﬁc waste and resource planning policy and the general planning principles embodied in the NPPF (much of which could be supportive of our industry) is effectively managed. — CIWM does not think that the NPPF, on its own, will deal with the challenges of larger-than-local planning issues. This is extremely relevant to our sector, which cannot be planned effectively on an entirely local basis. — CIWM is looking for an urgent resolution of these issues. Large amounts of new waste infrastructure need to be built over the next decade if the UK is to meet its ambitious environmental ambitions. We cannot afford a lengthy transitional period while the new planning framework replaces the old.

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 over planning decisions? 3. For the resource and waste management sector there is a vacuum. It is disappointing that waste has been orphaned out of the NPPF (see paragraph 7 of the draft NPPF); this undermines the principle of unified planning policy. PPS 10 contains important and necessary detail that could be transferred, without waiting for the Waste Management Plan (WMP). If there is to be no equivalent governmental guidance, this could leave planning professionals with insufficient information on which to base important and complex decisions on waste planning cases. CIWM thinks a significant piece of work would then need to be done by professional institutions in planning and relevant environmental professions to make sure information, skills and relevant guidance can be made available in sufficient time. CIWM is happy to commit to this but would always prefer to see guidance offered the proper status by being Government derived. 4. CIWM feels it is crucial that the NPPF should stress the importance of local planning authorities developing and publishing their local Plan, as this will allow them to interpret the NPPF properly in the context of their local circumstances, and will empower local people. However, local waste plans also need the right emphasis and attention, as these will help locally elected members to have the confidence to support waste infrastructure projects when they accord with the local waste plan.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable a balanced and workable approach? 5. Having waste taken out of the draft NPPF makes it particularly difficult to answer this question as the resource and waste management sector is left waiting for further elements of planning policy/strategy. For example the Waste Management Plan (WMP) is still awaited and CIWM is unsure of the relationship of the NPPF and the WMP. 6. However, in broad terms, CIWM feels that although the definition of sustainable development proposed in paragraph 9 of the draft NPPF is fine, the interpretation of that definition, as set out in the following paragraphs, is more problematic. For example, paragraph 13 moves from supporting “sustainable development” to “sustainable economic growth”. However, the two are not synonymous. Paragraph 14 suggests that “Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible.” This does not appear to implement the trade-off between economic, social and environmental goals that is at the heart of sustainable development.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 7. The Institution is unclear as to whether the general principles contained in the NPPF apply to the resource and waste industry, as they apply to other sectors; waste is not included in the Framework. It is therefore difﬁcult for us to comment on this issue directly. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w260 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 8. Since the Framework explicitly excludes the resource and waste sector, which is to be dealt with later, it is difficult at this stage to comment on the first issue. Perhaps the best way to overcome this would be to incorporate resource and waste into the NPPF. CIWM is seeking advice from Government as to why resources and waste have been left out of the NPPF. If resource and waste issues are not re-incorporated back into the NPPF, CIWM would welcome some assurances about the way that the interface between the NPPF, Waste Management Plan and other elements of the waste planning regime will be managed.

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 9. The larger-than-local scale is very important for the resource and waste sector; there are links to economic development when using resources and waste, and economies of scale as well as of investment, favouring facilities that draw feedstocks and serve markets that are not bound by artificial local boundaries. 10. The NPPF does not appear to deal sufficiently with this scale of planning, CIWM needs to see much more detail regarding the operation, resourcing and support of the “duty to cooperate” before we will be able to have confidence in its ability to deliver greater than local thinking and action on resources. Previously set- up regional collaboration frameworks (RTABs) have now been variously disbanded. This means there is a need for a National Planning Statement (NPS) for resources and waste to fill the gap between the scale of project that will be dealt with by the major infrastructure planning unit and entirely local planning. 11. The waste and resource management sector needs a planning system that is capable both of delivering the waste infrastructure that is needed for a greener economy and of protecting natural resources and the natural environment. This needs to happen at multiple scales; it is not clear to CIWM that the draft NPPF can deliver this without further thought.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? 12. CIWM believes that the UK is going to need significant changes to waste and resource management infrastructure—collection systems, treatment and distribution of outputs, etc—if it is to make a proper contribution to sustainable living. The existing planning system has proven to be slow and expensive, as well as vulnerable to overturn and appeal—for example, the CBI recently reported that it takes seven years on average for a waste management company to get a plant up and running, of which four years are spent in the planning process. Therefore, whilst the existing system is capable of developing strategies and approving individual applications, as an industry we have long been calling for improvements to the system. Whilst high level concepts contained in the NPPF may lead to streamlining planning and delivery, for our sector it is unclear what relationship we are likely to have with the final NPPF, given our exclusion from it. The resource and waste industry will therefore find this particular question hard to answer, until further policy/strategy has been issued. September 2011

Writtten evidence from the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport (ADEPT) The Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport (ADEPT) represents local authority Strategic Directors who manage some of the most pressing issues facing the UK today. The expertise of ADEPT members and their vision is fundamental in the handling of issues that affect all our lives. Operating at the strategic tier of local government they are responsible for crucial transport, waste management, environment, planning, energy and economic development issues. ADEPT membership is drawn from all four corners of the United Kingdom. ADEPT welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to this Select Committee, having undertaken signiﬁcant work on reform of planning in the past, including contributing to debate on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. ADEPT recognises that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has received a lot of media coverage and many groups have provided initial views and picked up on technical issues. Rather than focusing on technical issues, ADEPT wants to highlight a number of fundamental areas where it believes that further attention is needed including through the Select Committee process. These include: 1. Two-tier area workings: Whilst the NPPF recognises that in The Capital there is a need for a strategic approach taking into account the intricacies of two-tier working, there is a policy disconnect with the rest of the Country. It fails to understand and address the workings of two-tier areas and the roles of County Councils which relate to the planning system, particularly in relation to infrastructure planning and provision, supporting economic growth and creating sustainable communities. An example of this is the vagueness in paragraph 45 on the issues which require a more strategic approach. ADEPT believes that there are signiﬁcant risks with not having a strategic overview of local directions. The cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w261

NPPF also fails to make a link with the statutory Local Economic Assessments, prepared by upper tier authorities, which could and should provide a valuable evidence basis for Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans and the strategic infrastructure framework supported by ADEPT and others (see below). 2. Infrastructure: A step change in growth and productivity is dependent on the infrastructure being in place to enable it to happen. This includes the provision of fibre optic networks, roads, schools or other infrastructure. It also requires a more than local approach. Whilst this is acknowledged by the approach that Government is currently taking to the roll out of next generation broadband, it is not dealt with sufficiently in the NPPF. A mechanism is needed to enable, and ensure, a strategic approach to infrastructure. Also to ensure that this is developed, and determined, on a joint basis. ADEPT proposes that this should involve a requirement to prepare a strategic infrastructure framework. ADEPT supports amendments to the Bill which have been introduced in the House of Lords on this matter. 3. Viability: The view of ADEPT (and indeed many others) is that the NPPF takes a too narrow view of viability—focusing only from the developers perspective. ADEPT believes that this is flawed as it fails to address viability from the public or community perspective should a development proposal place an unaffordable costs on the public purse. It should not be the role of local communities to under-write the costs associated with the impact of development as this should be properly borne by developers. Not all development can be viable at all times and it would be wrong to set viability criteria at the bottom of the economic cycle. 4. Transition to a new system: ADEPT believes that this needs to be carefully managed and Government needs to move quickly to avoid lengthy uncertainty. The transition also needs to be properly resourced (including resources for local authorities). September 2011

Written evidence from Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) is the national body of the Rural Community Action Network. Our members are charitable local development agencies that provide local support for rural communities throughout rural England. They act as a catalyst in generating community-led initiatives which enhance the vibrancy, well-being and sustainability of rural communities. Our members specialise in supporting communities to undertake community-led planning (parish and town plans) for which the Localism Bill measures on Neighbourhood Planning will, for the ﬁrst time, provide a statutory framework. Our network has a genuine focus on sustainable development, tackling social, economic and environmental needs of local communities in a way that entails positive planning for sustainable change. In particular, the rural housing enablers employed by our members, have worked over many years to encourage communities to recognise local affordable housing needs and achieve solutions which beneﬁt from strong community support.

Summary of Evidence ACRE has addressed overleaf the first four of the six questions in the call for evidence. Whilst broadly supportive of many of its principles: — We cannot agree with the implicit assumption that all development can be judged beneficial because of its contribution to overall housing numbers. — The “degree of certainty” principle does not extend to communities that adopt a positive approach to planning for future housing, facilities and services. The Right to Plan should not be undermined by the right of developers to overturn the plan at a subsequent date. — There is insufficient scope in the new proposals on green space designation to reinforce the value and principles of a plan-led system that can direct the right scale of development to the right sites at the right time, thereby maximising the benefit to sustainable development. — The transition to the new arrangements will be the biggest challenge for local authorities, inspectors and communities alike. We anticipate that the NPPF will herald a period of “planning by appeal”, rather than relying on adherence to the current plan-led system. — We are concerned that the purpose of neighbourhood plans, which we strongly support, will be thwarted by communities rushing to prepare plans that make use of the new Green Space Designation in an attempt to control ad hoc development. — The approach to viability, deliverability and infrastructure contributions may prove to be in conflict in rural areas and lead to underfunded services and failure to maximise the potential for affordable housing. — The encouragement to small scale development in rural areas to achieve affordable housing is welcome, but needs reconfiguring to achieve maximum potential. We believe that the NPPF should explicitly retain rural exception sites to confirm it is still an allowable policy for local plans cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w262 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— There are unintended encouragements in the NPPF for local planning authorities to adopt quasi—“key settlement hierarchy” policies to restrict development in rural communities via their deﬁnition of sustainable development, which may condemn many small rural communities to inherent unsustainability.

1. 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 over planning decisions? Our view is that it is the transition to the new arrangements that will be the biggest challenge for local authorities, inspectors and communities alike. Whereas the NPPF is currently out for consultation, the Planning Inspectorate issued advice to inspectors in August that states they are able, from now on, to give “some” material weight to the emerging NPPF in deciding planning appeals on site-specific applications.244 A local authority may apply for a certificate of conformity with the NPPF under a system yet to be defined by government. This will help authorities that have already adopted local plans, or are about to do so, to avoid later arguments by developers on non-compliance with the NPPF during public examination or appeal processes. However, we assume that existing local plan policies that adopt a normal presumption against development in the countryside will have to be removed to achieve compliance, because these would be in conflict with the NPPF. In the short term, adopted or emerging local plans will not have envisaged the presumption for development which is inherent within the NPPF. Even though a test of conformity is obtained, the plan may not contain any equivalent of the proposed Local Green Space Designation on specific sites where development should be discouraged. It is therefore highly likely that planning decisions during the transition period will begin to centre on the degree of material weight given by planning appeal inspectors to the emerging NPPF. This, in turn, may herald a period of “planning by appeal”, testing out that degree of weight, rather than relying on adherence to the current plan-led system. We believe that the NPPF polarises the debate at an appeal, consideration of which is limited to a particular site. The NPPF presumption for development except in the most valued landscape and countryside means that it is difficult to take account of whether this is the right development proposal of the right scale and in the right place. Instead, it will be a matter of deciding between two extreme points of view on whether the site deserves protection. The result is that decision-making at appeal will downgrade the validity of the local plan policies which may have positively allocated other, more suitable areas for development, in favour of allowing sequential growth on an ad hoc basis. For local communities, nothing will do more damage to the credence given by local people to the planning system, or do more damage to the level of volunteering effort that local people are prepared to offer to make positive planning work. According to the draft NPPF, green space designations can only be made when a plan is prepared or reviewed. Retrofitting existing plans does not appear easy. The transition phase would extend to the point at which a revised formal development plan document could be adopted. For a local plan that has been recently adopted, the prospect of an early return to the huge bureaucracy and cost of formal consultation and Examination in Public may be unwelcome. For some planning authorities, this transition period could therefore last many years. However, when the Localism Bill is enacted, Neighbourhood Plans can also include green space designations and the timetable for their development is not tied to the local plan cycle. Designations would need to meet the specified NPPF criteria and not compromise the strategic policies in the local plan. Government wishes to see neighbourhood plans contributing to housing growth above and beyond the local plan. However, unless the NPPF transition issues are resolved, it would seem that the driver for communities will be more about trying to exercise some control over ad hoc, developer-led growth in the non-designated countryside. For ACRE’s members, this presents a challenge in supporting communities to think positively about local needs on housing, facilities and services. ACRE will be advocating for better means by which the transition to the new arrangements can be managed, to avoid the worst impacts highlighted above: These include: — More clarity as to whether all development is seen as beneficial simply for the housing numbers it can deliver. — Temporary measures to provide a bridge between the global countryside policies that will lose effect under the NPPF and the introduction and adoption of formal green space designations, including potential options of using Supplementary Planning Documents. 244 http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/advice_for_inspectors/nppf_consult.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w263

— Measures to avoid the use of single-issue neighbourhood plans during the transition period whilst giving conﬁdence to communities that holistic plans will deliver stronger inﬂuence under the NPPF.

2. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? Sustainable development is confirmed in the NPPF as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. We agree this should be the guiding principle, and believe this implies the planning system should focus on a long term, plan-led, but enabling approach to development. The NPPF says that, for planning, sustainable development means planning for prosperity, people and for places, balancing the needs of the economy, housing and services with enhancing and protecting the environment. We also agree with this. Furthermore, we also accept that this is not always a trade-off or compromise—in many cases, for instance, economic growth can deliver improvements to the environment. However, government places particular emphasis on sustainable economic growth through positive planning. To achieve this, the draft NPPF makes a fundamental change to the planning system so that local authorities should grant permission where the local plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or out of date, or where refusal is justified by overriding reasons based on sustainable development principles. The implication is that the government’s vision of sustainable developmental is that all development is inherently assumed to bring benefit, because of its contribution to housing numbers. We do not agree. To impose the proposed balance in protecting the valued landscape and countryside, all future local plans would include the new green space designations on specific sites which provide justification for refusing development. But such designations have to be evidenced, used sparingly and adopted through a formal plan process. Housing developments, however, do not have to justify the benefit they bring, nor do they have to be debated or consulted upon during the plan preparation period. The NPPF is therefore a long way from adopting a reasonable balance between economic, social and environmental objectives. Development in the right place, of the right scale and of the right kind, according to what has been adopted in the local plan, can bring benefits to existing communities, but may be less appropriate to pursue once other ad hoc development have been allowed under the presumption for growth. Communities will not take kindly to a system that reduces certainty in achieving their carefully constructed neighbourhood plans, seeing them de-railed instead by sequential planning permissions granted through the presumption for growth. The purpose of neighbourhood planning is to give communities the power to shape development in their local area. Provided they adopt a positive attitude to planning for housing growth, it seems reasonable to ensure that development outside areas designated for housing has to have a higher justification than simply its contribution to housing numbers. The NPPF limits the use of green space designations and this in turn reduces its potential use as a means of preserving the integrity of a neighbourhood plan. To overcome this, a compromise might be to significantly reduce the weight given to the presumption for growth if the development proposal was not identified with an adopted neighbourhood plan.

3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? We believe that the core planning principles are clearly expressed in term of development of local and neighbourhood plans. However, it is at the planning application stage that the principles are confounded by the “presumption for development”. It is the definition of a local plan being “silent”, that is in question. We assume that local authorities can no longer include generic protection of the countryside policies that discourage development, because this would conflict with the NPPF presumption for development. We are concerned that the concept of a plan-led system is inconsistent with the default answer being “yes” where there is a gap in the measures that local planning authorities can use to justify refusal. The proposed list of designations of sites which form the basis of justifying refusal are powerful but limited in the extent to which they can be used. Significant areas of the hinterland of rural communities will be vulnerable to unplanned development applications, The “degree of certainty” expressed in the first planning principle does not therefore extend to communities that have adopted a positive approach to planning for future housing, facilities and services, yet are faced with the prospect of other unplanned developments being approved. The Right to Plan should not be undermined by the right of developers to overturn the plan at a subsequent date.

4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? We are concerned that the thrust of the NPPF proposals is to view planning as achieving a balance between growth of housing numbers and preserving the best and most valuable countryside. We do not think this is consistent with all the other factors that underpin sustainable development. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w264 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

In particular, we are concerned at interpretations of the sections on viability and deliverability and sections that address delivering quality developments that meet local needs. The emphasis on viability does carry risks for rural areas. Assessing viability, in terms of the ﬁnancial return to the landowner/developer, will be a combination of two factors tested at different parts of the planning/ development control process. This contrasts with the custom and practice in most rural communities where discussions on what would make a development acceptable take place when speciﬁc proposals are on the table. In rural communities, local facilities and services are often provided by the community themselves. Communities must rapidly acquire skills in assessing and advocating, at the local plan development stage, for the infrastructure needs related to various scales of development. Whereas the process of neighbourhood planning has been explored by government, we are unaware of any initiative that has linked this to the accompanying burden that communities will now need to carry as a result of the switch to the community infrastructure levy process. Clarity is needed on whether issues concerning infrastructure contributions can be revisited for a particular community or group of communities as part of a neighbourhood planning process. The NPPF appears to state that planning authorities should err on the side of accepting reduced infrastructure contributions, rather than using this as a reason for refusing applications. Where infrastructure costs are expensive compared to the scale of development proposed—a situation which is particularly relevant to rural communities—it would appear that achieving a compromise decision can only lead to the community receiving less in the way of infrastructure from a development than it would otherwise warrant. The NPPF approach to viability and infrastructure costs should, we propose, distinguish between developments that are part of a local or neighbourhood plan and developments which are likely to be approved via a presumption for growth policy. An unplanned development may require far more in terms of infrastructure to make them acceptable. Such additional costs may no longer be recoverable under the Section 106 obligations, yet were not able to be included in the infrastructure delivery calculations when the local or neighbourhood plan was developed. If the planning authority also has to consider reducing its planned infrastructure contributions in the light of the viability of the proposed development, then this seems to be a recipe for underfunded services and facilities in rural areas. In summary, we feel this compromises the ability of the NPPF to satisfy and integrate the objectives of departments across government which would not wish to see reduction in funding for essential services or facilities due to the viability and deliverability tests. Secondly, we do not think the NPPF adequately integrates measures to address the constraints and opportunities that relate to Defra’s aims of creating vibrant and sustainable rural communities, for the following reasons.

Quasi-key Settlement Policies Throughout the NPPF, the principle of locating housing development close to services is reafﬁrmed. In rural areas, the NPPF states that housing should not be located in places distant from local services. Where large scale development is proposed in less sustainable locations, local planning authorities should require investment to improve the sustainability of the site. The policy encouraging proximity of housing to services appears to support “key settlement hierarchies” that, under the guise of testing sustainable development principles, prohibit development in rural communities that cannot sustain the required services. All investigations into creating vibrant rural communities have argued against such approaches, since they condemn most small rural communities to inherent unsustainability. Whereas this may not be the intention, and other proposals on allowing small scale developments in rural areas demonstrate this, we are nevertheless concerned about two unintended consequences of measures in the NPPF that will encourage such policies: — Local authorities may introduce key settlement hierarchies into a local plan under the guise of sustainable development principles as a blunt instrument to defend rural communities from unplanned development in the countryside as a result of the presumption for growth. — The test of viability appears in conﬂict with the policy on requiring investment in infrastructure for development sites in less sustainable locations. If this requirement makes the development proposal not viable, the NPPF argues that this should not be the only reason for refusal. The result is that in certain rural areas, all development may be considered “unviable”.

Rural Affordable Housing We applaud the speciﬁc mention of the need for affordable housing in rural areas, which is entirely consistent with Defra’s priorities on rural housing. But we are not sure whether the measures chosen to deliver this will be as successful as they could be. The NPPF directs councils to be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing to reﬂect local requirements, especially for affordable housing. It also allows for local planning authorities to cross-subsidise affordable housing with open market housing to meet local needs. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w265

We understand that rural exception sites will still be allowable, provided relevant local planning policies exist. The NPPF Impact Assessment covers the role played by rural exception sites and rightly mentions that affordability is a key barrier in extending its use. However, we urge that confirmation within the NPPF is given that local planning authorities can retain exception sites as another “tool in the box”. ACRE acknowledges that cross-subsidy on small scale developments in rural communities may, in the current climate of public investment, be a successful approach to funding affordable housing for which there is a widespread need across almost all rural areas. However, we are disappointed that the proposals focus on an open market model where a high proportion of affordable housing might be obtained. The proposals in the NPPF will support landowner expectation that the site qualifies as an open market site and from which they can realise open market value by negotiating down the proportion of affordable housing, particularly when the viability and deliverability tests are applied. We would prefer this turned around to a policy that distinguishes such sites from normal development and acknowledges that the aim of such a development is primarily to satisfy local affordable housing needs that have been adequately evidenced. Under such a policy, it follows that the proportion of market housing allowable on such a site is sufficient only to make the scheme viable. This reinforces the understanding that the only justification for development of the site is its contribution sustainable development in providing affordable housing, with consequent effect on the anticipated financial return to the landowner. Such a proposal is more likely to be acceptable to a local community that has been encouraged to recognise and solve their local housing problems. Without this change of emphasis, we are uncertain whether communities would wish to make positive plans for such sites, as they currently do for exception sites, when they have no guarantee that the expected quantum of affordable housing will materialise. We are also concerned, that, to meet rural needs, the ability to retain affordable housing for local people “in perpetuity” is a key factor in persuading communities to accept small scale affordable housing developments. Although not stated directly, we believe that the intention is that restriction of enfranchisement rights and housing nomination processes (which are currently deliverable by exception site policies) will not be allowable within neighbourhood plans, although they would be allowable in Community Right to Build Orders. We see absolutely no justification for this anomaly. It will be a strong inhibitor for those communities that accept the need for some affordable development as part of a neighbourhood plan, but would not support it if the affordable element could not be retained in perpetuity. In summary, we consider that there is much in the NPPF that could be used to support positive planning in rural areas. We acknowledge that this could result in benefit to local people, local community facilities, services and the quality of the environment. However, if the planning system is to gain credence with local communities, and lead them to volunteer their effort in participating in plan-making, there are unintended impacts from policies in the draft NPPF which urgently need addressing prior to implementation. September 2011

Written evidence from the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 1. The North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) unit welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee’s inquiry on the draft NPPF. This submission has been informed by extensive discussions both within the partnership of the North Wessex Downs AONB and among ofﬁcers of South East and East Protected Landscapes (SEPL, the group that brings together National Parks and AONBs across the two regions). The views expressed here do not, however, necessarily represent the collective or individual positions of individual members of the North Wessex Downs AONB partnership or SEPL.

Overview of the Draft NPPF 2. The draft NPPF would turn our existing planning system on its head. It would fundamentally change the purpose of planning from making decisions on land use in the wider public interest to facilitating (principally economic) development. 3. England is one of the most, if not the most, urban and densely populated countries in Europe, so almost every scrap of land is hotly contested by competing interests. Despite this, our sophisticated system of strong planning controls has delivered significant benefits for society, the economy and sustainability in recent decades. In the face of intense demographic, economic and political pressure to do otherwise, it has enabled England and the UK largely to retain a clear distinction between urban and rural areas, to conserve large tracts of open country and direct much of the pressure for development to regeneration of under-used existing urban land, buildings and infrastructure. 4. The draft NPPF essentially abandons or severely weakens several foundations of the system that has given us these benefits. These include: — the priority accorded to channelling development pressures to achieve and support urban regeneration, in particular the sequential (“brownfield first” approach to site allocation and release; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w266 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— unambiguous policies and minimum standards to require and encourage more efficient use of land, including minimum housing densities and maximum car parking standards; — an emphasis on encouraging more efficient location of different kinds of associated development so as to reduce the need to travel and, by extension, its economic, social and environmental costs; — the town centre first approach to shopping, leisure and office development; and — longstanding and effective policies to protect the “ordinary” (ie undesignated) countryside for its intrinsic value.

5. It would also signiﬁcantly weaken protection for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and National Parks and their setting against damaging development, and make it much harder to achieve the objectives set out in the Government’s own Natural Environment White Paper.

Speciﬁc Questions

Is the deﬁnition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate?

6. The definition of sustainable development given in paragraph 10 of the draft NPPF is flawed because it appears to posit planning as principally a tool for promoting and enabling economic development. This is perhaps most clearly shown in the title “Delivering sustainable development” as if sustainability were entirely about building things. The Government appears to have ignored decades of careful thinking and experience about the concept of sustainable development that was the focus of the Rio Earth Summit and redefined it as development in the strict legal sense of the Town and Country Planning Acts.

7. Its reference to natural resources, some of which, eg water, are increasingly scarce across much of the country, is wholly inadequate in its failure to place natural resources in their full context, providing ecosystem goods and services vital to the economy and society. Among other things, it omits any reference to the need to conserve such resources, to use them in ways that are dramatically more efﬁcient, and in many cases to reduce our demand and use for them overall.

8. The reference to well-being is welcome, but this is not carried through into the rest of the document. The NPPF also fails almost entirely to recognise the extraordinarily important role the planning process plays in forging as broad and democratic a consensus as possible over extremely difﬁcult and divisive questions of conservation and change in the use of land. The planning system has many imperfections, but no other sector in our society enables such signiﬁcant and opportunities for democratically accountable public engagement and oversight. The description in paragraph 11 of the integration of the objectives is a very good one; overwhelmingly, however, the rest of the document appears designed to ensure that no such integration in necessary and economic pressures will overrule other factors in all but exceptional circumstances.

Is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?

9. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is neither balanced nor workable. Despite what the Government claims, it would fundamentally undermine the plan-led system. It should be remembered that the plan-led system, introduced under section 54A of the 1991 Act, replaced the presumption in favour of development that had existed until then. How the two could co-exist the draft NPPF does not explain,

10. This problem is compounded by the explicit statement in paragraph 14 that councils should “grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date.” The requirement to allocate sites for 20% more housing than is needed (paragraph 109) would on its own presumably make most existing development plans fail the test of general conformity in paragraph 26. Presumably even where local authorities have up-to-date plans most would thus be deemed out-of-date once the ﬁnal NPPF was published. That would mean a period of years while replacement plans were produced, during which the automatic approach in paragraph 14 would apply.

11. Even where a development plan passed the test in paragraph 14 its primacy would be dramatically compromised by the draft NPPF. In place of a considered decision in line with a democratically agreed plan and the range of evidence and other factors relevant to a particular case, the draft NPPF would put a default “yes”. For the decision to be otherwise it would have to be shown that: “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” (paragraph. 14).

12. This would place a huge burden of proof on those assessing applications and proposals to show that it might or might not be acceptable. The likely result would be developments with damaging consequences— both individually and cumulatively—that could be foreseen but that critics could not sufﬁciently demonstrate at the time of decision. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w267

13. Elements of existing planning policy that are critically important for achieving genuinely sustainable development but threatened or ignored by the draft NPPF include the following: — Urban regeneration: The emphasis on re-using empty or under-used buildings and previously developed land before greenfield sites, ie the sequential approach to land for housing. Application of this policy has admittedly had some undesirable effects in some cases, eg business relocation to provide housing sites, leading to reverse commuting, and inappropriate garden development, but it has underpinned extensive private and public investment in urban regeneration since the Conservative government of the 1990s and Labour’s subsequent White Paper Planning for the Communities of the Future of 1998. — Efficient use of land: Minimum standards for efficient use of land, notably on housing density, which has risen by 72% from 25 dwellings per hectare (dpha) in 2001 soon after revised PPG3 was published to 43 dpha in 2010. This is still barely half the 80–100 dpha that is found in some of our prized historic townscapes such as Georgian squares and Cornish fishing villages. Latest Government statistics show the density of housing on greenfield sites just above the minimum 30 dpha that was set out in PPG3 and PPS3 (DCLG, LUCS 2010 provisional estimates). — Reducing the need to travel: This has informed planning policy and decisions since the publication of revised PPG13 in the mid-1990s, albeit not always as much as it might have. Benefits include reduced costs in travel time and congestion; lower greenhouse gas emissions; reduced infrastructure needs and maintenance costs; and better air quality. The draft NPPF has only some vague wording to encourage sustainable travel modes, and only where this is “practical”. — Protection of the countryside for its intrinsic value: This policy principle (PPS7 para 1 iv) has underpinned the continued clear distinction between town and country here, in stark contrast to places where a more liberal planning regime has applied, eg Ireland, Portugal and large parts of the USA.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 14. No. The emphasis in the draft NPPF on economic growth at the expense of society’s other needs and objectives would do the opposite of integration. 15. On climate change, the reduction in the emphasis on efficient use of land, location of development and reducing the need to travel, together with strong discouragement of local authorities from imposing any standards that might add to developers’ costs, all serve to make higher direct and indirect emissions from development more likely. 16. The draft NPPF indicates no understanding of the Government’s policy on the natural environment, either. Over the past year protected landscapes have paid close attention to the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP). That document includes a reference to the land use planning system playing its part in delivering the Government’s objectives, but this is lacking from the draft NPPF. The NEWP draws on the recommendations of Sir John Lawton’s report Making Space for Nature. Lawton highlighted the need to restore, expand and connect wildlife habitats on a grand scale. Central to this is the need to move away from viewing nature and landscapes as compartmentalised oases of conservation with no relation to their hinterland. The draft NPPF does the exact opposite: it contains (albeit flawed) policies on protection of National Parks and AONBs but removes the universal protection currently afforded to the wider countryside and weakens protection for sensitive townscapes. 17. The inevitable effect of radically reducing controls over development outside protected landscapes would be to make it far harder to achieve the kind of comprehensive, landscape approach to conservation and enhancement of the natural environment that is widely agreed to be needed, both to redress biodiversity losses and to enable greater ecological resilience to the future effects of climate change.

Protected Landscapes 18. All the above are general points, applicable across the board and with greater or lesser relevance to nationally protected landscapes, ie AONBs, National Parks and the Broads. On protected landscapes speciﬁcally, Ministers have repeatedly said that the draft NPPF would maintain the existing level of protection against damaging change. This is highly questionable for the reasons set out below.

Weakening of the headline policies in PPS7 19. PPS7 para 21 says: Nationally designated areas comprising National Parks, the Broads, the New Forest Heritage Area and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), have been conﬁrmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should therefore be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions in these areas. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w268 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

20. Compare draft NPPF para. 167, fourth bullet pt, which says: Local planning authorities should: … give great weight to protecting landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.

21. The status of protected landscapes and the policies that ﬂow from it, both clearly set out in PPS7, have been elided in the draft NPPF and the result is both less clear and a substantial weakening of the policy.

22. The draft NPPF wording on protected landscapes (ie AONBs, National Parks and the Broads) should be changed to refer clearly to their status, their purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty, and their setting. This could simply add “enhancing” and a reference to setting to the existing policy in PPS7 with or read along the following lines, for example: [Local authorities should] give great weight to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and their setting, respecting the highest status of protection afforded to them for their landscape and scenic beauty.]

23. The inclusion of “conservation and enhancement of natural beauty” is critical to the continuing protection of AONBs in particular. These are the principal purposes of National Park and AONB designation. Relevant bodies have a statutory duty under section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to have regard for these purposes. The same Act also requires all AONB partnerships to produce a quinquennial AONB management plan, which constitutes a material consideration of signiﬁcant weight in planning decisions, appeals and inquiries. For AONB management plans to be most effective, the NPPF ought preferably to refer to them. The minimum requirement is that the NPPF include explicit reference to the purposes of designation (as above).

Reduced protection for the setting of protected landscapes

24. Related to the point about the conﬂict between the draft NPPF and the Natural Environment White Paper above is the question of the setting of AONBs, National Parks and the Broads.

25. Setting is impossible to define precisely because in every case it will vary with the landscape and the proposal in question. It is not a precisely defined buffer. At its most basic, things that could harm the setting are things that would significantly affect views of or from the designated area.

26. The North Wessex Downs AONB is fringed by settlements, some of them large. They include the western fringes of Reading, Basingstoke, Andover, Ludgershall, Devizes, Calne, Swindon, Wantage/Grove, Didcot and Wallingford. In some the built area literal abuts the protected area and others are a short distance away, but all are very much within the AONB’s setting In almost every single one of these places development has been or is currently being proposed that could signiﬁcantly affect the setting of the AONB. A recent appeal saw 750 homes dismissed on grounds including the effect on the AONB setting. In other cases careful siting, design, lighting etc. can remove the impact or reduce it enough to make it acceptable. Existing policy in the South East Plan provides important protection against development that would affect the setting of protected landscapes in a crowded region. The loss of this policy with the demise of the SE Plan demands its replacement but the draft NPPF is silent on the issue. The removal of protection for the countryside for its intrinsic value, combined with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, would make damaging change in the setting of protected landscapes much more likely and conservation and enhancement of their natural beauty far harder.

Removal of policy to address the need for affordable housing in protected landscapes

27. Current policy helps local authorities in protected landscapes to address local need for (especially affordable) housing in their areas without needing to accommodate market housing (to provide a cross-subsidy) that would damage the qualities for which the landscapes were designated. This is principally in two ways: — paragraph. 21 of PPS7, which highlights the need to address “identiﬁed local needs [for housing]” in National Parks and AONBs; — paragraph 30 of PPS3, which enables small amounts of “affordable housing in perpetuity” to be provided, for example in sensitive villages within a protected landscape or elsewhere where other housing development would be harmful and unnecessary.

28. The draft NPPF includes neither of these important nuances in policy. The Government has also changed the deﬁnition of affordable rented housing in Annex B of PPS3, which could put such housing out of reach of those who most need it, especially in outstandingly beautiful landscapes where housing is prized—and priced— accordingly. Together these changes would make it much harder for protected landscapes to provide that housing in their communities which is genuinely needed and resist that which would compromise the purposes of designation. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w269

Weakening of the presumption against minerals sites in protected landscapes

29. MPS1, para. 14 states: do not permit major mineral developments in National Parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and World Heritage Sites except in exceptional circumstances.

30. Compare the draft NPPF paragraph. 102: Local planning authorities should: as far as is practical, ensure sufﬁcient levels of permitted reserves are available from outside National Parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and World Heritage sites.

31. Replacing the need for exceptional circumstances with a general reference to practicality would signiﬁcantly weaken protection of National Parks and AONBs against minerals extraction.

32. There is a general point to be made here. If the general countryside is no longer afforded protection in policy for its intrinsic value then presumably the level of protection for protected landscapes starts, as it were, from a lower base. There is also the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which would presumably apply in protected landscapes (the draft NPPF does not say that it wouldn’t; much could hang on whether harming the natural beauty of a protected landscape were deemed compatible with sustainability). The combined effect of these factors suggests that, while protected landscapes would continue to enjoy much more protection from damaging development than other places, their overall planning status and the degree of protection they enjoyed would nevertheless be lower. September 2011

Written evidence from the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies (London Forum)

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your examination into whether the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) forms an adequate, clear and comprehensive framework of planning policy.

Background

The London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies (London Forum) is a charity established for 23 years operating as a federation of over 130 community and amenity groups and civic societies in the Greater London area representing more than 110,000 Londoners. London Forum responds on behalf of those members to consultations by Government and the GLA.

Trustees of London Forum and its members, who contributed to this evidence, have worked with their local planning authority (LPA) on local plan preparation, responded to planning applications and been involved in planning appeal inquiries over many years. They participated throughout the examination by Inspectors of the draft replacement London Plan between June and December 2010 at which existing national planning policy was reviewed and related to the policies of the London Plan.

Summary

1. London Forum has examined the draft NPPF and the associated Impact Assessment and ﬁnds that the new policy framework for England in the form published is badly worded and inconsistent in content. It changes the planning system to one in favour of almost any kind of development with the necessary safeguards for it to be sustainable development either omitted or weakened.

2. There is no vision for how urban and countryside areas should develop over the next 30 years. If the draft NPPF is implemented, major adverse impact would result to the living and working environment in those areas because it omits current policies for the best location of development.

3. The NPPF is a deregulation set of policies permitting harm that is contrary to the need to encourage development of the right type. It deﬁnes a new basis for decision making, contrary to the Government’s published aims for decentralisation and localism.

4. The Government’s insistence that the current planning system prevents development is not supported by the evidence of large numbers of granted approvals which have not been implemented.

5. With the aim that every person should understand it, the draft NPPF content has over simpliﬁed the present policies and omitted many of them. People who have to use the current planning system understand it and can work with it and could help to revise it with the support of your Committee and the Members of Parliament. That can happen only if Ministers are urged by MPs to be prepared to listen and cease criticising motives of contributors and declaring that they want to “win the battle”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w270 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Key Points

The London Forum has the following specific concerns about the content of the draft NPPF document and numbers in brackets below refer to paragraphs in it. — It lacks any sense of place or place shaping or long term vision for planning, despite having a section heading of “Planning for places” (148). — The term “sustainable development” is not clearly or fully defined (10). — There is a lack of support for a plan-led emphasis on promoting the right development in the right place. — It states that the default answer to a planning application must be “Yes” (19), contrary to legal requirement for decisions to be based on an application’s conformance to development plan policies. — There is no policy requirement to reduce the need to travel. The placing of trip generating development where there is high transport accessibility is to be only “where practical” (83, 89, 92). — Prioritisation of some sites over others when there is a shortfall (PPS3) is omitted. — “Town centre first” policy of PPS4 has been weakened (78). Office development and business parks have been removed from the “town centre first” policy and not mentioned for their preferred locations. — Open and undesignated land protection has been reduced and the sequential approach to the disposal of open spaces in PPG17 has been removed (129). — “Special circumstances” for building on Green Belt Land (142) have not been defined. — Development under Community Right to Build is permitted on Green Belt land (145). — The application of the Sequential Test for avoiding flood risk (156) does not clarify how far beyond its borders a local authority is allowed to look for alternative sites. — The NPPF protects only those sites with the highest level of designation (166), eg SSSIs, contrary to the requirements of EU Directives and existing primary legislation such as that relating to National Parks. — The clear definition in PPS5 of the value of the different kinds of knowledge, understanding and relevance and enjoyment to be gained from historic localities and the historic built environment, their positive contribution and the implications of their loss have not been expressed in the NPPF (176). — The NPPF does not support the recent PPS5’s presumption in favour of the retention of heritage assets nor the need for developers to justify any harm caused to them (180, 183). — The current policy against large adverts on buildings and along trunk roads has been weakened in the draft NPPF (123). — The protection for employment sites for small businesses and start-ups has not been included (75). — There is no NPPF content for addressing inequality and achieving equal life chances for all, as in PPS1. — All local plans will have to be rewritten if policies do not “provide a clear indication of how a decision maker should react to a development proposal” (22) and have “clear policies that will guide how the presumption (in favour of sustainable development) will be applied locally.” (15). — Housing objectives (107 and 109) do not include locating homes in the most suitable locations, as in PPS3 paragraph 54. — The requirement has been removed for local authorities to negotiate affordable housing contributions with the developers of any scheme of more than 15 homes. — Land for growing food is not included as a requirement for related businesses, only “the needs of the food production industry” which could be just factory space for processing imported products (30). — The only mention of waterways is for transfer of minerals and aggregates (102). That omits current safeguarding of waterways’ facilities for other freight by water, for leisure use of rivers and canals and for transport on them. Local plan identification of infrastructure requirements (31) excludes facilities and infrastructure for such use of waterways. The protection of valued landscape (167) does not cover waterways. — There is no requirement when assessing planning applications in the vicinity of a World Heritage Site to take into consideration the Management Plans of those sites (188). — NPPF objectives for minerals (100) lack content for prudence, conservation of supplies and limits of the environment. There are no policies for mitigation of impact, including noise, traffic and views nor for appropriate aftercare of extraction sites. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w271

The following responses are made to the Committee’s questions.

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 over planning decisions? No. (i) The NPPF removes decision making from local elected representatives by proposing circumstances under which planning permission must be given. The default response to a planning application should be “yes” under the NPPF (19) which is illogical because it suggests a development should be approved even if unsuitable for the LPA and its communities. (ii) In its prescriptive approach the NPPF limits scope for local decisions. It dictates how development management in a pre-determined manner will be specified within local policy definition (15, 22). That is not the purpose of a local plan. Approval should be given only in accordance with section 36(1) of the Planning and Compensation Act (2004): “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” (iii) In “Planning for places” the NPPF sets out (151) the reasons why a LPA should not refuse planning permission for “well-designed buildings”, rather than setting out the reasons why permission should be granted. This reverses the normal burden of proof and “well-designed” is subjective. (iv) Even if a proposal impacts on a designated heritage asset, the LPA would have to show, in order to refuse planning permission, that it will cause material harm and that the harm is not outweighed by wider benefits. The NPPF fails to guide local planning authorities in that it does not support the recent PPS5’s presumption in favour of the retention of designated heritage asset and the need for developers to justify any harm caused to it (180). It replaces that presumption of retention of such an asset with the words “weight should be given to its conservation” (183). PPS5’s paragraph HE11.1 on enabling development should be restored. (v) Planning permission has to be given if a plan is “absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date.....unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” (14). The latter phrase is also in paragraphs 20, 110 and 165 and shifts the balance of decision making in favour of owners of land and developers. Such enforced granting of permission is not required by the NPPF to involve community consultation and that removes local people’s influence over planning decisions which was proposed in the Localism Bill. (vi) Paragraph 39 of the NPPF requires local plans to ensure land can be “developed viably” and “provide acceptable returns to a willing landowner and willing developer”. Local plans and strategies are also to “take full account of relevant market and economic signals such as land prices”. It will be difficult for LPAs to base decisions on claims of profit levels of those involved in a planning application. (vii) The NPPF will complicate Council decision making by its use of the weak terms “where practical” (19, 40, 74, 78, 83, 89, 92, 165) and “where reasonable” (69, 82, 83) and the need for any adverse impacts of development to be proven to “significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits” (14, 20, 110, 129, 151, 165, 169, 184, 185, 190). That is approaching a presumption in favour of any development. The NPPF will result in decisions being made after appeals where the interpretation of such words will be argued by lawyers and future policy will be shaped by case law. (viii) The existing national policy preference towards use of previously developed sites is omitted, as described on page 49 of the Impact Statement on the draft NPPF; the protection for employment sites is not included, even where there is a strong demand for, and local shortage of, such sites; there is no protection for attractive or sensitive landscapes, other than national designated areas or small areas of local green space, so the protection of the countryside for its own sake is not included; the ability to set a strategy to prioritise some sites over others when there is a shortfall is omitted. That means the NPPF would not provide LPAs, the Planning Inspectorate and developers with certainty and with a basis to continue the control over development operated since the 1940s that has prevented sprawl and made the best use of land. (ix) The requirement that LPAs must “approve all individual proposals wherever possible” (14) is badly worded as guidance. It will lead to delays and legal arguments in decision making, as it is always “possible” to grant permission. Any reasons for refusal are reduced by the weaknesses in the NPPF. (x) The guidance on communications infrastructure in the NPPF extracted from PPG8 does not include the requirement for “keeping the environmental impact to a minimum”. (xi) The NPPF’s requirement for LPAs to identify an extra 20% more housing sites than are required (108) distorts application of housing need and capacity studies. It will not be in local plans for some years as approved policy and in London the housing numbers for LPAs are set in the Mayor’s regional spatial development strategy, the London Plan. The allocation of extra housing sites to those derived from assessment could inhibit approvals for business development and harm the local economy, contrary to Government’s intentions. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w272 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

(xii) The NPPF does not contain the policy in PPS1 supplement on water efficiency. That lack of guidance for LPAs could cause problems in north east London where water supplies are inadequate and strict standards will need to be applied to achieve the number of homes needed. (xiii) Only “obviously poor design” can be refused (121) which takes away local negotiating power and is another subjective standard that will be explored, case by case, at appeal inquiries. The setting for a development can influence its design but the key text from PPS7 on local character has not been included in the NPPF. There is no reference to inclusive design, required under disability law. (xiv) LPAs would not be able to control advertising on buildings and in the countryside, as they have had the right to do, because the policies have been weakened (123). (xv) Guidance on the Community Infrastructure Levy does cover culture and the NPPF omits the policies in PPS4 that encouraged the provision of theatres for town centres’ night time economy. That restricts LPAs’ ability to produce CIL schedules for the facilities their communities should have. (xvi) LPAs would not be able to refuse development in future where transport links are inadequate, due to the omission of that test in the NPPF. It does not include the PPG13 content on sustainable patterns of development and the location of high trip-generating uses. (xvii) “Town centre first” policy of PPS4 has been weakened (78). Office development and business parks are not in the “town centre first” policy and not mentioned for their preferred locations. (xviii) The omission in the draft NPPF of policies in PPGs and PPSs, as in the points made above, weakens guidance to LPAs for dealing with applications. It may cause them to add policies to their LDFs to cover the deficiencies in the NPPF and that will complicate the planning system and result in inconsistent definition at local level of key policies and varied decision making across LPAs. It will alienate communities who are supposed to be able to influence development. (xix) The failure of the NPPF to acknowledge the existence of a regional spatial strategy for London and the associated strategies and SPGs of the Mayor of London seriously impairs its value to local authorities, Planning Inspectors, developers and communities in London. One example of this failure is in paragraph 109— local authorities are to “set out their own approach to housing density” which ignores the London Plan policy which includes a single set of density standards across all boroughs.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate? (i) Sustainable development in the NPPF (10) and the Core Planning Principles (19) is not defined in a way that recognises environmental and ecological limits, social considerations, design requirements, location and future requirements. No basis is provided for deciding when a development would be unsustainable. The definition of sustainable development in paragraph 10 is inadequate and incomplete because it does not provide clear parameters against which a development can be assessed although there are frequent references back to the definition which add more qualifications. For example, in paragraph 114 a key element in achieving sustainable development is stated to be good design. (ii) The NPPF refers to “levels” of sustainability (151) but does not clarify that. Nor does it explain “responsibly” in its requirement that development is to be “planned and undertaken responsibly” (11). This inadequacy of definition is bound to lead to litigation and uncertainty. (iii) The re-use of existing land is often the most sustainable, but the NPPF does not contain the existing “brownfield first” policy and would therefore lead to development sprawl on open land. (iv) Land which is open and undesignated has had its protection weakened (129) and the sequential approach to the disposal of open spaces in PPG17 has been omitted. That would lead to unsustainable development. (v) DEFRA’s description of sustainable development published in March 2011 should be summarised in the NPPF with its recognition of the interconnection of economy, society and the environment. (vi) Paragraph 9 of the NPPF refers to the importance of people being able to satisfy only their basic needs which fails to address widening inequality and therefore is unsustainable.

Is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? No. (i) The NPPF lacks the basis for refusal of a poorly designed and ill conceived scheme in the wrong place. The presumption reduces planners’ negotiating powers for the right scheme, properly located. It is not a balanced and workable approach. (ii) There is a double presumption in the case of housing applications (110). If the LPA cannot show that it has a ﬁve year supply of housing and cannot demonstrate that it has an additional 20% available land for homes, planning permission has to be granted unless on protected sites. The application site could be the least acceptable for access or the housing proposed may not meet the requirements of the LPA. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w273

(iii) Existing protection for National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Green Belt will be maintained but other green spaces will be made available for development by the “presumption”. That is contrary to the Natural Environment White Paper policy to retain planning protection of the natural environment, which the White Paper defines as “all countryside”. (iv) The presumption ignores policy that 60 per cent of development should be built on previously developed ground, despite the entry in the Glossary. It makes good economic and environmental sense to use existing infrastructure and to plan in ways that saves land and reduces both the need to travel and the need for additional expenditure on additional transport and new facilities. (v) The presumption is made even more unacceptable by the Localism Bill’s introduction of giving weight to financial incentives for development. Also, the proposed Use Classes changes that mean employment premises can become housing, even if not located where infrastructure and services are sufficient. Small businesses will lose the premises they can afford which has an adverse impact on economic growth which the Government is intending to support. (vi) The NPPF wording implies that everything is sustainable unless proven otherwise which requires decision makers to act in a negative manner and seek reasons for refusal. That is contrary to the positive approach that NPPF paragraph 54 is seeking. (vii) There should be a “presumption that all development must be sustainable”.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? They are not expressed appropriately. (i) The NPPF fails to recognise urban areas; it lacks any sense of “place” or place shaping or long term vision for planning; it does nothing to emphasise the need for a plan-led emphasis on promoting the right development in the right place. (ii) Making the default answer to a planning application “Yes” (19) is contrary to the current law, which requires that “determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” Indeed, the ability to set local policies for sustainability, space standards and energy efficiency of new homes is reduced, as is the ability to set design standards, so important for context sensitivity or the attractiveness of places for people to live and work in. (iii) The “town centre first” policy enshrined in PPS4 is generally accepted and applied and it should be a core planning principle. It is seriously weakened by NPPF wording “local planning authorities should prefer applications for retail and leisure uses to be located in town centres where practical” (78). Also, by the removal of office development and business parks from that policy, so that they can be located where road usage, congestion and associated air pollution would be increased. There is no planning principle for refusal of unsustainable development. (iv) Despite assurances, the NPPF subtly but definitely and considerably weakens the protection given to heritage assets. That protection should be a core planning principle for the reasons given in our point (iv) in answer to the Committee’s first question. The NPPF requires LPAs to show that harm to heritage is not outweighed by wider benefits. PPS5’s presumption in favour of the retention of any heritage asset and the need for developers to justify any harm caused to it (180) has been dropped and replaced by the much weaker words “weight should be given to its conservation” (183). (v) The NPPF mandates the setting of policies only for sites with the highest level of protection (166), eg SSSIs. This seems to be inadequate bearing in mind the requirements of EU Directives and existing primary legislation such as that relating to National Parks. (vi) The core planning principles part (19) of the NPPF is a sub section within “Delivering sustainable development”. It should be in a section at the front of the document with a clear set of objectives as part of the vision for England with principles and policies for their achievement. (vii) Paragraph 19’s fourth bullet point takes away, without reason, consideration of the current or previous use of land. Its sixth bullet point does not include water capture as a use of open land. (viii) The principles do not cover the things that need to be achieved in regeneration, town centre viability, development matched with infrastructure, development in the right place, homes that are affordable and of the right type, enhancement of biodiversity, green chains and waterways, urban containment, excellent design and retention of required local facilities.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? No. (i) The NPPF is contrary to a proper transport policy. It fails to recognise the imperative to reduce the need to travel. Achieving sustainable transport methods and the placing of trip generating development with high cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w274 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

transport accessibility are to be only “where practical” (83, 89, 92). Local authorities may not therefore seek high standards that reduce adverse impact. (ii) Paragraph 86 rules that “developments should not be refused or prevented on transport grounds unless the residual impacts of development are severe”. The word “severe” will need a lot of explanation but the policy is suggesting that unsustainable development should be allowed. (iii) There is no reference to parking standards or cap on provision and so Councils which grant the most car parking space could secure the most development but reduce air quality and increase traffic congestion and associated delays. Those delays could increase the costs of goods being transported. (iv) Paragraph 21 of the NPPF greatly reduces the ability of local authorities to produce additional or supplementary planning documents, and will make it much harder for them to improve the standards of development or of the environment in their areas, in order to meet the wishes of their inhabitants or to have local policies for sustainability, space standards and energy efficiency of new homes. (v) The requirement in paragraph 22 for local plans to be rewritten if every policy does not “provide a clear indication of how a decision maker should react to a development proposal.” will put an enormous burden on local authorities unless a lengthy period of grace is given. The requirement is contrary to national statements on decentralisation and localism and dictates LPAs’ basis of decisions. (vi) National policy on provision of affordable housing is undermined by the removal of the requirement for local authorities to negotiate affordable housing contributions with the developers of any scheme of more than 15 homes. (vii) A major omission is of any policy on waterways to meet the Environment Agency’s standards. It is mentioned only in the context of the transfer of minerals and aggregates (102), ignoring the need to safeguard waterways’ facilities for other freight by water and for leisure use, or for their landscape value. (viii) Paragraph 31 fails to cover the identification of infrastructure requirements to meet national policy for safeguarding of these facilities on waterways. (ix) There is no requirement when assessing planning applications in the vicinity of a World Heritage Site to take into consideration the Management Plans of those sites (188). (x) The NPPF objectives for minerals (100) lack content for national standards for prudence, conservation of supplies and limits of the environment. There are no policies for mitigation of impact, including noise, traffic and views nor for appropriate aftercare of extraction sites. (xi) Failure of the NPPF to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments is shown by its differences with the DEFRA description of sustainable development published in March 2011. (xii) Paragraph 87 refers to another Government “Framework” and it should be clarified how many exist and how they relate to each other.

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? Yes, however: (i) Cooperation and liaison between boroughs in London is based upon the policies in the London Plan which covers the “duty” and sets aims for cross boundary working. That is supported by the activities of the sub regional alliances of boroughs, businesses and partners. (ii) The cooperation and planning across the boundary of the GLA with LPAs in the Outer Metropolitan Area will be adversely affected and complicated if regional strategies outside London are removed.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based? No. (i) The present planning regime is cast as an inhibitor of development, even though 80% of applications have been approved in recent years. (ii) No analysis is given of the reasons why very many extant planning permissions have not been built. London needs up to 37,000 homes each year but 170,000 units of accommodation in the London area have planning permission but are not being implemented. That means that London boroughs have already provided several years of housing, beyond that which they are required to do by the NPPF. (iii) Some house builders in London have continued delivering homes through the recession. They have purchased land at prices suitable to themselves which have allowed them to collaborate with boroughs on estate renewal and the building of affordable homes. Their market housing has supported that and they provide and then safeguard facilities for communities in mixed use developments. The Government’s aims for promoting housing seem to ignore such achievements. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w275

(iv) Empty homes are not being brought back into use. Their numbers need to be taken into consideration and policies introduced for their use. Repair and restoration of them is being hindered by the VAT system which applies 20% charge to such work but zero on new building. (v) The Mayor has policies in London for business growth and additional jobs for which masterplans have been developed. He offers support to outer London LPAs for Strategic Development Centres which can increase business development in the capital. (vi) The changes in national policy as brought into the draft NPPF and challenged in this London Forum evidence to the Committee seem not to be based on evidence in London.

General Comments (i) The reduction from over a thousand pages of national planning policy to less than 60 for England has been too extreme. The Planning Policy Wales is a 200 page version of PPGs and PPSs and is much more understandable and able to be applied. The Wales Spatial Plan has a better vision than the NPPF. Some of the basic provisions of PPS1 should be set out in the NPPF. (ii) We press the Government (through the Select Committee) to abandon the present draft NPPF and have all the existing PPSs reviewed independently by separate (and widely representative) groups of experts in each ﬁeld. Thanks to the bolt-on-nature of planning rules and regulations imposed on the planning system by various governments over the past couple of decades, there are ﬂaws, inconsistencies and complications which need sorting out. It would be desirable to speed up planning decisions, but that is not the same as “making it easier to develop”.

Requirements in a Planning Policy Framework for England London Forum asks the members of the Committee to consider that the starting point for a planning policy framework should be those in PPS1. It was launched in its latest form with the following aims which must influence the main content of the NPPF. “The planning system is key to achieving sustainable development. The Government’s new planning policy statement ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (PPS1) sets out our vision for planning in England and the key policies which will underpin it. PPS1 makes clear that sustainable development is at the heart of the planning system. It sets the framework for reflecting the duty in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for regional and local plans to be prepared with a view to contributing to sustainable development. Other planning policies, set out in the Government’s Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance notes, complement PPS1 in delivering sustainable development: Planning policies for housing ensure that brownfield land is developed first for new housing, and that new housing is built at higher densities than previously, reducing the need for development on greenfield sites; Other national policies ensure that new developments are located in areas such as town centres which are accessible by means of walking, cycling and public transport thereby reducing reliance on the private car; Policies for the natural and historic environment ensure the conservation and reuse of buildings and the protection of wildlife resources; and Policies for rural areas ensure that there are strict controls on development in the open countryside and that our finest countryside and landscapes are protected for the benefit of everyone. The goal of sustainable development is to enable all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations. This will be done in ways that protect and enhance the physical and natural environment, and use resources and energy as efficiently as possible. Government must promote a clear understanding of, and commitment to, sustainable development so that all people can contribute to the overall goal through their individual decisions. Respecting the limits of the planet’s environment, resources and biodiversity—to improve our environment and ensure that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations. Meeting the diverse needs of all people in existing and future communities, promoting personal wellbeing, social cohesion and inclusion, and creating equal opportunity for all. Building a strong, stable and sustainable economy which provides prosperity and opportunities for all, and in which environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them (polluter pays), and efficient resource use is incentivised. Actively promoting effective, participative systems of governance in all levels of society—engaging people’s creativity, energy, and diversity. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w276 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Ensuring policy is developed and implemented on the basis of strong scientific evidence, whilst taking into account scientific uncertainty (through the precautionary principle) as well as public attitudes and values.” Those objectives and policies of PPS1 are essential and must be in the NPPF which has to: — Promote sustainable patterns of development. — Promote the right development in the right place, especially in town centres. — Guide new developments to the most sustainable locations. — Make the most efficient use/reuse of previously-developed land. — Resist the loss of open spaces, using a sequential approach to disposal. The draft NPPF should be assessed against each of the requirements and aims above. Greg Clark has said that “The purpose of planning is to help make the way we live our lives better tomorrow than it is today. And not just tomorrow—but a million tomorrows, so that nothing our generation does compromises the ability—indeed the right—of future generations to improve their own lives.” Those purposes are not expressed in the draft NPPF. London Forum requests that the Committee considers and reports upon each paragraph in the draft NPPF criticised in the evidence that you receive in order to assist the scrutiny by Parliament of the document. September 2011

Written evidence from the Chartered Institute of Housing 1. Introduction 1.1 CIH welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Department for Communities and Local Government Select Committee inquiry into the “national planning policy framework” (NPPF). 1.2 CIH is the professional body for people involved in housing and communities, with over 22,000 members across the UK and Asian Pacific. We are a registered charity and not-for-profit organisation. Our mission is to maximise the contribution that our members make to the well being of communities. Our vision is to be the first point of contact for—and the credible voice of—anyone involved or interested in housing.

General Comments 1.3 The Select Committee has been invited by the Minister for Planning and decentralisation to examine the draft National Planning Policy Framework, which was published on 25 July 2011. 1.4 As the professional body for housing, we have a wealth of information and expertise at our disposal and access to members working to deliver housing opportunities across the UK. The national planning policy framework and elements within the localism bill give an opportunity for CIH to draw on our professional experience of working with housing providers, local authorities and communities in the formulation of our comments on the framework and indeed this submission. 1.5 We are working with members in the construct of our overall consultation submission to CLG and would of course be very pleased to make our expertise available to you if that would help with your current or future work on this topic. 1.6 Given the current media coverage and strength of public opinion regarding the planning reforms, we would like to take this opportunity to outline a couple of points we would like government to take note of. 1.7 We welcome the government’s recognition of the chronic lack of supply of housing and this should be noted. We believe the tone of the current debate is however, unhelpful and littered with inaccuracies and has failed to take into account the needs of the thousands of people in England who are poorly housed. 1.8 The recession, lack of access to ﬁnance for developers and lack of access to credit for house buyers has created both an affordability issue as well as a supply issue. The NPPF and current debate is misleading however, to expect house building or investment more generally to come because of streamlining planning policy; house building and business investment in development requires ﬁnancing. An inadequate housing supply is not simply the work of the planning system; adequate investment models are currently lacking and seem to be the elephant in the room. 1.9 The NPPF represents a shakeup in planning policy, which will affect both local authorities and business organisations in terms of skills, knowledge and processes of the planning system. 1.10 It also represents a shakeup of community involvement in planning from its current—emphasis on post planning involvement (once planning permission has been sought)—to increased involvement during the overall local plan-making phase. This is articulated as being to increase communities control and power in decision- making affecting their local areas; in line with localism and the big society. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w277

1.11 Consequently, the NPPF presents perhaps the biggest impact on communities for whom positive community action is being front loaded. Communities will be expected to get involved in the identification of sites for development and in the preparation of neighbourhood plans, so that by being involved from the beginning, this should lead to a reduction in complaints and issues later on in the process. 1.12 We welcome the strengthening of local accountability and decision making, the democratisation and support for local communities to lead on decisions affecting their areas that the planning framework will engender. However, there are risks that communities may not want to be as heavily involved as is envisaged; that the cost implications are prohibitive or that only existing groups are involved rather than all citizens. Government must recognise this needs resourcing, capacity building and financial input to be effective. 1.13 The scale of reform here is a bold move and one in which CIH endorses; there is a challenge for local leaders to step up and act decisively for their areas, and for local authorities to have the resources, time and skills necessary to make the system work. There is a vast amount of skills and knowledge within local authorities on current planning policy and community engagement techniques and this should be of great value as we implement a new framework for planning in England. 1.14 However, the role and scope of local authorities needs to be fully articulated and consistent messaging in relation to their strategic leadership role in relation to planning and housing in particular, is needed. 1.15 Collaborative working with local communities and businesses will be vital to ensure the retention of existing locally protected areas and sites communities enjoy, as well as the identification of areas of land which are available and suitable for development. The importance of local knowledge in this cannot be underestimated. 1.16 We have concerns around the detail of the framework and the tensions between local communities and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This does not need to be a debate about taking power from local authorities. This is about local authorities providing the expertise and working with local people to get the planning system moving. 1.17 As the professional body for housing and partner with the RTPI, we will be working with government to move beyond the existing debates and to lead the debate in the future.

2. Key Issues for the Select Committee Inquiry to Consider There are particular issues created by the national planning policy framework to which the select committee has requested feedback. Our submission concentrates on the six key questions of importance to the inquiry, which are set out below.

2.1 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 over planning decisions? 2.1.2 The NPPF gives guidance to investors and businesses to engage earlier on in the development of local plans and neighbourhood plans, in the areas they are based in currently and therefore in areas where development would be a business opportunity in the future. This is required to ensure development meets their needs around supporting economic growth and inward investment. There is a risk therefore that one reading of the NPPF could place increased emphasis on the impact of business investment on planning which could be perceived to be of a higher note-worthiness than that of communities; despite localism and community control. 2.1.3 If the aim of the NPPF is to give communities more control and power, then being clear about how the planning system works is vital. Whist the draft NPPF document does articulate a simplified planning system is in the best interests of all concerned, it does not specify explicitly what elements of the current existing system will remain in force (this is articulated slightly better in the impact assessment) and at what point the draft NPPF becomes an adopted policy. The NPPF should set out the full complexity of how the system works, what the associated documents are (guidance notes, good practice guides, supporting statements and so on) and how they interrelate. The NPPF does not do this sufficiently to enable a community group to understand adequately the full complexity of the planning arena. 2.1.4 It is clear that the NPPF will require swift action by local authorities to produce timely up to date plans, however, plan revision, complete with full community consultation and engagement as is envisaged in the NPPF, will not be a swift process. Certainly, many local plans are unlikely to be robust enough for defence when the NPPF is adopted; many core strategies are not in place and it will be a challenge for local authorities to be adequately resourced at this time in order to prevent planning by appeal. Therefore, we urge government to initiate a time period before which plans must be prepared to allow for effective and meaningful consultation and plan preparation and to lessen the perceived resource deficit. 2.1.5 The draft national planning policy framework seeks to give communities power over planning decisions in line with the localism agenda and democratisation of processes. However, this will only work if communities are on board right from the beginning in a positive proactive way. Current media debate risks alienating communities before the framework is even in place. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w278 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2.1.6 The challenge will be for local authorities and councillors, to step up and engage with communities in the preparation of their plans. This will have heavy resource implications and will require local authority planning officers to work with housing officers and community development workers to access community groups and neighbourhood organisations in order to engage with different sections of the local community in a timely and transparent fashion. 2.1.7 The NPPF does not set out a definition of neighbourhood, community or local; all of which are locally relevant, subjectively defined and differentiated. The NPPF places an emphasis on involving communities in the identification of acceptable development sites however, whether it gives communities sufficient power “over” planning decisions—perhaps to block decisions, remains unclear. 2.1.8 The impact assessment to the NPPF suggests the cost of each neighbourhood plan is estimated in the region of £17–63,000245 per plan. Whilst government funding is available for an initial piloting of neighbourhood plans, it is entirely unfeasible and unreasonable to expect local communities and neighbourhood groups—the majority of which will be charities or unregistered groups run entirely by volunteers—to be able to gather the required resources to resource and prepare a neighbourhood plan. How future neighbourhood plans are to be resourced and whether that process will be lead by community groups or local authorities, is unclear and needs to be examined in more detail. 2.1.9 The impact assessment then goes further and reviews the costs and benefits of the development of neighbourhood plans. It identifies that community groups246 will bear the costs of these, estimated at between £7 and 26 million per annum. Local authorities and businesses in contrast will make savings as a result of no longer processing or completing planning applications and from a reduction in the number of appeals (estimated at £63 million altogether). This is in addition to potential benefits to the economy of between £56 and 113 million per annum. This is likely to lead to a tension between all users of the planning system and puts a disproportionate emphasis on community groups to finance, prepare and update neighbourhood plans.

2.2 Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 2.2.1 The NPPF refers to the traditional Brundtland Commission’s247 1987 definition of sustainable development which is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” and in doing so recognises that the three pillars of development (economic, environmental and societal) are interconnected. This definition has been in existence for over twenty years and is widely used, accepted and supported. 2.2.2 However, in using only the Brundtland definition, the NPPF fails to recognise more contemporary government definitions or uses of the term sustainable development. DEFRA is responsible for government thinking on sustainable development and in particular for two documents: DEFRAs 2005, “UK Sustainable Development Strategy, Securing Our Future”248 and the Coalition Government’s 2011 publication, “Mainstreaming Sustainable Development”,249 yet the NPPF does not mention these causing confusion around the definition and of government’s intentions. 2.2.3 This government has placed a great emphasis on economic development and growth in order to build a strong economy, due to the impact of the worldwide recession. Consequently, the definition of sustainable development and the emphasis through the document, appears to heighten the economic aims of development rather than social or environmental; yet development should protect and enhance environmental resources and respect the needs of society. Quality of life is an important aspect of this and government has also committed to measuring societal well-being yet the NPPF does not mention this either. 2.2.4 We are supportive of utilising a definition of sustainable development but urge the government to work with DEFRA to link the more contemporary definitions together in the NPPF. This would allow a more cross government approach to be realised. 2.2.5 CIH welcomes government’s intentions to decentralise power and for both local authorities and communities to have a greater say in the decision-making processes for their areas, although we note, this will require greater accountability and transparency in decision making especially surrounding locally defined policies. 2.2.6 A less detailed and prescriptive approach to national policy, leads to greater variations across the country and increasing uncertainty for communities. Local interpretations of national policy will require local authorities to articulate how the presumption in favour of sustainable development will be applied locally; what one area considers sustainable others may not which could lead to a dual system. 2.2.7 The presumption in favour of sustainable development brings a new emphasis on sustainable economic development, “giving this priority250 where it is appropriate to do so”; yet appropriate is not defined. Here, we 245 Draft national planning policy framework: impact assessment July 2011, p29 246 Draft national planning policy framework: impact assessment July 2011, p31 247 The Report of the Brundtland Commission, Our Common Future, 1987 248 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb10589-securing-the-future-050307.pdf 249 http://sd.defra.gov.uk/documents/mainstreaming-sustainable-development.pdf 250 Draft national planning policy framework: impact assessment July 2011, p29. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w279

argue the balance needs to shift to societal sustainable development, so that development does not seek to override community needs. 2.2.8 The NPPF should be clear that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is referring to the preparation of local plans at the local authority level (in the identiﬁcation of land and sites), rather than at each individual planning application. The interpretation of the presumption in favour of sustainable development is subject to current debate but it is not helping the overall tone of the debate and shows how easily information is misinterpreted. 2.2.9 Both sustainable development and the presumption in favour of it, requires strong, robust local leadership to ensure local plans are up to date when the NPPF is adopted. Without this leadership role and adequate plans, the NPPF risks alienating communities when development is passed due to the inadequacies or absence of local plans.

2.3 Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 2.3.1 Broadly, the core planning principles are adequately expressed, although we would welcome further articulation on the need for strategic housing markets to be up to date and robust. The use of the word “should” throughout the principles however, appears weak, as it is open to interpretation. For the NPPF to be plan led and up to date we would seek to remind government of the need for adequate resourcing.

2.4 Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 2.4.1 The NPPF has broadly consolidated 40 documents with over 1,000 pages into little more than 50 pages, and this streamlining is welcomed where duplication and unnecessary jargon has been stripped down. However, an additional 160 supporting documents comprising 6,000 pages will remain when the NPPF is adopted and will be subject to further review in the future.251 Hence, the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning policy are not expressly clear. 2.4.2 As stated previously, being clear about how the planning system works is vital for the lay reader— especially if it is assumed the community or neighbourhood group will have no prior planning or legal knowledge. The NPPF should set out the full complexity of how the system works, and what any associated documents are and how they interrelate. This should be inside the main NPPF not within a separate supporting document in order to allow citizens to understand the complexity of the planning system without needing to resort to legal advice. 2.4.3 Whilst the NPPF seeks to integrate national planning policy across government departments by holding in one place the relevant information pertinent to the NPPF and a plan led system, it does not do so in an obvious manner and more detail is required on how this would work in practice. 2.4.4 The NPPF suggests other recent or open consultations, relevant to the national planning framework, such as the recent Gypsy Traveller planning consultation, will be amalgamated into the overall framework in due course. However, this shows a lack of joined up thinking regarding the consultations, as it is currently difﬁcult to see how and where adequate points will be made in the NPPF to cover Gypsy Traveller planning issues. As such, the NPPF remains confusing in this respect to non-planners.

2.5 Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate” provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger than local strategic planning? 2.5.1 CIH strongly believes that robust strategic planning above the local level is essential for strong and well functioning places.252 The abolition of regional spatial strategies and the loss of a regional focus on planning means local authorities will need to look to their neighbours as critical friends for support and cooperation especially on development plans which are of wider than local interest. Local authorities will need to look wider than local in the safeguarding of necessary but unpopular developments such as prisons, hostels or other sites for vulnerable groups. 2.5.2 Cross boundary larger than local planning issues will require local authorities to be really proactive and work in partnership strategically with neighbouring authorities though the duty to cooperate. However, the duty to cooperate is one of cooperation and constructive engagement. It is by itself, vague and may not provide enough teeth to enable strategic planning across local authority boundaries. This is despite the “teeth” that will be possible where local authorities will be required to demonstrate evidence of their “cooperation to plan for issues with cross boundary impacts”, when their local plans are submitted for examination by the independent inspector. 2.5.3 The duty to cooperate could be more explicitly set out within the NPPF in order that a parochial approach to housing opportunities and development more generally, does not occur. 251 Draft national planning policy framework: impact assessment July 2011, p9 252 See CIH evidence to the CLG Select Committee on the abolition of regional spatial strategies, September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w280 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2.6 Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence based? 2.6.1 The NPPF requires local plans to be adequate and up to date with evidence that the assessment of housing, employment and development needs are robust and include the demographics and characteristics of an area. 2.6.2 The lack of certainty in the planning sector due to the abolition of regional spatial strategies and the economic uncertainty in the country has led to a “a vacuum”.253 It is imperative that the risk of further uncertainty is mitigated; a period prior to NPPFs adoption during which local plans may be developed would be wise.

3. Conclusions 3.1.1 In this submission to the select committee, we have commented on the six speciﬁc questions asked in this inquiry and set out some of our general concerns relating to the national planning policy framework and current media debate. We would of course be very pleased to make our expertise available to you if that would help with your current or future work on this topic. September 2011

Written evidence from Rick Fisher The essential role of culture and particularly the theatre in the UK is all too often underestimated. The existence of cultural activities defines the status of any city and vitally brings people into the centre with a great deal of associated business activity that sustains and humanises the city centre every day. When the theatres and concert halls are dark the centre loses an important part of its soul. It is no accident that many cities around the world have looked to the creating of cultural centres when trying to regenerate and enliven the urban landscape. Also it is often it is overlooked that these buildings provide substantial employment to not only resident employees but to large numbers of free lance workers and performers and support staff who tour these venues many weeks of the year. They too have a significant impact on the local economy. The further implications of Britain’s success at creative industries, which rely on these buildings existing and programming a wide variety of performances is undervalued and contributes more to the economy than is often credited. The people working in this area are trained in the regions and go on to international success and bring not only kudos but deliver real returns to the national economy. I am a full time theatrical lighting designer, and can testify to the international success of our discipline. Once again a British based creative team have swept up a lot of Tony Awards on Broadway. This year it was “War Horse” and last year it was “Red” while the year before that I was thrilled to be part of the “Billy Elliot” sweep. We should reflect on what the consistency of these successes on Broadway means. It is no accident that the teams behind all these hits, and many of the other long runners such as Mamma Mia, Les Miserables, and Phantom to name a few, have all come up through the ranks of the “subsidised” and “regional” theatre in the UK. We all learned our crafts and bonded with our teams while working in fringe theatre and regional opera, dance and theatre companies before being lucky enough to share in the creation of a show that the world wants to see. These successful exports should be viewed no differently than the manufactured goods that Britain used to export all over the world. They are hugely in demand as those products we used to make. They earn countless millions not only to the producers, bring tourism to the UK, but bring in a lot of tax revenue to the UK. It should be a well-known fact that the stage musical Phantom of the Opera alone has grossed more money worldwide than any single Hollywood film. The UK is a world leader in the creation of staged entertainment, but this is actually under a variety of threats. The harsh economic climate has meant that the small subsidies to new work, regional theatres and the smaller-scale companies, where all the creative teams behind the mega-hits learned their crafts, are drying up or at best allowing for less work with less risk and experimentation. With the difficult economy many theatres are threatened with closure or greatly reducing their output. In addition the short-sighted raising of tuition fees means that students will leave with huge debts to repay which they are unlikely to be able to support while starting out on the fringes of the industry as we all have. The increased financial need for higher education establishments to recruit non EU students (often at the expense of places for EU and British students who still manage to qualify for a lower fee) means that the beneficiaries of the Britain’s excellent tuition in theatre skills, who will be the future creators of the next generation of global theatrical franchises, will more likely be paying the tax on their earnings to any country apart for the UK. 253 CLG, 2010, Select Committee Inquiry into Regional Spatial Strategies cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w281

Having spent the over whelming majority of the last 24 months lighting shows abroad, on every continent except Africa, I feel a small part of the great success story that is British theatre. We are a successful British export, and how often to you see those words in a sentence these days? Why are the arts penalised when we are so successful and return so much to the exchequer in tax? So even as I wince as I make my next payment to the Inland Revenue on my worldwide earnings, I have to acknowledge that it is a fair return on the small Arts Council grants that sustained little fringe companies and theatres that gave me a chance as I was starting out. We have to make the government realise that the minuscule amounts supporting the Arts are not just about what shows are being produced currently but they are building the successful theatre industry for the future and the returns on those investments are huge. I hope that the funding bodies that created the successes of today are able to invest in the future generation of award winning British theatre and provide the venues for this work to be created and ﬂourish. September 2011

Written evidence from Places for People 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Places for People is one of the largest property management, development and regeneration companies in the UK. We own and manage more than 62,000 homes and have assets of £3.1 billion. 1.2 Our vision is to provide aspirational homes and inspirational places and our approach looks at all aspects of communities rather than focusing solely on the bricks and mortar provision of homes. Places for People’s innovative approach to place management and placemaking allows us to regenerate existing places, create new ones and focus on long-term management. 1.3 This paper sets out the response from Places for People to the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry on the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). We believe that the NPPF is probably going to be one of the most vital elements of future Government policy ranking alongside future ﬁnancial and ﬁscal policy measures in terms of its importance to stimulating future economic growth. 1.4 Overall, in our view the compilation of the draft NPPF has made a considerable transition away from the confusion of detailed Planning Policy Statements (PPS) to a document that clearly sets out the Government’s planning strategy. This has been achieved without changing the principles of a plan-led and democratic planning system, whilst providing a vital emphasis on future economic growth in the need for presumption of sustainable development. 1.5 Our primary focus in evaluating the NPPF has been to ensure that it can be deliverable. To this end, our main concerns which we set out below relate to ensuring that there are linkages both within the NPPF and between the NPPF and related planning policies to ensure that the planning process is able to ensure that future residential development is viable and deliverable.

2.0 Executive Summary 2.1 Never has there been a time in recent history where there is a vital need for the planning system to support sustainable economic growth. High levels of public sector debt combined with “shock waves” in financial markets mean that Governments across the world increasingly need economic growth to be private sector led. 2.2 This situation is no different in the UK, in particular in the housing and construction industries which are important sectors of the economy. On any measure, there is a clear and present need to increase the production of housing as the statistics demonstrate: — In 2010, only 103,000 homes were built in England, the fewest since 1923. — Official household formation projections show that 232,000 homes need to be built each year. — Even if 250,000 homes were built annually for 25 years just 1% of England’s land would be used. — Permissions for fewer than 34,000 homes were approved in Q1 2011 compared to 60,000 permissions granted in Q1 2006. — Over 80% of people believe Britain needs more homes, particularly for first time buyers where there were just 200,000 first time buyers in 2010 compared to 600,000 10 years ago. — 1.8 million families (5 million people) are currently on local authority housing waiting lists in England; — Various studies254 of the economic benefits of new housebuilding have established that there is an overall economic benefit (ie total of direct, indirect and induced/multiplier benefits) of £3 additional GDP to £1 expenditure on new housebuilding. 254 See the Home Builders Federation (HBF) “Building a Recovery” published in December 2010 and the National Housing Fenderation (NHF) submission to the Comprehensive Spending Review in July 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w282 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2.3 We agree with the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) who have stated255 that planning is acting as a serious brake on economic growth, slowing the delivery of much needed jobs and new businesses not least through the inability to build more new houses. In addition, there are social ramiﬁcations of not enabling economic growth including building enough new homes such as affordability and deprivation, all of which is set out in the NPPF.

2.4 The DCLG state that there is broad recognition that the current planning system is slow, complex, bureaucratic and unresponsive. In our opinion, the implementation of the NPPF including the presumption of sustainable development is vitally important to ensure the planning system is able to provide the support required to deliver sustainable economic growth across the country.

2.5 All of this can be achieved within the plan led and democratic principles that have underpinned our planning system since 1947. Indeed, we like the Government believe that these principles will be strengthened as a result of the implementation of the NPPF as the presumption of sustainable development requires all parties to engage with local communities in an evidence based manner.

2.6 However, in order to ensure that the NPPF can better support the delivery of future sustainable economic growth, we believe that it is important that the NPPF is capable of ensuring the viability and deliverability of future development proposals and so we have set out some suggestions for improving the NPPF in section 3 below.

3.0 Response to Consultation Questions

3.1 We believe that the NPPF provides sufﬁcient guidance to those that are involved in the planning process. Fundamentally, the NPPF provides strategic guidance in a manner that brings more clarity and certainty in the operation of the planning process which the current Planning Policy Statements (PPS) are unable to do.

3.2 Moreover, by providing strategic guidance to the planning system, the NPPF is able to provide local communities with a framework that they can tailor to their own local circumstances through the development and adoption of a Local Plan together with any relevant subsidiary Neighbourhood Plans.

3.3 Whilst it is clear that the absence of an up-to-date and consistent Local Plan will mean that planning applications are determined by the NPPF (paragraph 26), we believe the Government need to make it clear that local authorities will need to work with developers to establish appropriate viability and deliverability levels (paragraphs 39–43). All industries, not least residential development, are subject to constant change and evolution and so it is in everyone’s interests to ensure the planning system enables businesses to respond to those future changes in a timely and effective manner.

3.4 A similar issue exists on the duty to cooperate, where we believe that evidence of local authorities successfully cooperating on cross-boundary issues needs to include working with developers (paragraph 46). In fact, we recommend that the Government includes reference to evidence of local authorities working with developers/trade bodies on viability and deliverability levels under the “Effective” bullet point in paragraph 48 in order to ensure that the planning system is deliverable from a business perspective.

3.5 Clearly more detailed guidance or best practice will be required to support the deliverability of the NPPF and relevant clauses in the Localism Bill (eg neighbourhood planning). We understand that the Government has made it clear that it will in the future largely be up to industry bodies and associated professions to produce whatever guidance or best practice that they feel may be needed. Whilst we agree with this position, we believe that it is important that the NPPF states that guidance and best practice will only gain a “materiality” status for use in the planning system if it can be demonstrated that the following criteria/tests have been achieved: — has been produced in response to widespread feeling that there is a need for it; — has been drawn up by a broad and inclusive group of bodies, rather than a particular interest group; — is clearly evidence-based; and — has been the subject of widespread consultation.

3.6 Finally, the Planning inspectorate will have a crucial role to play in ensuring that the operation of the future planning system achieves the objectives of NPPF set out in section 2 above. We would expect that the Planning inspectorate will apply the Plan making and Development management policy in a consistent and robust manner. Consequently, we believe it would be appropriate for the Planning inspectorate to have the ability to issue a certiﬁcate of conformity for planning applications in a similar manner to issuing certiﬁcates of conformity to local authorities for local plans. 255 National Planning Policy Framework: Myth-Buster; September 2011; CLG cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w283

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 3.7 We believe that the definition of sustainable development set out in the NPPF is not only appropriate but a necessary element of any balanced and workable planning system. Moreover, we agree with the manner that Government has set out the definition of sustainable development in paragraphs 9–12 of the NPPF so that it provides a focal or anchor point for the supporting policies. 3.8 In fact, neither the definition nor the presumption of sustainable development are completely new additions to the planning system. Various Governments over previous years have included sustainable development in their planning policies since the inception of the planning system in 1947. Where the NPPF differs is that it makes the presumption and definition of sustainable development transparent both in terms of primacy and content. This will therefore remove the need for endless debates about the focus on whether development is required and different definitions of what is sustainable at planning inquiries and appeals. 3.9 In this respect, we believe that the NPPF could be strengthened by directing local authorities to focus on using some key metrics in the evidence used to produce their economic (eg GDP), housing (eg new houses) and environmental (eg emissions) policies that support their Local Plan. By requiring local authorities to focus on key metrics it will enable developers and the planning system to clearly evidence how their developments are sustainable. 3.10 From our perspective, there is a clear and present need for the NPPF to enable a significant increase in the long term production of new housing to significantly above 200,000 houses per annum. However, the benefits of achieving this goal are not just social (ie affordability and deprivation) as set out in the Housing policy of the Planning for People section of the NPPF, but importantly the production of housing delivers large benefits to the economy. We believe that this needs to be referenced in the “Supporting economic development” part of the Planning for Prosperity section in the NPPF so that future developments can be assessed on both the economic (ie GDP) as well as the social benefits it will deliver.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 3.11 On the whole, the Core planning principles set out in paragraph 19 of the NPPF are clear and appropriately expressed. 3.12 The exception to that rule is the lack of specific reference to viability and deliverability in the principles listed as bullet points. To ensure clarity, we believe that there should be specific reference made to viability and deliverability in the second and third bullet points. This is a vital point because if local planning authorities delay consideration of planning applications on the grounds that they have not quite finished producing their Local Plans, then this will seriously compromise the viability and deliverability of schemes that can deliver sustainable growth. 3.13 We therefore recommend that an additional principle or bullet point be added to paragraph 19 as outlined below to ensure that local authorities support planning applications in a timely manner and not delay consideration on “prematurity” grounds: — planning applications should be determined in a timely manner by local authorities in order to ensure the viability and deliverability of proposed developments is achieved. 3.14 We have concerns about the lack of linkages across the various policies in the NPPF which we deal with in the next section.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 3.15 Whilst the policy statements made in the NPPF and reported outside of the NPPF are sufficiently clear, we do have a concern that there is a lack of clarity in the linkages between policies. 3.16 Our particular concern naturally relates to Housing and specifically to the delivery of a wider choice of quality of new homes (paragraph 11). Here, economic and social realities (ie lack of Government grant, reductions in real disposable incomes and lifestyle changes associated with divorce/separation or older age) will require residential developers to continually change the way new homes are delivered. This will have implications for the future size, type, tenure and range of housing that the local authorities are required to identify (second bullet point of paragraph 111). 3.17 By way of example, we currently have a variety of choices of tenures (see Appendix 2) that we offer on all of the new houses we are currently building. We envisage that this creative approach to meeting market needs will require further changes in housing design and management of our future development pipeline. 3.18 We therefore suggest that in order to maintain the viability and deliverability of residential developers’ plans, there is a recognition that a presumption for sustainable development exists where proposed developments are able to evidence the ability to satisfy housing demand as opposed to the “narrow” points on size, type, tenure and range of housing (paragraph 28 Strategic Housing Market Assessment and paragraph 111 second bullet point). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w284 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

3.19 In addition, we believe that the NPPF should be less prescriptive in deﬁning affordable housing for planning purposes and we would like to see local planning authorities be given the scope to deﬁne what is “affordable” in the context of their housing markets in keeping with the principles set out in the Localism Bill.

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

3.20 Overall, we believe that the provisions in the NPPF and its linkage with the “duty to cooperate” requirement in the Localism Bill will provide a good framework for larger-than-local strategic planning.

3.21 However, we are concerned that not enough emphasis or direction is given by the Government in the NPPF to ensure that this will happen. Clearly the NPPF states that the presumption of sustainable development exists if there is no cross-boundary cooperation amongst local authorities where that is required. However, we would like to see references in the NPPF to Government withholding funding streams (eg to Local Economic Partnerships) in addition to the point we made earlier about the need for local authorities to evidence cooperation (see 3.4 above).

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

3.22 We believe that because the NPPF builds on evidence-based national policies and the evidence-based approach to Local Plans for which extensive guidance and best practice already exists, by deﬁnition its policies are sufﬁciently evidence-based.

APPENDIX 1

ABOUT PLACES FOR PEOPLE

Places for People is one of the largest property development and management companies in the UK, with more than 62,000 homes either owned or managed in a mixture of different tenures. With over 2,000 employees, it is a unique organisation that provides a diverse range of products and services to build quality, safe and sustainable communities. Places for People is active in 230 local authorities.

Places for People regards itself as a housing and regeneration organisation that puts people ﬁrst. We provide solutions that not only cover a range of different housing tenures but also offer a range of support services including affordable childcare, elderly care and ﬁnancial services—all the things that contribute to making neighbourhoods of choice; prosperous, popular and truly sustainable.

Places for People currently has around 40,000 affordable rented properties, over 6,000 properties available for market rent and just under 10,000 properties where we retain a freehold stake as part of either shared ownership or “right to buy” arrangements in a number of developments throughout the UK. We also own and manage around 6,000 homes for older and vulnerable people. Our portfolio is designed to “Create neighbourhoods of choice for all” and covers the following broad mix of products: — Places for People Neighbourhoods—investment, regeneration and placemaking. — Places for People Homes—neighbourhood and property management. — Places for People Individual Support—support for independent living. — Places for People Property Services—in-house maintenance services. — Places for People Development—master planning and building new developments. — Places for People Financial Services—ﬁnancial products for customers. — Places for Children—early years childcare. — Cotman HA—managing around 3,000 homes across East Anglia. — Emblem Homes and Blueroom Properties—homes for sale and rent.

We want all our neighbourhoods to be places where people are proud to live. To do this, our developments need a mix of homes, easy access to shops, schools, healthcare and leisure activities, safe public spaces, good transport links and job opportunities.

When we create new places for people to live we plan a mix of tenures and house types designed for communities that have people from different social backgrounds. All of our homes whether for sale or for rent are designed and built to the same high standards with the same speciﬁcation, making different tenures indistinguishable. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w285

APPENDIX 2 TENURE CHOICE

September 2011

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

Summary (i) The draft NPPF in its present form is not ﬁt for purpose. Although it contains a number of positive environmental policies, these are fatally undermined by the presumption in favour of sustainable development and an overriding emphasis on economic growth throughout the document. (ii) The RSPB strongly objects to the clause which states “the default answer to development is ‘yes’”, which subverts the principle that decision-makers should approach issues in an even-handed manner. (iii) The NPPF does not fully integrate national planning policy, which could have been resolved by the preparation of a spatial national planning framework for England. (iv). We welcome the reference to environmental issues under strategic priorities, but further guidance is needed to clarify what constitutes effective cross-boundary working under the duty to co-operate. (v) The NPPF does not adequately reﬂect evidence about the economic value of the planning system and of the natural environment.

Fitness for Purpose 1. The draft NPPF in its present form is not ﬁt for purpose. Although it contains a number of positive environmental policies, these are fatally undermined by the presumption in favour of sustainable development and an overriding emphasis on economic growth throughout the document. 2. Our comments on the presumption are examined in detail in our written evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee. In this submission we focus on answering the committee’s questions but also provide examples of the unnecessary policy emphasis on economic growth. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w286 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Guidance and Local Power 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 over planning decisions? 3. The RSPB accepts the need to streamline planning policy. However, the NPPF is not the strategic, spatial policy framework that the RSPB and others such as RTPI have long advocated, which would give useful additional guidance to users of the planning system. 4. There may also be issues with the interpretation of the policy content of the NPPF, because of the use of inconsistent language, especially around sustainable development. This issue is explored further in our evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee. 5. There is an inevitable tension between the Government’s national aspirations and the desire to devolve power to local communities, and this is reflected in the NPPF. From an environmental perspective this can be seen in the tension between the need to deliver on national and international commitments (such as to halt biodiversity loss by 2020 and to generate 15% of the UK’s energy from renewable sources by 2020) and the lack of clarity about how strategic planning through the duty to cooperate will allow local and neighbourhood plans to cumulatively deliver these outcomes. We will explore this issue further for individual policy areas in our detailed response to the Government’s consultation. 6. Local planning authorities and other users of the planning system frequently rely on additional technical and good practice guidance, much of which is currently produced by Government. The RSPB understands the Government’s desire to reduce the length and complexity of planning policy and guidance, and agrees that there is scope for a greater role for expert and user groups to be involved in producing this guidance. However, care needs to be taken not to lose valuable guidance from the system, nor to have competing technical guidance which gives rise to uncertainty or is just a waste of resources. 7. There is still a role for Government in providing supporting guidance, especially on procedural and legal issues, such as development plans and development guidance. From a nature conservation perspective, definitive guidance on statutory obligations for biodiversity conservation and their impact within the planning system (currently in Circular 06/2005) is particularly useful and should be the responsibility of Government, so the RSPB is pleased that it does not appear on the list of guidance to be replaced by the NPPF.

Sustainable Development Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 8. This issue is addressed in detail in our written evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee. In summary, the definition of sustainable development should be based on the guiding principles of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy, including the need to live within environmental limits. The presumption should then be based on that definition. The current wording of the presumption and the over-emphasis placed on economic growth in that section and in the rest of the document fatally undermines the positive environmental policies in the NPPF.

Core Planning Principles Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 9. The RSPB strongly objects to the clause in the 2nd bullet of paragraph 19 which states, “Decision-takers at every level should assume that the default answer to development is ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in this Framework.” 10. We note that this clause was not included in the text of the Practitioners Advisory Group’s proposed draft NPPF, on which the text of the core planning principles are otherwise closely based. A similar phrase was ﬁrst used in HM Treasury’s Plan for Growth (March 2011). There appears to be a perception in Government and the business community that the default answer to development by local planning authorities is “no”, but the Government’s own statistics show that the rate of approval for planning applications has been a minimum of 82% for at least a decade, and is currently around 90% for major commercial applications.256 11. The clause, despite the caveat, is clearly driven by an economic growth agenda. It is political rhetoric and inappropriate in a planning policy document. It subverts the principle of good governance that decision- makers should approach issues in an even-handed manner, which is particularly important in the highly- contested arena of land-use planning. Even if there was currently a bias against development (and in some places, for some types of development, the RSPB accepts that this might be the case), it would be entirely mistaken to correct this by swinging the pendulum to the other extreme. 256 Communities and Local Government live tables on planning application statistics at http://www.communities.gov.uk/ planningandbuilding/planningbuilding/planningstatistics/livetables/livetablesondevelopmentcontrolst/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w287

12. The RSPB recommends that this clause (the ﬁnal sentence of the 2nd bullet, paragraph 19) should be deleted. 13. In the 3rd bullet of paragraph 19 we are concerned by the reference to market signals, which we discuss further below (paragraph 29b). 14. The RSPB strongly supports the remaining core planning policies.

Other National Policy Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government departments? 15. National policy statements (NPS) for various types of infrastructure are the principal other type of national planning-related policy. It is not entirely clear from the NPPF (paragraph 6) the extent to which NPS will be a material consideration for small infrastructure schemes (for example, small-scale renewable energy projects), or the extent to which the NPPF may be a material consideration for nationally-significant infrastructure projects, particularly where NPPF policy on some issues (eg environmental protection) may be more up-to-date than the NPS. 16. The more critical issue, however, is that neither the NPPF nor NPS fully integrate national planning policy, which is effectively split by scale and development type (large-scale infrastructure in NPS, everything else in the NPPF.) 17. This could have been resolved by the preparation of a spatial national planning framework for England, as recommended by a recent report produced for the RSPB (A Natural Planning Framework, Collingwood Environmental Planning, 2011) which considered UK and international experience of embedding the natural environment in national spatial strategies. A strategic and spatial national framework would also be a better way to reconcile England’s socio-economic development needs with finite space and environmental capacity. 18. As the draft NPPF is not spatial, it must provide the right parameters within which local authorities will create their own, or joint, spatial policies to deliver sustainable development, as discussed below.

Strategic Planning Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 19. As currently drafted, the NPPF and the duty to cooperate do not provide a sufficient basis for larger than local strategic planning. This is largely because the draft NPPF deals too narrowly with land use and fails to recognise the need to have a spatial planning system. One of the key principles of Planning Policy Statement 1(Delivering Sustainable Development, 2005) was that “a spatial planning approach should be at the heart of planning for sustainable development”, where “Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they can function.” 20. Challenges such as climate change and protecting and enhancing nature are best addressed by providing direction and guidance from the national strategic level so that the local level can implement strategies that, together, can be greater than the sum of their parts. In the case of the natural environment, effective planning, including the implementation and maintenance of ecological networks, will often need to take place at a landscape or ecosystem-scale that is incompatible with administrative boundaries. Such action will require effective joint-working by adjoining local authorities, and in many instances may be required to enable compliance with the legal obligations of the Birds and Habitats Directives. 21. In the absence of a spatial NPPF, there must be a strong duty to co-operate between local authorities that will enable strategic spatial planning across local authority boundaries. We are pleased to see that certain environmental matters referred to as strategic priorities (paragraph 23) will require cross-boundary working in order to be considered sound at examination. However, further guidance will need to be issued to clarify what constitutes “effective” cross-boundary working under the duty to co-operate. We believe that effectiveness of cooperation should be assessed on the basis of outcomes achieved through joint working. This should ensure collaborative work is carried out early in the plan-making process and should encourage continuing cooperation for the duration of the plan-period (eg in terms of evidence collation, monitoring and reporting).

Strategic planning and the natural environment 22. While much has been achieved through conservation action to date, in England, 45% of priority habitats are declining, alongside 29% of priority species.257 The Making Space for Nature report (the “Lawton review”) and the UK National Ecosystem Assessment found that much of the decline in England’s biodiversity and the UK’s ecosystem services can be attributed to the fragmentation and loss 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 of unnecessary damage. 257 JNCC (2008) The UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Highlights from the 2008 reporting round cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w288 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

23. Without action to restore some of the habitats that have been lost, biodiversity will continue to decline. Here again, there is a crucial role for strategic planning. The Lawton review sets out a practical vision for addressing the fragmentation of our natural environment by restoring ecological networks across the country, based on ﬁve components: (1) Get sites into favourable condition. (2) Increase the size of protected sites. (3) Create new sites. (4) Improve the connectivity between sites. (5) Manage the wider countryside more sympathetically to reduce pressures on sites. The exact “mix” of actions required will vary from place to place, and decisions are often best taken at a larger-than-local ecosystem-scale, through close co-operation between local authority and a range of other partners (ie statutory bodies, NGOs, communities, land owners and businesses). 24. The Natural Environment White Paper established the linked concepts of Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs) and Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs), both of which are expected to work across administrative boundaries to deliver improved ecological networks, as set out in the Lawton review. The RSPB believe that the NPPF should reﬂect the crucial role of planning in delivering for the natural environment, and meeting the ambitions of the White Paper, by explicitly linking to these two important initiatives in paragraph 168.

Strategic planning for renewable energy 25. The NPPF must also do more to ensure the delivery of low-carbon and renewable energy infrastructure at both a local and larger-than-local level. Despite a continuing emphasis in the draft NPPF on the need to plan positively for the economy and housing, the language used for low-carbon and renewable energy provision is comparatively weak. 26. To be effective, planning of renewable energy deployment, particularly onshore wind, needs to take place in the context of the potential for renewable energy deployment at a larger spatial scale than local authority areas. In 2010, DECC funded nine regional energy capacity studies to help local authorities and local communities in England identify and maximise opportunities for the deployment of renewable and local carbon energy technologies in their areas. Seven of the nine assessments for England are now available,258 and the ﬁnal two will be published shortly. The North West renewable and low carbon energy capacity and deployment project has produced an assessment of the potential accessible renewable energy resources at 2020. While the focus of the project has been to present the results at sub-regional and sub-national scales, much of the data can be interrogated down to Local Authority level.259 The NPPF should require local authorities and communities to take into account the results of the regional renewable energy capacity studies when developing their local and neighbourhood development plans. 27. The current draft NPPF requires local authorities to “consider identifying suitable areas for renewable energy development”. We do not feel that this is sufﬁcient to ensure a strategic approach to planning of renewable planning. A study commissioned by the RSPB260 recommends a more comprehensive and structured approach to deployment of renewable energy that distinguishes “spatially the potential areas where development should be prioritised, restricted or avoided”. This approach would offer invaluable clarity to developers and conservation groups and help the effective consideration of alternatives at early stage. 28. The NPPF should require local planning authorities to develop spatial frameworks for renewable energy, in particular onshore wind, in their development plan, based on the regional renewable energy capacity studies and using DECC’s Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Capacity Methodology.261 29. The spatial framework would support early engagement of stakeholders and provide a basis for debate between a range of stakeholders without which discussions can often be repetitive and divisive, and become dominated by responses to individual planning applications.262 This is particularly important in the case of onshore wind which tends to be very controversial at a local level.

Strategic planning and a supportive evidence base 30. Effective, strategic planning for the environment requires a robust evidence base just as for housing and the economy. It is not possible to make space for people and nature if either is considered independently of the other. The requirement for a robust evidence base for the natural environment should be clearly set out in the section “Using a proportionate evidence base”, just as it is for housing and business requirements. A robust 258 As mentioned in the recently published UK Renewable Energy roadmap (http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy- demand/renewable-energy/2167-uk-renewable-energy-roadmap.pdf ). 259 See page 25, UK Renewable Energy roadmap (http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/renewable- energy/2167-uk-renewable-energy-roadmap.pdf ) 260 IEEP (March 2009) Positive planning for onshore wind. A report commissioned by the RSPB 261 SQW Energy (January 2010) Renewable and Low-Carbon Capacity Methodology. http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/ meeting_energy/renewable_ener/ored/ored_news/ored_news/method_assess/method_assess.aspx 262 IEEP (March 2009) Positive planning for onshore wind. A report commissioned by the RSPB. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w289

evidence base would include inventories of important wildlife habitats and species, and areas suitable for restoration, much of which is already available from other sources. 31. A trusted, reliable source of data which can be easily accessed by local planning authorities, and also business and communities, is a prerequisite for effective strategic spatial planning. Consistent mechanisms for research and data gathering should be provided to address the current gaps in data available at the larger-than- local level. For example, DECC has made a commitment in its UK Renewable Energy Roadmap to ensure that an up-to-date evidence base is available on the potential impacts of wind turbines, such as noise and shadow ﬂicker, implications for landscape, habitats and species.

Evidence Base Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? 32. Where there are policy shifts in the NPPF, these are generally in favour of a liberalised, pro-growth planning regime. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is the most notable example of this. These shifts are based on a perception that the planning system is slow, costly, and hinders economic growth. 33. There is no doubt that at times, planning can be unnecessarily bureaucratic, and that local planning authorities have been slow in adopting local development frameworks (LDFs). Although LDFs were intended to be in place within three years of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, at the present time only 30% of local planning authorities have adopted core strategies. 34. However, there is much evidence to show that the development management (planning applications) process is performing well. A very high proportion of all planning applications are granted; Government’s own statistics show that the rate of approval for planning applications has been a minimum of 82% for at least a decade, and is currently around 90% for major commercial application.263 Furthermore, rather than hindering economic growth, planning adds value to the economy; in 2003, the then ODPM Select Committee Inquiry into Planning and Competitiveness,264 said “Claims that planning damages the nation’s competitiveness seem to have been made without evidence. The evidence that we have received suggests that businesses generally support the planning system and seek a number of changes in implementation, which do not necessarily require legislation.” 35. There is also a significant weight of evidence which shows that a healthy natural environment is good for the economy. Industries directly dependent on natural capital and natural services, such as agriculture, conservation and nature-based tourism, support significant levels of economic activity and employment. For example, in England in 2004, almost 300,000 jobs were supported by the natural environment through industries such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, conservation and tourism.265 The recent findings of the UK National Ecosystems Assessment (NEA) emphasise the role that ecosystem services play in supporting and enhancing the economy, revealing that nature is worth billions of pounds to the UK economy. 36. Taken together, this suggests that the NPPF does not adequately reflect all the available evidence about the economic value of the planning system and of the natural environment.

Policy Emphasis 37. Although the Committee is not examining individual planning policies in detail, the RSPB would like to draw attention to the marked policy emphasis in favour of economic development and housing growth throughout the NPPF. As we point out in our evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, we do not object to economic development and housing growth in themselves, but we do object to an emphasis which gives them pre-eminence over the social and environmental aspects of sustainable development, thereby making it more difficult to reject damaging proposals. 38. This pre-eminence can be illustrated with the following examples. (a) In comparison with references to economic and housing development, the NPPF’s language about environmental protection and enhancement is much less positive. Frequent caveats are attached to environmental policies (and no corresponding caveats to economic policies), and unnecessary references are made back to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, such as: — Paragraph 19, 5th bullet: “Where practical and consistent with other objectives, allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value”. — Paragraph 130 (Local Green Space): “Identifying land as Local Green Space should therefore be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development and complement investment in sufficient homes, jobs and other essential services”. — Paragraph 165 (Natural environment objectives): reference to the presumption, and development needs. — Paragraph 169 (Biodiversity): reference to the presumption. 263 Communities and Local Government live tables on planning application statistics here 264 Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions—Fourth Report, 2003. 265 Defra, 2004, Revealing the value of the natural environment in England. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w290 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— Paragraph 169, 4th bullet: ancient woodland should be protected “unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”. (b) Paragraph 27 (evidence base): the need to take “full account of relevant market and economic signals” (our emphasis) implies that local plans will need to accommodate whatever the market demands. This does not recognise that markets consistently fail to reflect the full environmental value of land, which may be unquantifiable. (c) Using a proportionate evidence base: local authorities are required to have extensive and well-defined requirements for economic and housing needs (paragraphs 28–32), but the requirements for the environmental evidence base are much less prescriptive (paragraphs 34–37). (d) Paragraph 45 (strategic planning): reference to Local Enterprise Partnerships, but no corresponding reference to Local Nature Partnerships. (e) Paragraph 109, 2nd bullet (housing supply): a requirement to include an additional allowance of 20% more housing than that which has been identified as necessary in a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment is excessive, especially as many areas of high housing demand are in areas of high environmental quality. (f) Paragraph 152, 3rd bullet: weak encouragement for renewable energy opportunity mapping, as local planning authorities should only “consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low-carbon energy sources”; there is no requirement to do it. September 2011

Written evidence from the CTC, the national cyclists’ organisation Introduction 1. CTC, the national cyclists’ organisation, was founded in 1878. CTC has 70,000 members and supporters, provides a range of information and legal services to cyclists, organises cycling events, and represents the interests of cyclists and cycling on issues of public policy. 2. The results of planning policy—the location of housing, employment and services—has a critical impact on mobility. Just 2% of trips in the UK are made by bicycle, compared to 10% in Germany, 18% in Denmark or 27% in the Netherlands. Behind much of these differences lie social, cultural and legal differences. However, in large parts this stems from the layout of towns and cities enabling the bicycle to become a mainstream and important form of transport. Average trip distances in Britain by all modes are 7% longer than in the Netherlands (11.7km compared to 10.9km). 3. We are greatly concerned at the professed push to relax planning, ostensibly in the interests of economic growth. Such an approach may or may not result in accelerated investment and development in the short term. However, in the longer-term it will simply condemn us to continued problems associated with the current approach: over-reliance on private motorised transport. The Cabinet Ofﬁce Strategy Unit has found that the costs of poor transport decisions—principally motorised transport in urban areas—are between £38–49 billion per year.266

Presumption in Favour of Development 4. It is duplicitous to claim that the current framework is seriously impeding development. This appears to be a convenient position adopted in the midst of the ﬁnancial downturn in order to excuse an otherwise unacceptable dilution of planning standards. 5. Planning policy in the Netherlands has a stronger emphasis than our own on locating developments where they will promote relatively high usage of sustainable and healthy transport modes, with no evidence that this is economically harmful—indeed their economy is in a stronger state than ours. By contrast, the planning free- for-alls seen in recent years in Spain and the Irish Republic have hardly helped them avoid serious economic collapses—indeed it can be argued that unrestrained development may have contributed to the Irish economy’s problems.

Impact on Carbon Emissions from Unconstrained Development 6. The wording of the presumption in favour of “sustainable development” makes it very difﬁcult for local authorities to reject planning applications on the grounds of increased greenhouse gas emissions. Conversely there appears to be no means by which Government can measure that the cumulative carbon impacts of planning decisions, either at the local or national level. That makes it impossible either for local communities to hold their local authorities to account for the climate impact of local planning policies and decisions, or for national Government to monitor whether the planning system as a whole is contributing to the reductions in emissions required by the Climate Change Act. In practice, we very much doubt that it would do so—indeed if anything it is likely to lead to an overall increase in transport-related greenhouse gas emissions. 266 DfT. The Future of Urban Transport. 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w291

Impact on Transport

7. The Government’s current Planning Policy Guidance 13 on transport contains an unequivocal statement of the need to restrain trafﬁc growth and reduce the need to travel. The proposed new NPPF modiﬁes any commitment in this direction with extensive exceptions.

8. Examples of how previous sound principles on the need to shift to sustainable modes are undermined (and where the document would beneﬁt from their removal) are outlined below. We suggest that the sections highlighted in bold should be eliminated from the draft. “82. …The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. However, the Government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different circumstances and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas.”

9. In this, the opening paragraph of the section on transport, a potentially powerful statement in favour of sustainable transport is undermined by the second sentence, which appears to give considerable opportunities to developers to plead special circumstances. Given the presumption in favour of development, the ability of local authorities to resist such any proposal is likely to be even more limited. “83. Where practical, encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion. The planning system should therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport.”

10. In this paragraph an already modest statement of “encouragement” is further weakened to be appropriate only in “practical” (and unspeciﬁed) locations. This permits developers to excuse themselves of any obligation to avoid carbon intensive developments (eg out of town ofﬁce or retail developments) using the entirely circular argument that it is neither “practical”, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nor “reasonable” to facilitate the use of sustainable transport modes, given the unsustainable location they have chosen for their proposed development.

Insufﬁcient Detail and Guidance to Local Authorities on Standards

11. It is unclear from where local authorities will now receive the ability to apply robust planning guidance on a range of detailed matters. For matters such as cycling—currently a very marginal transport mode for most parts of the UK—this is critical to enable future changes in modal shift to be built into the physical environment.

12. We are also concerned that the “duty to co-operate” does not include a requirement to co-operate with neighbouring authorities on the consistent setting of car parking standards which help reduce reliance on private motorised transport and which instead encourage the use of sustainable transport modes. There is also a need to provide advice on the levels of cycle parking to be provided at different types of development in different types of location.

13. If left to developers provision for cycling would simply not be provided except in locations cycling is already a mainstream transport activity. Therefore areas with historically low levels of cycling (or where developers perceive this to be the case) minimal provision will condemn future users to narrower transport choices.

Recommendations

14. To remedy the above deﬁciencies, we urge the Committee to recommend: — The adoption of policies of rejecting planning systems which will (or are likely to) lead to lead to increased carbon emissions with transport compared with the scenario without the development. — The incorporation of a mechanism for assessing the cumulative climate impact of planning decisions within a local authority area, and for the country as a whole. — Clariﬁcation that the duty to co-operate includes co-operation on the setting of parking standards aimed at discouraging unsustainably high levels of private motorised transport, and the promotion of alternatives. — The deletion of the “caveat” words highlighted in paragraphs 9 and 10 above. September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w292 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from the Design Council 1. Introduction 1.1 This paper sets out the Design Council’s response to the CLG Select Committee inquiry on the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Before addressing the speciﬁc questions asked by the Committee, we have set out the Design Council’s role and experience in this area. 1.2 The Design Council is the UK’s national strategic body and government advisor for design, architecture and public space. We place good design at the heart of social and economic renewal and provide evidence to demonstrate how design can help build stronger communities and economies. In April 2011, the Design Council became an independent charity. At the same time, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) became part of the Design Council. 1.3 CABE succeeded the Royal Fine Art Commission and was established in 1999. Over the last eleven years CABE strengthened capacity and offered expert advice on planning policy to ensure that sustainable, well-designed places are secured through the planning system. 1.4 As part of the Design Council, Design Council CABE (DC CABE) continues to champion well-designed buildings and public space, providing practical expert advice. DC CABE works directly with communities, planners, designers, clients and architects offering them guidance on projects that will shape all our lives.

2. Summary 2.1 The Design Council supports the principle of a single consolidated NPPF. This is a fundamental step towards the democratisation of the planning system. As a shorter document the NPPF will enable local people to read and understand planning policy and therefore take a more active role in contributing to the creation of neighbourhood and local plans. However, in the distillation of the existing planning policy statements and guidance notes there is a danger that some of the strategic policies which are a fundamental part of delivering sustainable development have not been fully addressed. 2.2 Creating a system which is more accessible to the public is crucial to ensuring the success of the planning reforms. This makes creating appropriate, local, checks and balances a vital component of the system. The Design Council welcomes the inclusion of Design Review as a mechanism by which local authorities can ensure good quality outcomes (see paragraph 3.7). Design Review, and other forms of design support can enable local authorities, communities and developers to work together to create new schemes which have wide support with long-term benefits. The Design Review process is also a useful methodology for assessing a scheme’s approach to sustainability and inclusion issues, particularly for complex schemes that require specialist expertise. 2.3 The Design Council welcomes the recognition that good design is “a key element in achieving sustainable development”. But this could be strengthened within the definition of sustainable development to include a “good design process is the methodology by which economic, social and environmental issues are reconciled”. This would signal both a commitment to achieving good quality development, as well as helping to support the practical delivery of well-designed schemes within the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 2.4 An efficient planning system and good spatial planning are essential to achieving high quality places that can deliver sustainable economic growth. It is therefore essential that the NPPF ask local authorities to set out the creation of a “positive, long-term vision for a place” as a strategic priority in their Local Plans. 2.5 Well-designed places create both the physical and social conditions for sustainable economic growth. Designing places where people choose to live and work, companies choose to locate and which are resilient to environmental and economic change should be at the heart of the planning system. In particular there is a need to ensure that green infrastructure (see paragraph 4.7) is fully embedded within the roles and responsibilities of the local plan in order to ensure that places are more resilient to climate change impacts. 2.6 Inclusive design, which ensures that everyone has equitable access to homes, jobs and amenities, is an inseparable component of good design. Far from being a niche issue, this is about ensuring access for all, and it is therefore imperative that this be made manifest in our planning policies. In light of our ageing population, and increased diversity, it is critical that local plans address the access needs of residents. One way of achieving this through the NPPF is by amending the core priorities of local plans to include “achieving good inclusive design”.

3. 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 over planning decisions? 3.1 The Design Council welcomes the NPPF’s commitment to a “genuinely” plan-led approach and the acknowledgement that “local plans should address the spatial implications of economic, social and environmental change”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w293

3.2 A good plan-led system delivers pro-active developments of sufficient quality that bring wider benefits to the community and local economy. Planning has a co-ordinating, facilitating role in place making. There is a danger that the current focus on short-term economic growth could hinder the delivery of positive, well- designed places. 3.3 Local Plans should be based on a clear understanding of place that has a vision of the future. This process is needed to create high quality sustainable places rather than a limited land-use, target-led approach. It is therefore essential that the NPPF asks that Local Authorities and Local Plans set out the creation of a “positive, long-term vision for a place” as a strategic priority. 3.4 The draft NPPF stipulates that “up-to-date” Local Plans, ie Local Plans which are consistent with this Framework must be in place as soon as practical. The Design Council believes it is essential that local authorities are properly resourced in order to effectively adopt the new planning system. Where necessary local authorities should have access to independent expert support in order to update/develop their Local Plan. 3.5 Local Plans need to tell the story of the place with a clear vision for the future and provide a document that communities can relate to and understand. Design Council core strategy workshops with local authorities have shown that local authorities often have the knowledge and skill to develop a spatial strategy but don’t always communicate this spatial thinking into their emerging core strategy. In our experience, too many core strategies focus on individual themes (such as housing and transport) rather than integrating these themes into a spatial approach.267 The Local Plan offers a huge opportunity for planners (and subsequently communities through Neighbourhood Plans) to be strategists securing the future of quality, prosperous places. 3.6 Because the NPPF is designed to be taken as a whole it is important to ensure that the policies are clear and succinct to provide clarity to planning officers, committees and the public. At present some policies are captured inappropriately, for example, it would be beneficial to front-load the “Sustainable Communities” chapter as part of the “Planning for People” section. In addition, the “Design” and “Open Space” (currently a sub-section of Sustainable Communities’) and “Green Belt” chapters would be more appropriately placed in the “Planning for Places” section.

3.7 The Design Council welcomes the recognition that local authorities should have design review arrangements in place to ensure high standards of design. We believe these arrangements should be both independent and impartial and follow the industry-led best practice guidance “Principles and Practice”.268 The Design Council also support the referral where appropriate of major projects to national design review (currently offered by Design Council CABE). By bringing Design Review into planning policy in this way it is even more important that the advice be of good quality to enable and support decision makers at a local level. We would recommend that the NPPF be amended to include the importance of having “independent and interdisciplinary” Design Review panels.

3.8 The NPPF, and indeed the ministerial forward, recognises the vital role that design can play in ensuring sustainable development, however there is a danger that we will lose ground in planners’ conﬁdence to reject poor schemes because of the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development. In 2000, Planning Policy Statement 1 created a positive test for the quality of development stating that developments should improve the area and the way it functions.

3.9 While the NPPF is strong on design, it moves away from a policy which gave local authorities conﬁdence to refuse permission to poorly designed schemes. The NPPF’s new wording that “permission should be refused for development of obviously poor design” is a weakening of the PPS1 stance on design, and could be strengthened simply by the removal of the word “obviously”.

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

4.1 The Design Council welcomes the use of the Brundtland deﬁnition of sustainable development. In particular the notion of intergenerational equity is key if we are to ensure that developments that are taken forward are good for the long-term and do not just meet short term priorities.

4.2 The Design Council welcomes the emphasis on good design in paragraph 18 recognising that developers need to ensure that their projects are of “of good design and appropriately located”. This goes some way to ensuring that schemes actively contribute to an area.

4.3 A good design process is central to achieving sustainable development—it should be the means by which the social, economic and environmental objectives are reconciled. Therefore we would recommend that this be included within the deﬁnition of sustainable development to ensure that there is a recognition that sustainable development is synonymous with good design and therefore good quality development. This would also be in keeping with the 2008 Planning Act which linked sustainable development and good design. 267 Planning for Places (CABE, 2009) 268 Principles and Practice (CABE, Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Landscape institute, 2008) cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w294 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

4.4 The primary objective of development management according to the draft NPPF is the delivery of sustainable development, not to hinder or prevent development. Though the NPPF states that developments are sustainable if they are in accordance with the policies taken as a whole, there is pressure on local authorities to approve developments unless they cause significant and demonstrable harm. Much will rest on the definition of “significant” and “demonstrable” in this context. There is a danger that decisions to decline schemes will be taken to appeal, or judicial review on this basis which would slow the system.

4.5 From our past work with local authorities both on core strategies and climate change strategies it is clear that many struggle with integrating these policy areas. The NPPF makes it clear that local plans must have regard to climate change mitigation and adaptation when drawing up their plans, but some will require direct support in achieving this objective.

4.6 Green Infrastructure, by which we mean networks of green spaces, are a valuable resource in both climate change adaptation and mitigation, as the Environmental Audit Committee recognised in their 2010 report Adapting to Climate Change. The NPPF recognises “open land” can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, ﬂood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production). This is welcome, however there is no requirement for green infrastructure to be assessed or managed in the local plan or through the duty to cooperate.

4.7 We would therefore recommend that a green infrastructure assessment be undertaken as part of the local planning process. This would link to the requirement for planning policies to “identify specific needs and quantitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area” (para 128), but would go beyond this to create a plan for managing green infrastructure as part of the delivery of ecosystem services identified in the Natural Environment White Paper (Defra 2011). The appropriate place to build this into the NPPF would be in paragraph 30 when setting out the evidence base for requirements for economic and housing growth.

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

5.1 The draft NPPF does not successfully emphasise the secondary beneﬁts that a good planning process can deliver to communities and businesses alike. A good local plan integrates the wider public policy agenda bringing together the key partners to plan/deliver the long-term strategy for a successful, sustainable places.

5.2 The NPPF should set “high quality inclusive design” as a core planning principle, possibly as part of the setting out a vision for a place.

5.3 To reﬂect a “genuinely plan-led approach” the NPPF terminology should be altered. For example the NPPF refers to “land-use principles” (paragraph 19) whereas a spatial, plan-led approach should be emphasised.

6. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across government departments?

6.1 The NPPF makes it clear that local plans must have regard to major infrastructure (covered by the national planning policy statements). However, much of this will be dependent on working at a strategic level across local authority boundaries (see below on Duty to Cooperate). It is essential that national policy statements are as speciﬁc as possible in terms of spatial location.

7. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient evidence base for larger-than- local strategic planning?

7.1 Strategic planning has an important role to play in addressing challenges that exist across spatial scales, such as national and local infrastructure, climate change, housing, waste and minerals. There needs to be an integrated response to these challenges that have strong spatial expression when dealing with the provisions of economic, social and environmental infrastructure.

7.2 In the Design Council’s experience, planning functions are needed at the larger than local level because of the need to develop places in a sustainable way and meet not just the local, but national and global priorities, such as addressing climate change, promoting economic growth and delivering affordable housing.

7.3 The duty to cooperate is a real opportunity for local authorities to work together to address strategic issues which cut across their boundaries. Although we welcome the approach, it is unclear if the draft NPPF and the duty to cooperate will create a sufﬁcient framework for cooperation and the Design Council believes there is a considerable risk to delivery if cooperation cannot be achieved.

7.4 The creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) as locally owned partnerships between local authorities and businesses is encouraging however; we see this as just one way of encouraging cross boundary working. Where local authorities are not part of an LEP or indeed where LEPs do not have planning powers these other means for cross boundary collaboration will be key. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w295

7.5 The Design Council has worked with many of the cross boundary organisations set up to tackle large scale challenges. Our experience of these suggests that appropriate cooperation can also be achieved in a number of ways: — By the collaboration of local authorities to write joint plans. This has been done in some areas already through joint core strategies. Local authorities could also collaborate and produce the higher level plan, but still produce their own local pla. A good example of this is the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA).269 — Cross boundary decision making could also be achieved through the aligning of local plans to ensure strategic objectives are met across wider areas and places are not forced into competition without having to share a speciﬁc plan, such as the Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies. 7.6 Careful consideration needs to be given to how local authorities will cooperate cross boundary where there no LEP has been formed. Wherever these functions sit there needs to be a consistent approach. The draft NPPF does not identify how local planning authorities will have to demonstrate evidence of successful collaborated when submitting their local plans. 7.7 CABE published guidance on Large Scale Urban Design for local decision makers seeking to address issues which cross governance boundaries. In particular it: — Reinforces the rationale for adopting a new, place-focused approach to cross-boundary planning and delivering the transformation of places in England and how it can be done. — Deﬁnes methodology for the preparation of large scale spatial frameworks and strategies (through research, work with expert panel and pilot projects) including the publication of a practical guide.270 September 2011

Written evidence from London Councils London Councils welcomes this opportunity to comment on elements of the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). London Councils is committed to fighting for more resources for the capital and getting the best possible deal for London's 33 local authorities. We lobby key stakeholders, develop policy and do all we can to help our boroughs improve the services they deliver. We also run a range of services ourselves, all designed to make life better for Londoners. We broadly welcome the Government's publication of the draft NPPF. We share the Government's aim of reducing excessive bureaucracy and simplifying the planning system as much as possible consistent with the twin objectives of timely decision-making that reflects local priorities and aspirations, and enabling the planning system to play a full role in a healthy and growing economy. We are especially concerned to ensure that the planning system helps deliver the increase in affordable housing that London and other parts of the country urgently need. London Councils welcomes Government's emphasis on localism and devolution, and we see the draft NPPF as an opportunity for local authorities to operate far more flexibly when setting out the spatial vision for their area through their local plans (ie the Local Development Frameworks or LDFs). However, we have some concerns about the draft NPPF which we hope to see addressed during the consultation process: — There should be a one year period of transition before the NPPF takes effect. — There needs to be provision within the final NPPF for areas with a three-tier planning system, such as London. — There should be a presumption against unsustainable development in addition to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. — Clarity needs to be brought to certain terms used in the draft NPPF in order to avoid litigation and the making of planning policy by appeal. These points are expanded upon below. The draft NPPF will be the default planning framework where local plans are out of date. In order to allow local authorities that do not have recently adopted LDFs time to “catch up”, we would like to see the NPPF not take effect until a transition period has passed. We would suggest that a period of one year would be helpful for local authorities to prepare, publish and scrutinise their plans and for these to be submitted and approved by the Secretary of State. Given that the DCLG expect the NPPF to take effect from January 2012, we therefore suggest that it actually takes effect from January 2013. Without such a period of transition, 269 AGMA, http://agma.gov.uk 270 Getting the big picture right: large scale urban design (CABE, 2010) cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w296 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

London Councils is concerned that the NPPF may create opportunities for poor or inappropriate development that does not meet the sustainable development needs of an area.

We note that the draft NPPF does not make any reference to London. London is unusual in planning terms in that it is the only part of England and Wales to have a three-tier planning system, through the regional London Plan. London Councils would like to see either reference to, and allowance for, this planning “exceptionalism” within the final NPPF; or would like assurances that, where appropriate within the text of the NPPF, wording allows for London's unique position. For example, paragraph 111 directs local authorities to plan for local demand for housing. In London a different approach to planning for housing, involving assessment of capacity, is used, and we would like the NPPF to allow the flexibility to do this where evidence justifies a departure from its policies.

London Councils believes that the draft NPPF contains a very helpful definition of “sustainable development” in paragraph 10. The three pillars of sustainable development this paragraph outlines—economic, social and environmental—are the correct objectives that all planning decisions should weigh up. There are, however, concerns that the draft NPPF seeks to direct decision-makers to weigh up the economic factors of a planning application more than the economic or social ones. This may be appropriate in some cases where the circumstances of a particular case justify it, but we would like to see an affirmation that proposed development that does not meet the balance of social, economic and environmental objectives set out in paragraph 10 can and should be refused. Therefore, along with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as defined in this paragraph, London Councils would like to see a presumption against unsustainable development when the objectives in that paragraph are not met.

London Councils is concerned that some of the language used in the draft NPPF may lack the clarity needed to ensure that differing interpretations, and therefore appeals, are kept to a minimum. We share the Government’s aim to minimise complexity and uncertainty in the planning system, and strongly agree that the greater the uncertainty, the less development happens, and the higher the transaction cost of any development that does occur. Appeals are extremely costly for local authorities, and in a time of reduced resources, having to pay for planning appeals may threaten the ability of local authorities to properly resource other important planning functions.

London Councils would therefore like to see greater clarity around the following terms used in the draft NPPF: — Paragraph 20: “... [D]evelopment needs should be met, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” (italics added). This phrase is potentially problematic due to an absence of an agreed meaning of “significantly”. We would therefore suggest that an alternative should be: “... [D]evelopment needs should be met, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would compromise the principles of sustainable development set out in paragraph 10.” — Paragraph 86: “... [D]evelopment should not be prevented or refused on transport grounds unless the residual impacts of development are severe”. London Councils believes that the word “severe” lacks an agreed meaning. It is possible that a development, or more likely, the cumulative effects of various developments, could cause traffic problems that are serious, but may not be felt to be “severe”. A more helpful phrasing would be: “… [D]evelopment should not be prevented or refused on transport grounds unless the development, individually or as part of a cumulative effect, causes unacceptable burdens on the transport network.”

APPENDIX 1

LONDON COUNCILS’ RESPONSE TO DCLG CONSULTATION QUESTIONS ON CHANGE OF USE FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL

Question A

Do you support the principle of the Government’s proposal to grant permitted development rights to change use from B1 (business) to C3 (dwelling houses) subject to effective measures being put in place to mitigate the risk of homes being built in unsuitable locations? Please give your reasons

London Councils does not support the Government's proposal for the reasons that we have outlined in our general comments. These are, briefly, that there is sufficient pipeline capacity for new housing, suggesting that the planning system is not at fault in undersupplying the market; that current planning guidance and practice already enables appropriate uses of land for residential and business purposes; that the ability to plan for sustainable communities will be undermined; that there will be negative impacts on businesses from the mixing of residential uses with business ones in areas; the economic growth will be impeded by this conflict and by the loss of employment land, especially certain types of employment land; that funds for mitigating infrastructure and affordable housing will be lost; that quality public service provision will be endangered; that the measure is anti-localist and that it is inappropriate for London. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w297

Question B Do you support the principle of granting permitted development rights to change use from B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution) to C3 (dwelling houses) subject to effective measures being put in place to mitigate the risk of homes being built in unsuitable locations? Please give your reasons

No, for the reasons outlined in our general comments and in the answer to QA.

Question C Do you agree that these proposals should also include a provision which allows land to revert to its previous use within ﬁve years of a change?

London Councils does not support these proposals, but if they were to be implemented then we would want to see a provision allowing land to revert to its previous use within ﬁve years of a change.

Question D Do you think it would be appropriate to extend the current permitted development rights outlined here to allow for more than one ﬂat? If so should there be an upper limit?

There may be circumstances where this would be appropriate. However, it would be hard to set an upper limit on a national basis—how would this affect an ofﬁce tower with a shop at its base? London Councils believes that the matter is best left to local authorities to tackle through local planning tools.

Question E Do you agree that we have identiﬁed the full range of possible issues which might emerge as a result of these proposals? Are you aware of any further impacts that may need to be taken into account? Please give details

There are issues that not captured by the consultation that need to be considered and we have outlined them in our general comments, however the main points are: — New homes created under this policy change may well be of low quality, without conforming to lifetime homes, living space or environmental standards. — There are very real and potentially expensive costs relating to use conversion that may not be accounted for without the planning process, including compliance with safety requirements, introducing supporting infrastructure, premise design and the appropriateness of converting commercial premises to housing use. — There will be a loss of Section 106 and CIL income to boroughs which is a valuable resource used to provide homes and infrastructure, as well as possible loss of business rates income in the future. — The proposal potentially undermines boroughs' abilities to effectively plan for longer term community infrastructure for issues such as school place demands. — There is a signiﬁcant threat that the higher land values for business sites converted to housing could have the effect of undermining business within an area as well as constraining business development within a locality. — The proposal runs contrary to the Government's stated localist intent.

The nature of a blanket policy such as that being proposed is that it will never be able to take into account the full range of issues that will occur in every locality, hence the need for a more localist response to the issue.

Question F Do you think that there is a requirement for mitigation of potential adverse impacts arising from these proposals and for which potential mitigations do you think the potential beneﬁts are likely to exceed the potential costs?

The consultation identifies potential problems with community infrastructure provision, amenity housing mix, transport accessibility, loss of employment land, and noise and pollution. London Councils agrees broadly with this list, but believes that it cannot be exhaustive as local circumstances will always throw up new situations. Each aspect will impact differently in each location, so it cannot be said that for any one impact the mitigation benefits will always exceed the costs. This is why we believe that the best way to mitigate against adverse impacts is to allow a locally operated planning system look at development applications on their merit. London Councils does not believe that depending on the goodwill of developers, as suggested, is remotely sufficient to make up for the loss of planning conditions and obligations. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w298 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Question G Can you identify any further mitigation options that could be used? See our general comments.

Question H How, if at all, do you think any of the mitigation options could best be deployed? Article 4—this is a very expensive and time consuming way of excluding an area from the impact of the proposals. London Councils believe it would be more effective, easier, cheaper and quicker to allow local authorities to “opt-in” using local planning tools, than to “opt-out” using article 4 directions. Conditions and prior approval—London Councils does not believe that this would be effective as it relies on a developer’s self-certiﬁcation or, if it did not, then would be better addressed through the transparency of planning system. Thresholds and exclusions—if the proposal goes ahead, then in addition to these, London Councils would like to see an exclusion for areas of high residential values that have locally, regionally or nationally important business functions, as identiﬁed through local development plans.

Question I What is your view on whether the reduced compensation provisions associated with the use of article 4 directions contained within section 189 of the Planning Act 2008 should or should not be applied? Please give your reasons See our general comments.

Question J Do you consider there is any justiﬁcation for considering a national policy to allow change of use from C to certain B use classes? Please give your reasons London Councils thinks that this suggestion is as anti-localist as the reverse proposal, and we are therefore opposed to it. However, if the reverse proposal were implemented, then this should be considered as a complementary measure.

Question K Are there any further comments or suggestions you wish to make? No. September 2011

Written evidence from the Environmental Services Association 1. The Environmental Services Association (ESA) is the trade association representing the UK’s waste and secondary resource industry, which is leading the transformation of how the UK’s waste is managed. An industry with an annual turnover of £9 billion, our Members have helped England’s recycling rate quadruple in the last 10 years and provide over a quarter of the UK’s renewable electricity.

Opening Remarks 2. Energy and material costs are expected to rise in the future as a result of climate change policy and long term trends in global demand. Increasing the recovery of energy and materials from the waste stream will therefore be the primary focus of the waste sector going forward. This will be shaped by the long term policy framework which will increasingly drive waste away from landfill and up the waste hierarchy. 3. Waste management infrastructure is clearly an essential component of sustainable development, as it enables the UK to meet its ambitious targets for recycling and renewable energy generation. However, obtaining planning permission remains the single biggest barrier to the timely delivery of this infrastructure. 4. As many as 50 new waste facilities a year until 2020—an investment of £10–20 billion in new plant and equipment—will be required to meet the UK’s obligations to divert waste from landfill. 5. Planning applications for strategic waste management infrastructure are made at significant cost and high financial risk. If the planning risk to development is too great, investment may cease to flow into the waste management sector. 6. Local authorities have tended to make poor provision towards planning for waste management, as evidenced by the fact that only 10% of the anticipated number of waste plans have been approved and are in place. We are therefore encouraged that the Government intends to make additional provision for waste planning through a review of PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w299

7. Subject to our amendments below the NPPF, together with the revised waste strategy and PPS10, should provide a robust policy framework to deliver new waste management infrastructure. However, the interface between the NPPF and PPS10 remains confused, particularly in the interim period before PPS10 is revised. In determining planning applications or preparing waste plans, it would be helpful if the Government clariﬁed how much weight should be attached to relevant policies in NPPF and PPS10.

8. We also seek urgent assurances from the Government that planning for waste planning will not face further delays pending revisions to PPS10 and the waste strategy.

9. Subject to our comments below (paragraph 14) on the need for additional context on waste planning, ESA broadly welcomes the NPPF. We suggest that the following policies in particular should help to deliver key waste management infrastructure through the planning system: — the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 13); — the planning system should proactively support and meet business needs (paragraph 19); — the default answer to development should be “yes”, where the objectives of the NPPF would not be compromised (paragraph 19); — the planning system should encourage rather than restrict development of renewable energy (paragraph 19); — development of waste management infrastructure should be identified as a strategic priority for local plans (paragraph 23); — in the absence of up to date development plans, planning applications should be determined in accordance with the NPPF (paragraph 26); — local authorities should work with others to assess waste capacity and its ability to meet forecast demands (paragraph 31); — neighbourhood plans must conform with and support the strategic priorities of the local plan (paragraph 50); — the development management process should attach significant weight to the benefits of economic growth (paragraph 54); — local authorities should not refuse permission for development which promotes sustainability (paragraph 152); — planning should support the transition to the low carbon economy (paragraph 148); — planning authorities should not refuse permission for well designed infrastructure which promotes high levels of sustainability (paragraph 151); and — applicants for low carbon or renewable energy would not be required to demonstrate “need” (paragraph 153).

10. However, we suggest that the NPPF would beneﬁt from the following amendments:

Waste Planning Policy

11. A robust and comprehensive NPPF with adequate provision towards planning for waste management is essential to guide the preparation and delivery of waste plans. Without this—as acknowledged in a letter from CLG to local authority chief executives—there is a possibility that the European Commission will resume infraction proceedings against the UK on the grounds of insufﬁcient coverage of waste development plans in England. Of the anticipated c.90 waste development frameworks, as of July 2011, only 10% of waste plans had been approved as sound by the Planning Inspectorate.

12. We note that the NPPF includes speciﬁc references to planning for housing, minerals, communication and transport and yet largely excludes provision towards waste management, a topic that is key to achieving sustainable development.

13. The fact that development plans have tended not to identify sites/and or locational criteria for waste management facilities, coupled with the pressing need for such facilities to comply with EU and national waste management targets, provides a compelling case for the NPPF to offer robust provision towards waste planning. Cross referenced with the revised Waste Strategy and PPS10, the NPPF should set out relevant national planning policies for waste management facilities, including locational criteria to inform local planning policies and planning decisions. Such policies should enable planning authorities to identify in development plans sites and areas suitable for new or enhanced waste facilities for the waste management needs of their area. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w300 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

14. The NPPF would therefore benefit from a specific section on planning for sustainable waste management which emphasises the key characteristics of the sector: — waste management facilities can contribute towards the UK’s carbon reduction targets as recycling and energy recovery produces significant carbon savings; — development plans should provide sufficient opportunities to meet the identified need for the management of all waste streams; — waste management can make a positive contribution to the development of sustainable communities and should be considered alongside other spatial planning issues, such as economic growth. Local communities should be encouraged to take greater responsibility for the waste that they produce and enable sufficient and timely provision for waste management facilities to meet the needs of their communities; — planning policies should be clear enough to provide sufficient opportunities for the provision of waste management facilities in appropriate locations, including waste disposal; and — planning policies, informed by analysis of available data and an appraisal of options should underpin the provision of new waste management capacity and its spatial distribution. 15. The Government should send a clear signal to local authorities that the NPPF is just as relevant to waste management development as other forms of development, and paragraph 7 should therefore be deleted and replaced by: Planning for Waste and Resource Management Infrastructure This NPPF contains references throughout to waste management, including its role in renewable and low carbon energy generation. This reflects the fact that waste management is an integral part of sustainable development, economic investment and addressing climate change. Local authorities preparing waste plans should also have regard to planning policy published alongside the National Waste Management Plan for England which should be accorded as much weight in planning decisions as though it comprised part of this NPPF. 16. Our proposed amendment would address the risk of confusion which may arise from the current wording of paragraph 7 on the respective weight to be applied by planning authorities in considering the national waste plan, PPS10 and the NPPF.

Delivering Sustainable Development 17. As above, there must be stronger recognition in the NPPF that waste management is a key component of delivering sustainable development. Bullet point 3 of paragraph 10 should therefore aim to achieve greater consistency with PPS10, and should be amended as follows (in italics): ….to use natural resources prudently, to manage waste sustainably, and to mitigate and adapt to climate change….

Neighbourhood Planning 18. The interface between neighbourhood and local plans appears confused within the NPPF. 19. In one instance (paragraph 50) it is noted that neighbourhood plans should be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the local plan, however, later in paragraph 51 it is noted that, when a neighbourhood plan is made, the policies it contains take precedence over existing policies in the local plan for that neighbourhood, where they are in conflict. 20. ESA suggests that the NPPF better reflects the Localism Bill and clarifies that a local plan takes precedence over a neighbourhood plan.

Pre-Application Consultation 21. ESA agrees that it is important for pre-application consultation to take place on the largest and most significant development proposals, and indeed most responsible applicants seek early engagement with local authorities on this matter. 22. However, local authorities have a greater role than is suggested in paragraph 57, which should be amended as follows: Local authorities have a key role to play in encouraging other parties to take maximum advantage of the pre-application stage. Pre-application consultation can deliver tangible benefits to local authorities, allowing time and resources to be deployed effectively, and local authorities should therefore also pro-actively engage in pre-application consultation. 23. Delayed responses from local authorities (or statutory consultees) can significantly disrupt an applicant’s efforts to engage in pre-application consultation. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w301

Designation of Green Belts 24. PPS10 allows local authorities to make provision for sustainable waste management development within the green belt, however, the NPPF is noticeably silent on this matter. 25. PPS10 states that planning strategies should aim to protect the greenbelt but recognise the particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities when defining detailed greenbelt boundaries. 26. The NPPF should therefore be amended to recognise that areas of greenbelt and sites designated for environmental importance need not be considered as a barrier to the development of more environmentally sustainable forms of waste management development. 27. ESA therefore suggests that sustainable waste management more suited to a non-urban environment is included within the list of development in paragraph 144. 28. Paragraph 146 should be amended (in italics) to state: When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable and low carbon energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable and low carbon sources. 29. This simple amendment would allow for greater consistency with other NPPF policies and is a better reflection of the objectives of paragraph 148.

Support the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy 30. The NPPF must acknowledge that the preparation of waste development plans which contain policies designed to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, energy from waste is essential for developing modern, sustainable waste management solutions. 31. The ﬁrst bullet point of paragraph 152 should therefore be amended as follows: 32. Have a positive strategy plan to promote energy from renewable and local carbon sources, including energy from waste and deep geothermal energy.

Health 33. Public perception of potential risk to health often forms the principal basis for objections to new waste management facilities. However, in preparing plans and determining applications planning authorities should operate on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime would be properly enforced, and place considerable weight on ofﬁcial opinion. The NPPF should therefore explicitly acknowledge that modern, appropriately located, well run and well regulated waste management facilities, operated in line with current pollution control techniques and standards pose little risk to human health. 34. This would allow the NPPF to achieve consistency with relevant policies contained within the Renewable Energy National Policy Statement, the Hazardous Waste National Policy Statement, PPS10, the Waste Strategy and other relevant Government guidance (eg Health Protection Agency, 2009).

Need 35. Given the need for a range of new waste management facilities to deliver the Government’s national targets and fulﬁl its obligations under EU waste law, ESA suggests that applicants for waste management infrastructure should not be required to demonstrate a quantitative or market need for their proposal. 36. A simple amendment to paragraph 153 would address this requirement.

Glossary 37. As above, and in line with policy produced by other Government departments, the deﬁnition of renewable and low carbon energy should be amended to recognise the role of energy from waste in contributing towards the UK’s renewable energy targets.

Is the deﬁnition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 38. ESA welcomes the principle of placing the presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of the planning system. The requirement for local authorities to quickly approve development which accords with statutory plans, or grant permission where plans are silent or out of date places a more positive obligation on planning authorities to engage in more proactive planning. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w302 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

39. However, it is unhelpful that neither the Localism Bill nor the NPPF offers a clear definition of “sustainable development”. ESA has consistently called for such a key concept to be defined and explained in primary legislation, for use by local authorities in the development plan and management process. 40. PPS10 notes that “planning authorities…should help deliver sustainable development through driving waste management up the waste hierarchy, addressing waste as a resource and looking to disposal as the last option, but one which must be adequately catered for”. 41. If the NPPF is to apply to waste management planning, it would benefit from an equally strong message, with sustainable development defined in the new waste management section, proposed above, as: Development which helps meet national objectives and targets for waste management, resource recovery and renewable energy. Steps should be taken to move waste up the waste hierarchy with disposal as the last option, but which should nonetheless be catered for. 42. The Government is invited to note that relevant national objectives, for example those set out in the Waste Strategy, would already have been subject to a Sustainability Appraisal. 43. In the absence of a more robust definition of sustainable development, interpretation and application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development would vary considerably between local authorities across the country, potentially contravening the core planning objectives of paragraph 19.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 44. ESA suggests amendments (in italics) to the following bullet points of paragraph 19: 45. Bullet point 2: Every effort should be made to identify and meet the housing, waste management, energy, business, and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. 46. This amendment reﬂects that delivery of such infrastructure has been identiﬁed as a strategic priority for inclusion within local plans (paragraph 23). 47. Bullet point 7: …..(for example, by the development of low carbon and renewable energy). 48. This amendment achieves greater consistency with later sections of the NPPF (eg paragraph 148). 49. ESA suggests bullet point 9 is amended (in italics) as follows: Planning policies and decisions should aim to balance local strategies to improve health and wellbeing with relevant national guidance on health. 50. This amendment simply recognises that national guidance on health may form a material planning consideration. 51. The delivery of infrastructure, such as renewable energy and waste management development, are essential for the UK’s compliance with EU Directives. ESA therefore suggests the addition of the following core planning principle: Planning policies and decisions should enable the Government to achieve its obligations under relevant EU law.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 52. As above, it is unclear how planning policies in the NPPF (which are noted to apply equally to planning for waste management) would interface with the retained PPS10 and the proposed revisions to PPS10 and the “National Waste Management Plan”. 53. There is scope to further integrate the NPPF with policy objectives of other Government departments. The NPPF should recognise energy from waste as a key component of the UK’s renewable energy infrastructure, as acknowledged by DECC in the recent publication of the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure. 54. DECC has also published a Renewable Heat Incentive, which aims to encourage the uptake of heat generation from a range of renewable energy technologies, including energy from waste. 55. However, even where there is a demand from the manufacturing industry for heat, the planning process often limits renewable energy facilities to sites where there is no local demand for heat. There is clearly a role for the NPPF to offer more robust policies beyond that provided in paragraph 152 and we suggest that, for all new developments, planning authorities should be required to consider how renewable energy supply schemes can best be integrated with new developments in order to maximise the beneﬁts associated with such schemes. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w303

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 56. A failure by local authorities to engage in a joint approach to strategic waste planning would, at the local level, lead to duplication in resources and a disjointed approach to delivery of strategic waste infrastructure. The Government has sought to address this through provisions in the Localism Bill for a duty to co-operate in planning for sustainable development. 57. The expectation placed on local authorities to work closely together is therefore welcome, however, there are in fact no statutory provisions in the Localism Bill to compel local authorities to engage in the level of strategic planning envisaged by paragraphs 44–47. Planning authorities need only consider whether to consult and prepare a joint approach to strategic planning. 58. Furthermore, compliance with the duty would be tested by the Planning Inspectorate in examining the soundness of development plans: a rather retrospective approach to ensuring a strategic approach to planning. 59. ESA is therefore unconvinced that the new duty will adequately address the policy vacuum following the abolition of the Regional Strategies.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based? 60. Despite an apparent focus on housing growth as the main stimulus for planning reform, the evidence base presented in the NPPF’s Impact Assessment appears broadly sound. September 2011

Written evidence from Leicestershire County Council Summary — Leicestershire County Council welcomes the substantial reduction in the quantity of national guidance which has been achieved by the production of the draft NPPF. Such a reduction in guidance is a necessary prerequisite of the Government’s localism agenda and its stated intention to give local communities substantially more power over decisions affecting their areas. — The Council wishes to see in place a NPPF which strikes the right balance between meeting economic and development needs, and respecting and meeting the aspirations of local residents and communities regarding the future development of their neighbourhoods. The right balance has not been struck in the draft NPPF. — The draft NPPF does not in the Council’s view give local communities sufficient power over planning decisions, contrary to previous Government statements and publications on planning reform which have emphasised giving local communities real influence over development decisions affecting their areas. — The guidance underplays the importance of actively engaging and involving local people about planning decisions affecting their areas, and in doing so engaging with local people about the economic and development needs of wider economic and housing market areas. — The presumption in favour of sustainable development is supported in principle but such a presumption can only be balanced and workable if there is a clear definition of what is meant by “sustainable development”. Such a clear definition is not provided. — The influence over local communities will be particularly limited in those situations where an adopted local plan is not in place or where there does not exist a five year supply of housing land. In these circumstances local councils and communities will be almost powerless to prevent development being approved across large parts of the County with key decisions being taken by Government appointed Inspectors not accountable to local communities. At the very least the Government should delay introduction of the NPPF to enable local plans to be put in place. — The “duty to cooperate” and the encouragement given to local planning authorities to collaborate on strategic issues across administrative boundaries is welcomed. The draft framework needs to go further, however, to ensure that such collaboration involves key partners such as county councils and local enterprise partnerships and that sub-regional strategic planning and infrastructure coordination provide a sound context for local plans.

1. Introduction 1.1 Leicestershire County Council welcomes the substantial reduction in the quantity of national guidance which has been achieved by the production of the draft NPPF. Such a reduction in guidance is a necessary prerequisite of the Government’s localism agenda and its stated intention to give local communities substantially more power over decisions affecting their areas. 1.2 The Council fully supports the Government’s localism and decentralisation aspirations and has proactively taken forward the Big Society agenda through a range of activities. It is also supporting a cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w304 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

neighbourhood planning frontrunner initiative in Blaby in the County, and has recently carried out a comprehensive engagement exercise with residents and communities across Leicestershire to identify particularly valued green spaces. 1.3 The Council also, however, recognises and supports the need for economic growth and the infrastructure provision, including new homes, needed to support such growth. The Council is a leading participant in the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership and has been a housing growth location (including as a New Growth Point under the previous Government) over many years. It has recently earmarked all the New Homes Bonus it has received in 2011–12 to support affordable homes provision in rural communities. 1.4 The Council wishes to see in place a NPPF which strikes the right balance between meeting the economic and development needs of the nation, of our Local Enterprise Partnership area and of our local communities, and respecting and meeting the aspirations of local residents and communities regarding the future development of their neighbourhoods. The right balance has not been struck in the draft NPPF and the comments which follow explain why. 1.5 More generally the Council considers that a much shortened national planning policy document needs to be very clear and precise if it is to simplify and speed up the planning process. Any lack of clarity in the NPPF, whether in the policies it sets out, or in making clear where local areas have discretion, will only create uncertainty and prolong debate and disagreement at the more local level. This clarity and precision is not apparent throughout the document with large numbers of policy statements being accompanied by “hedging” phrases such as “when practical” or “in a reasonable manner”.

Response to the Select Committee’s Questions 2. 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 over planning decisions? 2.1 The draft NPPF does not in the Council’s view give local communities sufficient power over planning decisions. This is disappointing as the Government has clearly signalled in its earlier statements and publications about planning reform that it is committed to giving to local communities real influence over development decisions affecting their areas. 2.2 It is instructive that not one of the ten core planning principles set out in the NPPF refer to localism or to the key principle of giving local communities a greater say over what happens in their neighbourhoods. This contrasts with firmly worded principles about the importance of meeting the nation’s development needs and allocating sufficient land to meet these needs. 2.3 Neighbourhood Plans are the main planning mechanism granted to local communities, but their role is limited to “shaping and directing” development, with the opportunity to increase, but not decrease, the quantity of development agreed through the Local Plan. The County Council is supporting one of the neighbourhood planning frontrunner schemes approved by the Government and is keen to see neighbourhood planning succeed but the prospects of this will be diminished if local control over decision-making is limited in this way. 2.4 The power of local communities is also diminished by the provisions proposed for those situations where an adopted local plan is not in place or where there does not exist a five year supply of housing land (in reality a six-year supply given the need to make an extra 20% allowance). In these situations local councils and communities will be almost powerless to prevent development being approved across large parts of the County with key decisions being taken by Government appointed Inspectors not accountable to local communities. At the very least the Government should delay introduction of the NPPF to enable local plans to be put in place. 2.5 In terms of housing such an approach would be inappropriate even if it were to lead to an immediate increase in the supply of new homes to meet housing demands and need. The availability of land with planning permission is not, however, a major constraint on housing delivery at the current time and is unlikely to be so in the near future. Much land with planning permission, including on Greenfield sites, lies undeveloped. It is current economic conditions and the availability of finance which is preventing new homes being built. Implementation of the NPPF may lead to developers securing planning permissions from development, potentially in inappropriate locations, but this does not mean that they will immediately construct homes on then. Given this the case for delaying the NPPF, to give local authorities the opportunity to put local plans in place, is even stronger. 2.6 The balance between promotion of economic growth and empowering local communities to shape their areas is, therefore, considered to be skewed heavily in favour of the former. Growth will be needed, and indeed Leicestershire has accommodated much growth in the past, but such growth needs to be managed with the consent and input of local communities if genuine localism is to be achieved, The NPPF as drafted runs the risk of facilitating development against the wishes (or at least without the consent) of local communities and will perpetuate the widespread opposition to development which arose in response to the top-down targets imposed through Regional Plans. The role of local communities in making planning decisions should be enhanced and embedded throughout the document to address this imbalance. This will bring the NPPF into line with the Government’s own statements and publications about planning reform. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w305

2.7 The NPPF could also say more about the importance of actively engaging local communities about development in their areas. The County Council has recently carried out a green spaces engagement exercise across the whole of the County which involved interactive sessions at 27 community forums and the use of an online map-based engagement tool. This provides one successful model of how communities can make clear their views about land-use issues in their areas to inform the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans. Such exercises are valuable, but are also resource intensive, and the NPPF could usefully emphasise the beneﬁts of local planning authorities, county councils and other bodies collaborating on such engagement activity as part of the duty to co-operate.

3. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 3.1 The definition of sustainable development is not sufficiently detailed or explicit to provide sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, Inspectors, local communities and developers. The short definition set out in paragraph 9 of the draft NPPF balances the economic, social and environmental dimensions of development In the Ministerial Foreword to the document, however, the definition is interpreted in a very particular way, equating “development” to “growth”. This illustrates how a lack of clarity about what is meant by “sustainable development” is likely to lead to different interpretations of it; a recipe for confusion, prolonged debate and delay at the more local level where planning decisions are made. 3.2 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is supported in principle but such a presumption can only be balanced and workable if there is a clear definition of what is meant by “sustainable development”. In the context of the rest of the draft NPPF which tends to put economic and housing growth ahead of other considerations there is a danger that it will, in practice, be a presumption in favour of economic growth. Any such definition should be based on the Brundtland definition which balances economic, social and environmental considerations, and its application should take account of local circumstances. 3.3 Decisions about how economic, social and environmental considerations are balanced are best made at local level in the context of robust evidence and a clear understanding of the views and aspirations of local people. The draft NPPF if implemented in its current form runs the very real risk of imposing growth on local communities regardless of the wishes of local people and with insufficient heed to social and environmental considerations.

4. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 4.1 The County Council’s main concerns are that the core planning principles: — Do not strike an appropriate balance between economic, social and environmental considerations. The tone and wording of the second principle which focuses on meeting needs and delivering growth is much more strident than that used for the other principles; — Make no reference to the importance of local communities making decisions about development proposals which affect their areas, previously understood to be a key component of the Government’s localism agenda; and — Require decision-makers to “assume that the default answer to development proposals is ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in this Framework”. This will be difﬁcult to achieve in a balanced way given, as has been previously noted, that sustainable development is not clearly deﬁned.

5. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 5.1 There are two key areas which raise concerns for the County Council regarding policy coherence across Government. These relate to localism, and to sub-regional working and the duty to co-operate. 5.2 On localism there is inconsistency between the Government’s intentions to shift power from central government back into the hands of individuals, communities and councils and the way the draft NPPF plans to put this into practice. As discussed above it is not at all clear how the views of local communities will be factored into decision-making given the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the advice to approve development proposals when an adopted local plan is not in place or there is not a ﬁve years supply of housing land. 5.3 On sub-regional strategic planning the draft framework is not consistent with the references to planning made in the Local Growth White Paper. This issue is covered in section 6 below.

6. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 6.1 The “duty to cooperate” and the encouragement given to local planning authorities to collaborate on strategic issues across administrative boundaries is welcomed. The NPPF should, however, strengthen these provisions to give further guidance on the management and resolution of strategic issues across LPA boundaries cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w306 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

in two tier areas (and wider), where a common approach cannot be agreed voluntarily. To assist this, the key role upper tier authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships can play in coordinating and brokering evidence and strategic policy preparation should be reinforced through the NPPF. In particular in two-tier areas county councils should have a formal and statutory role in the planning system to address sub-regional planning matters particularly in relation to strategic infrastructure provision to inform local plans. This could take the form of county councils being required to produce statutory Strategic Infrastructure Assessments to inﬂuence and inform the preparation of local plans and to set a context for local authorities and agencies to pool and jointly deploy available funding (including Community Infrastructure levy and New Homes Bonus). 6.2 At a more detailed level it should be made explicit in paragraph 28 that county councils and LEPs will have a role in assessing future housing requirements to match the reference in paragraph 29 to their involvement in identifying business requirements. 6.3 The draft Framework does not follow through earlier Government statements, including in the Local Growth White Paper, about LEPs having a key role in the planning system. Whilst the draft NPPF is unashamedly pro economic growth there is a real risk that unless LEPs have a role in strategic planning the growth will not happen in the right form and in the right places to meet locally agreed priorities. Indeed decisions made on appeal in the absence of a Local Plan could work directly against the interests of the local economy if it were, for example, to involve the loss of employment sites to other uses. September 2011

Written evidence from Professor Vincent Goodstadt Context 1. I welcome the invitation to comment of the draft NPPF. Although these comments are made personally they draw upon a joint submission I was party to in an earlier consultation and which is attached in Appendix 2. 2. There are many detailed points that I am aware are being raised by other parties but I consider there is one central issue that needs to be resolved if the NPPF is to effective and efﬁcient. This relates to the issues posed by the proposed presumption in favour of sustainable development. This I consider is so central to the credibility of the document.

Summary 3. The following note sets out: (a) The context of the NPPF as a mechanism for delivering Government objectives in particular economic growth and sustainable development; and (b) The implications of the current ﬂawed proposed presumption in favour of sustainable development; and (c) The implications for modifying and strengthening the NPPF. by operationalising the concept of sustainable development within the NPPF and is illustrated in Appendix 1.

The Role of the NPPF in Delivering National Objectives for Sustainable Development 4. The current proposed draft NPPF is right in making the goal of sustainable development central to the NPPF. This however needs to by promoting the balanced and sustainable development of England by: (a) setting the framework for sustainable development; (b) setting out the priorities for economic, social and environmental regeneration; and (c) maintaining and enhancing the quality of the natural heritage and built environment. 5. The NPPF could achieve these goals around the principles of: (i) Securing the Economic Resources required to maintain and improve the competitive position of the UK; (ii) Sustaining the Social and Community Resources required to sustain and reinforce the services, amenities and physical identities upon which neighbourhoods depend; (iii) Maintaining the Environmental Resources, their “carrying capacity” and quality and integrity of the ecosystems upon which they are dependent; and (iv) Providing the framework for decisions on Development Choices in order to operationalise the presumption in favour of sustainable development that the Government’s seek. The NPPF could therefore clarify what is meant by the planning tests for sustainable development without getting into theoretical arguments about the deﬁnition of sustainable development. 6. Experience shows that a NPPF has greatest added value if it is underpinned by one or more over-riding concept which creates real synergy between the necessary separate strands of government and helps deliver the priorities of the Government. In the current English planning context “Economic Growth” is the immediate cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w307

priority and “Security” is the longer term need. Therefore “Securing the Growth of the Nation” or equivalent branding could form the focus for the NPPF. 7. Unfortunately the current proposed NPPF lacks does not seek to provide a vision for the future of the nation but limit the NPPF to being an administrative tool against which local plans will be judged nationally. This will be useful and ensure a level of consistency between plans and more level playing ﬁeld for developers. However it represents a missed opportunity to make the planning system proactive in promoting sustainable growth as opposed to regulatory culture within which current draft NPPF.

Draft NPPF Proposals for Sustainable Development 8. As currently drafted the NPPF ends up being a reactive set of criteria which are open to interpretation. Although there are a plethora of issues that arise because of this I would wish to draw attention to three key implications for sustainable development of this. (a) The principle of sustainable, as presented, rests upon a high order deﬁnition which is so open to challenge it will cause delay, confusion and costs. The NPPF therefore needs to express the concept (as far as it is to be applied within the planning system) in terms of operational principles that will not be subject to continuous debate. (b) There is no basis for assessing whether the policies in the NPPF have been implemented. The question needs to be asked therefore how will the government ever know whether its aspirations for growth in any of the policy areas are met within local plans unless some sense of the scale and distribution of development is set out within it? (c) The regulatory “approach” which the government is proposing gives a green light to development where there is no plan in place and undermines the very principle of sustainable development since it removes need to assess whether a proposal meets any test of sustainability. The rationale upon which this policy is based, is fundamentally ﬂawed since there is no necessary linkage to whether or not a plan is in place as to whether a development proposal is sustainable. This presumption is therefore irrational and I would question whether it meets to Wendsbury test of reasonableness.

Implications 9. The implications of the above comments are three-fold. (a) The concept of sustainable development needs to be operationalised. This should not be done by further reﬁnement of the deﬁnition of sustainability (whichever one is used), but by setting out the core criteria which will be used to make planning choices. This should be based on the principle that where there is a planning choice planning authorities and developers should choose the more sustainable option (eg in centre v out of centre; greenbelt v non-greenbelt etc). It therefore would not seek to assert that the development itself is sustainable on some theoretical sense but that the most sustainable decision has been taken given the material circumstances. There are of course various ways that one may seek to express this but for the sake of illustration Appendix 1 sets out an example of how this may be able to be encapsulated within an NPPF. (b) The promotion of sustainable development in the NPPF would be greatly strengthened by setting out scale of growth that is needed nationally and which local plans should seek to support. Examples of this were set out in my earlier submission in Appendix 2. (c) The current presumption in favour of granting consent where there is no development plan in place should be deleted, on the basis that it is irrational. September 2011

APPENDIX 1 POTENTIAL TEXT TO OPERATIONALISE THE CONCEPT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE NPPF The concept of Sustainable Development as embodied in International Agreements, European Treaties and Directives and National Policies reflects the requirement to provide for the needs of existing and future generations by safeguarding and enhancing the economic, community and environmental resources of the area. The following principles should therefore be applied in planning policies for and decisions on development proposals: — a presumption in favour of meeting demonstrable needs for development within the planning horizons of the local plan and which demonstrates benefits in terms of the objectives of the NPPF and local plan; — the application of the relevant sequential approach in order to ensure that the most beneficial location has been selected in terms of its economic, social, environmental and transport implications, and that resources are safeguarded from potential irreversible damage or strain on their carrying capacity; and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w308 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— the impacts on local communities arising from a development proposal should be borne by those who beneﬁt from the proposal.. The extent to which such costs are being borne by the developer will be material to the acceptability of a proposal. These Principles are based upon the following considerations:

Economic Resources Economic growth and security is central to the NPPF (and government’s wider agenda). Key economic locations and infrastructure cannot easily be replaced and need to be safeguarded in order to maintain and improve the competitive position of the UK. This will also help avoid diverting or displacing investment from more sustainable locations for development identiﬁed in the NPPF. This applies particularly to the vitality and viability of town centres. As a result: — Strategic business centres (ie the main city and town centres) need to be supported by a presumption in favour of their growth and renewal; — existing and proposed economic development locations in the local plan should be safeguarded and enhanced; — new investment should maximise the use of existing infrastructure, including transportation and water services; — an effective marketable supply of industrial and business opportunities across the local plan area should be maintained; — a range of opportunities should be maintained to meet special needs as identiﬁed in the NPPF eg for large-scale inward investment; and — preference should be given to the selection of locations which support the movement of freight by rail (or sea) rather than solely by road, and minimise the length of journeys to work, particularly by private car.

Social and Community Resources In order to support the well-being of communities and neighbourhoods, there is a need to provide sufficient houses and local jobs, and safeguard and reinforce the services, amenities and physical identities upon which they depend. New developments should therefore be encouraged to locate where they will reinforce and support existing communities. A sustainable approach to development also requires that there is an equitable balance between the costs and benefits of any development. Development proposals should therefore take account of the ability of settlements to accommodate additional development without unacceptable adverse impacts upon their physical identity or the quality of life within them. As a result: — optimum use should be made of existing community facilities and infrastructure by recycling urban land and safeguarding town centres; — community facilities should be in locations which are accessible to all sections of the community by walking, cycling, or public transport; — development proposals should be related to the ability of existing communities to accommodate further development without significant adverse impact; and — the range and distribution of community facilities within town centre catchments should be improved, and an adequate housing land supply should be maintained within each housing market area.

Environmental Resources The nation contains a wide range of natural and historic Environmental Resources, designated and undesignated, ranging from those of international to those of local signiﬁcance. Development proposals should be assessed against their impacts on these resources, including landscape and “carrying capacity” and quality of the ecosystems upon which they are dependent. As a result: — the quality and extent of environmental resources should be safeguarded, especially internationally and nationally designated resources; — ecosystems should be sustained — priority should be given to the reuse of vacant urban land and buildings; — priority should be given to the decontamination of derelict urban land; — new development should seek to promote renewable energy production; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w309

— new development should seek to reduce energy consumption and in particular, the length and number of trips by private cars; and — the risk of blight or loss of environmental resources caused by the excessive allocation of land for development should be minimised.

APPENDIX 2 PRIORITIES AND POLICIES REQUIRED TO PRODUCE AN EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) Response to Ministerial Consultation by Professors Vincent Goodstadt & Cecilia Wong & Dr. Mark Baker Context 10. We welcome the invitation by the Rt. Hon. Greg Clark to organisations and individuals to offer their suggestions on what priorities and policies should be adopted “to produce a shorter, more decentralised and less bureaucratic National Planning Policy Framework”. We therefore submit the following views on these matters and will be very happy to expand and explain any of them. The recommendations presented here are the personal views of the authors but draw upon their substantive experience and knowledge of delivering effective planning at a strategic and national scale. 11. The Government’s desire to make the planning system clearer is welcomed, in particular the three principles which underpin the Government’s agenda for the planning system: — a strengthened local input into and accountability for planning decisions; — clearer national policies; and — a commitment to sustainable development. 12. The integrity and coherence of the proposed reforms depends upon the delivery of all three principles. An effective NPPF is one of the key tools for delivering the Government’s core objectives of economic growth and competitiveness whilst promoting localism agenda and meeting the UK’s international commitments to sustainable development. Without an NPPF local decisions will be without context and potentially in conﬂict not only with that of their neighbours but also with the national interests. Similarly, sustainable development will remain mere rhetoric unless the NPPF pins down the sustainability tests that need to be applied at local as well as a national level. 13. The following note therefore considers the following matters identiﬁed by the Minister in his statement to the Parliament: (a) The relationship between a NPPF and the localism agenda; (b) The role of a NPPF as a mechanism for delivering Government objectives in particular economic growth and sustainable development; and (c) The form & content of a NPPF that will deliver user-friendly and accessible policy.

NPPF & Localism 14. The re-empowering of local communities is long overdue. However effective localism cannot flourish in a policy vacuum. If local initiative is to flourish it needs to have the confidence that it will be supported by, and not undermined by, the planning decisions in other areas. There is also the need to minimise the risk that local aspirations will not reflect the needs of the wider community of interest for new infrastructure, new housing, new retailing or employment. Local communities therefore require a clear strategic context without which, as experience shows, the localism agenda will be undermined and frustrated by a lack of confidence and uncertainty. 15. These potential problems have been recognised by the Government, eg in the Local Growth White Paper.271 The Government has therefore already recognised that local communities are not islands. In part this issue will be addressed through the duty to cooperate locally. However there are key decisions that affect local areas which can only be taken at the national level through a NPPF or similar mechanism. These relate to the range of matters that hold the nation together and drive it forward. These are also those matters upon which there will be a national interest in ensuring that communities cooperate locally if national priorities are to be delivered. These national priorities are amplified in Appendix A and can be characterised as: (a) The National Economic Hubs which drive and secure the future of Britain. (b) The National Networks upon which all communities are dependent for accessing the national hubs and major urban centres; 271 There is a mutually beneficial relationship between larger cities & surrounding urban areas .... Neighbourhood plans will need to respect national… as well as other strategic priorities.... LEPs could take on a strategic planning role. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w310 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

(c) The National Flagship Projects which will help transform the competitiveness and quality of life of England. 16. Much of the thinking in defining such priorities is already in place in various governmental or other reports that either exist or are in hand. Although therefore the Government has a tight timetable for producing the first NPPF, the identification of the national development priorities is a practical proposition. Appendix B sets out some of the material that already exists which could be drawn on in the preparation of the NPPF without duplication.

The Role of the NPPF in Delivering National Objectives 17. The overall goal of the NPPF must be to promote the balanced and sustainable development of England by: (a) setting the framework for sustainable development; (b) setting out the priorities for economic, social and environmental regeneration; and (c) maintaining and enhancing the quality of the natural heritage and built environment. 18. The NPPF could achieve these goals around the principles of: (i) Securing the Economic Resources required to maintain and improve the competitive position of the UK; (ii) Sustaining the Social and Community Resources required to sustain and reinforce the services, amenities and physical identities upon which neighbourhoods depend; (iii) Maintaining the Environmental Resources, their “carrying capacity” and quality and integrity of the ecosystems upon which they are dependent; and (iv) Providing the framework for decisions on Development Choices in order to operationalise the presumption in favour of sustainable development that the Government’s seek. The NPPF could therefore clarify what is meant by the planning tests for sustainable development without getting into theoretical arguments about the deﬁnition of sustainable development. 19. Experience shows that a NPPF has greatest added value if it is underpinned by one or more over-riding concept which creates real synergy between the necessary separate strands of government and helps deliver the priorities of the Government. In the current English planning context “Economic Growth” is the immediate priority and “Security” is the longer term need. Therefore “Securing the Growth of the Nation” or equivalent branding could form the focus for the NPPF. The key point is that an NPPF is more than a mere administrative document (which in essence the PPSs have been) but to be a tool for re-engineering the nation. 20. Linked to this, is the need to transform the plethora of national planning policies into an enabling framework and move away from being a prescriptive set of directives. This could be achieved if the NPPF could set out a “balance sheet” and “future business plan” for the development of the nation, which would summarise the key components of UK plc. The potential scope of these is illustrated in Appendix C. Such a statement could be developed as part of the NPPF or as a supporting document. This could, in effect, be a State of the Nation Report setting out the directions of change; and the national Perspectives on the potential “futures” that England faces and that the NPPF should seek to accommodate and enable.

Form & Content of a NPPF 21. The current form and content of national planning policy statements are not effective because: (a) They are not only excessively lengthy but also have duplication. (b) They are essentially reactive in nature being criteria based and they therefore do not offer clarity about what is required of local plans. (c) They are in effect presented in policy silos which leads to policy gaps and potentially conflicting policy positions. (d) They lack sensitivity to different spatial contexts, assuming that policies are applicable across the different parts of the country. 22. A single NPPF offers the opportunity to provide clarity by setting out those core policies that should underpin local development policies and proposals whilst allowing local application of them. These national policy requirements would ensure a consistency, complementarity and synergy in local planning generally. This would thereby provide a level playing-field for investors across the country, reducing uncertainty and speeding up the development process. 23. Appendix D sets out an initial assessment of a reduced list of current policy requirements. It is presented as an illustrative Framework of Policies that need to be applied locally. They are all capable of being interpreted without needing major (ie documentation) within the NPPF itself since there are well established sources on good practice which a qualified planner is capable of drawing on if needed. This framework is based around the following three key themes: (a) Promoting and supporting sustainable economic development; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w311

(b) Identifying opportunities to meet in full the local need for development in local communities and neighbourhoods; and (c) Protecting, enhancing and creating national environmental resources & ecosystems. 24. Finally, the real clarity will be provided by the NPPF by the selective use of conceptual mapping. Selective both in number and content, these do not need to replicate mere survey data that can be accessed from other primary sources. They would however include: (a) National economic opportunities and priorities. (b) National social priorities. (c) National Environmental Priorities. (d) Indicative priorities for the use of Natural resources. (e) The national Infrastructure Priorities.

APPENDIX A NATIONAL PLANNING PRIORITIES In addition to the principles of sustainable development and the framework of nationally applied planning policies (refer Appendix D), the NPPF will need to set out the national planning priorities required to safeguard and deliver the economic, social and environmental future of England. These should include: (A) The National Hubs which drive and secure the economic and social future of Britain. These would include amongst other things: — Airports. — Ports. — Inland freight terminals. — Knowledge/ research centres of excellence. — Power supply. — Water Supply. (B) The National Networks upon which all communities are dependent for accessing the national hubs and Major metropolitan areas, including, inter alia: — Rail (passenger and freight. — Road. — Canals/river systems. — Power grids. — Telecommunications. — The Water Catchment / Ecosystem Framework of England. — Green Grid, including Green Belts, National Park Systems, protected habitats and AONBs. (C) The National Flagship Projects to transform the competitiveness and quality of life of England which are recognised as national economic, social and environmental priorities, and could include for example: — Internationally important projects eg The Olympics/Commonwealth Games. — Transport Projects of National Signiﬁcance eg HS2, Cross-rail. — Blue-Brown Priorities—ie Regeneration Priorities (eg UDCs) or New Town or equivalent projects. — Blue-Green Priorities eg new Green Belts, New national parks or National Forestry Projects.

APPENDIX B ESTABLISHED POLICY THINKING AT A NATIONAL LEVEL The approach suggested in this report could draw on the longer term national issues identiﬁed in various recent reports. The following are examples of what is already available. These are only illustrative and: (a) National Infrastructure Planning: refer “Strategic Framework and Policy Statement on Improving the Resilience of Critical Infrastructure to Disruption from Natural Hazards”; (b) Food Security: refer “Securing food supplies up to 2050: the challenges faced by the UK”; (c) Water Stress: eg as highlighted in the Environment Agency report “Water for People and the Environment” 2009; (d) Flood Risk: refer Flooding in England: A National Assessment of Flood Risk; (e) Impoverished Biodiversity: refer “Lost life: England’s lost and threatened species”; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w312 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

(f) Sustaining Ecosystems Services: refer recent report “Draft synthesis of current status and recent trends”; (g) Energy & Climate: refer Low Carbon Transition Plan: national strategy for climate & energy; (h) Renewable Energy: refer the 2009 UK Renewable Energy Strategy Consultation; (i) Transport: 2008 Delivering a Sustainable Transport System; (j) High Speed Rail documents (HS2).

APPENDIX C NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BALANCE SHEET The NPPF could set out the “balance sheet” and “future business plan” for the development of the nation, which would summarise the key components of UK plc, for example as follows: (a) A State of the Nation Report setting out: (i) The aggregate capacity for development; (ii) The underused capacities in our national stock (eg housing) and infrastructure systems; (iii) The pinch points in our national infrastructure; (iv) The scale and any identiﬁed priorities for urban regeneration; (v) The “condition” of the natural environment (eg level of risk). (b) The “Shifts” in the Nation setting out: (i) The economic, social and environmental trends; (ii) The national ﬂows and goods, services and people; and (iii) The external relationships. (c) The National Perspectives on: (i) The directions and distributions of change; and (ii) The potential “futures” that the NPPF should seek to accommodate and enable.

APPENDIX D NATIONALLY APPLIED FRAMEWORK OF DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The following list is an illustrative Framework of Policies that need to be applied nationally. They are based on three key national themes, all of which are capable of being interpreted without needing major explanation (ie documentation) within the NPPF itself since there are well established sources on good practice which a qualified planner is capable of drawing on if needed. A. Support and promote sustainable development by: — Promoting urban renewal and regeneration in preference to further urban expansion; — Providing a co-ordinated approach to rural areas, reflecting the varying needs within them; — Maintaining the vitality and viability of town centres; — Locating new development where it is linked to sustainable transport; — Identifying opportunities for the development of renewable energy; — The strategic management and development of the national transport network; and — Designating long term Green Networks including Green Belts. B. Identify opportunities to meet the local need for development by providing: — A settlement strategy which has a 20 year horizon; — A related supply of land for industrial and business development, and the safeguarding of the national economic development priorities identified in the NPPF; — A minimum five year effective housing land supply in each of Housing Market Area, giving priority to the use of brownfield land; — A land bank for aggregate minerals of at least 10 years and the safeguarding of mineral deposits for future extraction; — A spatial strategy for dealing with waste management and disposal; — A zero-carbon society; and — A framework for the development of sports and recreational facilities, and open space. C. Protect, enhance and create environmental resources & ecosystems including: — Habitats and species of national and international significance; — Prime land and other important agricultural land; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w313

— Landscapes of international, national and local importance; — The historic environment, including archaeology; — Coastal areas; — Other areas subject to signiﬁcant change from climate change; — Woodland and forest resources; and — River catchments and watersheds, including areas liable to ﬂooding.

Written evidence from National Grid Executive Summary 1. National Grid welcomes the objectives of streamlining and consolidating national planning policy and we are broadly supportive of the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Within the context of our support for the general direction of these reforms, there are a number of areas in which further clarification and refinement is required. In summary these are: (i) The identification of opportunity areas for development; (ii) Restrictions on development in designated areas; (iii) The relationship between Neighbourhood Plans and Local Plans; (iv) The need to ensure a smooth transition to, and implementation of, the new NPPF; and (v) The relationship between the NPPF and the planning regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects. 2. National Grid is a member of the UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy272 (UKBCSE) which has submitted a collective response on this matter to the Committee. National Grid fully supports the UKBCSE submission.

National Grid—An Introduction 3. This response is provided on behalf of National Grid. National Grid owns and manages the grids to which many different energy sources are connected. In Britain we run systems that deliver gas and electricity across the entire country. In the North East US, we provide power directly to millions of customers. We hold a vital position at the centre of the energy system. We join everything up. 4. Our purpose is to connect people and businesses to the energy they use. We all rely on having energy at our ﬁnger tips: our society is built on it. From the warmth and light we rely on at home, and the power which keeps our factories and ofﬁces going, to the mobile communications and other infrastructure technologies that are essential parts of our modern lifestyle. 5. That puts National Grid at the heart of one of the greatest challenges facing our society; the creation of new sustainable energy solutions for the future and the development of an energy system that can underpin our economic prosperity in the 21st century.

National Grid—Our Duties 6. Our primary duties are to operate, maintain and develop our networks in an economic, efﬁcient and coordinated way and to facilitate competition in the supply and generation of electricity and in the supply of gas respectively. Our licences require us to provide connection to and use of our transmission and distribution networks in a non-discriminatory and transparent way. 7. As an electricity transmission system licence holder National Grid also has a duty placed on it under Section 38 and Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act 1989 relating to the preservation of amenity. How National Grid meets this duty is set out in “National Grid’s commitments when undertaking works in the UK: Our stakeholder community and amenity policy”.273 This statement, which is applicable to works on both our electricity transmission system and gas system (above 7 bar in pressure), also incorporates commitments to stakeholder and community engagement.

National Grid and Planning Reform 8. Given the changing face of energy markets, the commitment to address climate change and the age of National Grid’s transmission assets we need to undertake a substantial amount of new energy infrastructure investment and development. We are therefore a major “consumer” of the planning and consents regime. 9. The Climate Change Act 2008 targets commit the UK to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, and the EU Renewable Energy Directive requires 15% of all energy to be from renewable sources by 272 UKBCSE members are Centrica, EDF Energy, EON, National Grid, RWE Npower, Scottish Power, Scottish and Southern Energy. 273 http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/SC/Responsibilities/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w314 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2020. The level of investment needed to achieve this is estimated to be around £200 billion by 2020 in all forms of sustainable energy generation, transmission and distribution technologies—large and small, onshore and offshore, and across the UK. Indeed, the scale of investment proposed by National Grid alone in our RIIO T1 business plan submission to Ofgem in July 2011 for both regulated transmission entities is £30.7 billion for the period 2013–14 to 2020–21.274 10. In the context of the sheer scale of the energy challenge, it is important to have a planning system that facilitates the development of energy infrastructure in a timely, economical and responsible manner. National Grid has been a strong supporter of the changes to the planning system that were introduced by the Planning Act 2008. We welcome and support the aim to streamline and consolidate national planning policy outside of the 2008 Act regime via the NPPF.

Key Comments on the Draft National Planning Policy Framework in Response to the Questions Identified by the Committee 11. National Grid is broadly supportive of the draft NPPF. It is important to put a clear and stable national framework in place which reflects the Government’s energy policy and provides certainty, efficiency and consistency for all, whilst ensuring the timeliness and quality of decision-making, including appropriate community and stakeholder involvement. 12. Within the context of our support for the general direction of these reforms, there are a number of areas in which further clarification and refinement is required. These areas are covered in more detail in the UKBCSE submission, which we fully support, and will be expanded upon in our response to the consultation by the Department of Communities and Local Government.

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 over planning decisions? (i) Identification of opportunity areas for development 13. The identification of priority areas for economic regeneration, infrastructure provision and environmental enhancement (paragraph 73) and of opportunity areas for renewable and low-carbon energy development (paragraphs 152–153) is welcome and strongly supported. Together with the presumption in favour of development, this will assist the delivery of essential energy infrastructure. However, as currently written, the NPPF could be interpreted that this approach means infrastructure development should only take place in identified priority/opportunity areas but not elsewhere. 14. The NPPF should make it clear that there is no presumption against such development outside of priority/ opportunity areas. Proposals outside of identified areas should be judged on the basis of their individual merits against the NPPF, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and the relevant up-to-date local and neighbourhood plans.

(ii) Restrictions on development in certain areas 15. National Grid has a duty to preserve amenity and we always seek to avoid, minimise and mitigate the impact of development. However, there are concerns that the NPPF as currently drafted would impose restrictions on development which are more rigid than existing national planning policy. These additional restrictions could undermine the provision of essential sustainable energy infrastructure. The concerns relate particularly to the proposed provisions in respect of: (i) the protection of sites protected under the Birds and Habitat Directives; (ii) the designation of Local Green Spaces; and (iii) the application of Green Belt policy to energy infrastructure projects. 16. We refer the Committee to and fully support the detailed comments in the UKBCSE submission in respect of these matters. We would like to emphasise the concerns about the proposed wording relating to energy infrastructure development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 146 of the draft NPPF states that “When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development”. There are serious concerns about this statement which seems to be in conflict with Government policy set out in National Policy Statement EN-1, para 5.10.12, which states that “It may also be possible for an applicant to show that the physical characteristics of a proposed overhead line development or wind farm are such that it has no adverse effects which conflict with the fundamental purposes of Green Belt designation.” 17. At a practical level, a presumption against development of energy projects such as overhead lines in the Green Belt could have significant negative implications. Most of the major urban areas in the country are surrounded by Green Belt. A policy under which overhead line development in the Green Belt is considered inappropriate could prevent necessary reinforcements and connections into our major urban areas. This could clearly have major impacts on the electricity supply and growth opportunities in those areas. 274 Total expenditure (nominal) National Grid Electricity Transmission £21.9 billion, National Grid Gas Transmission £8.8 billion. http://www.talkingnetworkstx.com/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w315

18. In light of this, the NPPF should not impose restrictions on development in designated areas which are more rigid than existing national planning policy. In particular, the provisions in relation to sites protected under the Birds and Habitat Directives, Local Green Spaces and the application of Green Belt policy to energy infrastructure projects need to be revised for consistency with existing national planning policy, including in the energy National Policy Statements (NPSs).

(iii) Relationship between Neighbourhood Plans and Local Plans 19. The requirement in paragraph 50 of the draft NPPF that Neighbourhood Plans “must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan” is strongly supported, as is the statement that “Neighbourhoods will have the power to promote more development than is set out in the strategic policies of the Local Plan.” However, for clarity, there should be an explicit statement that the Neighbourhood Plans cannot promote less development than set out in the Local Plan. 20. The second sentence in paragraph 51 of the draft NPPF states that “When a neighbourhood plan is made, the policies it contains take precedence over existing policies in the Local Plan for that neighbourhood, where they are in conflict.” This statement would appear to be in conflict with the overarching requirement that Neighbourhood Plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan. 21. In order to ensure clarity and consistency between Local and Neighbourhood Plans: — there should be an explicit statement that Neighbourhood Plans can promote more but not less development than set out in the Local Plan; and — the second sentence in paragraph 51 of the draft NPPF should be deleted as it is in conflict with the requirement that Neighbourhood Plans must be in general conformity with the Local Plan.

(iv) Ensuring a smooth transition 22. Whilst the slimming down of national planning policy is supported in principle, there is concern that the major reworking of the established national policy framework will inevitably create some uncertainty, including as to how the new policy compares to/is different from existing policy. There is a risk that this will be played out on a case-by-case basis via planning appeals/inquiries and judicial reviews which will each interpret the NPPF and apply it to planning practice. 23. In order to aid transition to the NPPF regime and to reduce uncertainty and delay, the Government should set out clearly what policies are changes from the existing national planning policy and also what has not changed. This could reduce the need for time-consuming interpretation of the new Framework and how it differs from existing policy.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? (v) Relationship between the NPPF and the planning regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects 24. It is of vital importance that the NPPF and the planning regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) are well aligned and that the relationship between the two regimes is clear. The NPPF should support the delivery of the Government’s objectives and policy in relation to NSIPs as set out in the NPSs. 25. The NPPF should provide greater clarity about the relationship with the NSIP regime. In order to achieve this, the NPPF should state particularly that: — NPSs are the primary basis for decisions on NSIPs (as set out in the NPSs); — NPSs are likely to be a material consideration in decision making on applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Whether, and to what extent, NPSs are material considerations will be judged on a case by case basis. This would be in line with similar wording in the designated energy NPSs; and — NPSs should be taken into account in the preparation, alteration and review of local and neighbourhood plans.

Conclusions 26. In the context of the scale of the energy challenge, it is important to have a planning system that facilitates the development of energy infrastructure in a timely, economical and responsible manner. National Grid welcomes the objectives of streamlining and consolidating national planning policy and we are broadly supportive of the draft NPPF. 27. Within the context of our support for the general direction of these reforms, we have identified a number of areas in which further clarification and refinement is required. These areas are covered in more detail in the UKBCSE submission—which National Grid fully supports—and will be expanded upon in our response to the consultation by the Department of Communities and Local Government. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w316 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

28. Full, effective and judicious implementation of these changes will be crucial to the timely delivery of the necessary investment programme to ensure continued security of energy supply and the creation of a low- carbon economy. September 2011

Written Submission from Buckinghamshire County Council

1. Introduction The County Council will be making a full response to DCLG in due course. This will reflect views expressed at a forthcoming debate at full Council. Therefore, the views expressed to the CLG Select Committee should be regarded as preliminary at this stage and may be modified in the final response to Government. Accordingly, the County Council will advise the Committee of any changes that it may wish to make to the response below. If the Select Committee would like further information or clarification on any of the points raised the County Council would be happy to assist. For information the number in brackets in the responses to the Select Committee’s questions refer to paragraph number in the text of the draft NPPF.

2. Summary of the County Council’s Response The County Council: — welcomes the Government’s aim of making the planning system more “user friendly” by reducing the amount of planning guidance but considers that this may create areas of uncertainty and ambiguity; — is concerned that the draft NPPF fails to explain the transitional arrangements for moving from the current plan-making system to new style Local Plans and the cost implications of revising (in some cases, recently adopted) Core Strategies to ensure consistency with the NPPF; — welcomes the draft NPPF’s support for the protection of the Green Belt and key environmental and heritage assets; — considers that the draft NPPF, by promoting a strong pro growth agenda, does not strike an appropriate balance between the economic, social and environment elements of sustainability. Further, the County Council believes that in formulating local plans and making decisions on planning applications, local authorities are best placed to decide on the weight to be attached to the individual components of sustainability; — believes that the “Core Planning Principles” set out in the draft NPPF omit key planning principles relating to achieving good design; mitigating and adapting to climate change; and, providing appropriate infrastructure to support planned growth; — supports the Government’s commitment to a plan-led planning system but believes this is undermined the inclusion in the “Core Planning Principles” of the statement “…the default answer to development proposals is “yes” except where this would compromise the key development principles set out in this framework; — is concerned that the draft NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development and the comment that “…objectively assessed development needs should be met…” will undermine the localism agenda and the ability of local communities to determine appropriate levels of growth in their areas; — expresses grave concern at the statement in the draft NPPF that “Local authorities …should grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out-of- date” as this could lead to development in areas not supported by District Councils e.g. on major greenfield sites around Aylesbury; — is concerned by the proposal that identified housing supply over a five year period should be increased by at least 20% as this could require the allocation of more housing sites than might be necessary to meet assessed need; — believes that the statement “ Local Plans should be prepared on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits…” will add to development pressures and debates on the meaning of “significantly” and “demonstrably” in this context; — questions whether the “duty to co-operate” and joint working between local planning authorities will achieve the draft NPPF’s aim of ensuring that that unmet development needs in a particular local authority area (e,g. because of planning constraints such as the Green Belt) will be met through increased provision in neighbouring authorities; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w317

— is disappointed at the lack of recognition of the key role that upper tier authorities play in the planning and delivery of key infrastructure needed to support planned growth. This could be addressed in the NPPF if upper tier authorities were to be given the role of preparing Infrastructure plans as proposed in the Conservative Party’s Green Paper, “Open Source Planning”.

3. Responses to Select Committee Questions 1. 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 over planning decisions? 1.1. It should be recognised that the existing regime of PPGs, PPSs, MPGs MPSs etc already provides, for the most part, reasonably clear and comprehensive guidance to local authorities, planning inspectors and the development industry and has been developed over time at considerable expense. However, the County Council considers that there is merit in the Government’s intention to streamline and simplify existing planning guidance and bring it together in a single national planning policy framework. 1.2. The deletion of over 1,000 pages of guidance will inevitably create gaps and areas of ambiguity which may only become apparent over time. The County Council intends to examine this issue in more detail and respond accordingly to DCLG in its final response. In the meantime, the County Council would like to highlight the lack of clarity regarding transitional arrangements between the current and revised planning system. Are local authorities who have recently adopted Core Strategies and other Development Plan Documents (DPDs) expected to commence work on the review of these documents as soon as the NPPF is adopted so they accord with the new Framework? If so, what are the cost implications of this? 1.3. The localism agenda appears to give local communities more power to decide on the scale of growth in their areas than in the past. However, this objective has to some extent been overtaken by the presumption in favour of sustainable development, introduced in “The Plan for Growth (HM Treasury/BIS) in March 2011. 1.4. In practice the role of local communities in planning decisions will be limited to Neighbourhood Plans, Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build Orders. But while neighbourhoods will have the power to increase development they will not be able to reduce growth levels below those set out in the strategic policies in the Local Plan (50). 1.5.The key issue might not be whether local communities have sufficient powers but rather the extent to which they might want to exercise those powers. At present the commitment of local communities to the production of neighbourhood plans seems to be low (although this may change over time).

2. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 2.1. Paragraph 9 of the draft NPPF includes the most widely used and understood definition of sustainable development taken from the 1987 Report of the Brundtland Commision—a definition which is supported by the County Council. An interpretation of what this means for the planning system is provided in paragraph 10 and three components of sustainable development identified—planning for prosperity (an economic role); planning for people (a social role); and planning for places (an environmental role). 2.2. The County Council notes that one of the four aims of sustainable development in Planning Policy Statement 1, Delivering Sustainable Development, the prudent use of natural resources, has been subsumed within the “planning for places (an environmental role)” component of sustainability in the draft NPPF. However, the prudent use of natural resources is a key element of sustainability and as much an economic as an environmental role. It should therefore be retained as a separate component of sustainability and should be seen as a key element in achieving the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable development“...meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” 2.3. Subject to the caveat above, the County Council generally supports the government’s definition of sustainable development for the planning system and particularly welcomes the recognition that: “These three components should be pursued in an integrated way” (11). 2.4. Thereafter, the draft NPPF appears to attach greater weight to the economic component of sustainable development than to the environmental and social components by emphasising the need to ensure that “...the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth” and “...plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible” (14). 2.5. Further evidence of the lack of balance between the key components of sustainability is provided by the requirement that local authorities should “...grant planning permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date” (14). The only exceptions would be where “...the adverse impacts of development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole” (14). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w318 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2.6. In broad terms, there are, potentially, two distinct interpretations of the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”: — A presumption in favour of development with a token nod in the direction of sustainability to soften a strong pro growth, pro development agenda; — A presumption in favour of development providing it accords with the sustainability principles in the draft NPPF, avoids development in the Green Belt and important landscape designations such as AONBs; does not threaten important environmental and heritage assets; minimises pollution, resource use and, where possible, the need to develop greenfield sites; seeks to minimise greenhouse gas emissions etc. 2.7. Much of the criticism of the draft NPPF by environmental bodies and others is predicated on the assumption that the Government’s interpretation of the presumption in favour of sustainable development is closer to the first of the definitions above rather than the second. As such it is seen as failing to provide an appropriate balance between the three components of sustainability. 2.8. The County Council believes that only the second interpretation of the presumption of sustainable development would be in accordance with the wider principles of sustainability outlined in other parts of the draft NPPF. Further, the County Council considers that, in formulating local plans and making decisions on planning applications local authorities are best placed to decide what weight should be attached to the individual components of sustainable development. This should not be pre judged in the NPPF. 2.9. In the County Council’s view, the final version of the NPPF should make it absolutely clear what is meant by the presumption in favour of sustainable development so that it can be seen to be a balanced and workable approach. At present that balance appears to be missing. However, the County Council notes and supports the NPPF’s stated aims of protecting the Green Belt and key environmental and heritage assets.

3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 3.1. No. The core planning principles ignore key priorities expressed elsewhere in the draft NPPF and are poorly drafted. For example the draft states: “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment...”(114) and “It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design all development (115). 3.2. Both these statements (which reflect the weight attached to good design in Greg Clark’s foreword) are wholeheartedly endorsed by the County Council. However, the importance of good design is not reflected in the core planning principles (even though it is currently one of the key principles in Planning Policy Statement 1). This needs to be addressed in the final version of the NPPF. 3.3. Planning has a major role to play in mitigating and adapting to climate change. The section on “Climate change, flooding and coastal change (148–162) recognises this and states that the planning system should aim to: “...secure, consistent with Government’s published objectives, radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, through the appropriate location and layout of new development, and active support for energy improvements to buildings and the delivery of renewable energy and low carbon energy infrastructure.” 3.4. However, there is no reference to the role of planning authorities and transport authorities in addressing climate change in the list of core planning principles. The County Council considers this to be a major omission. 3.5. The second planning principle (19) contains the statement: “Decision-takers at every level should assume that the default answer to development is “yes” except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles in this Framework”. 3.6. In the County Council’s view this contradicts and undermines the first principle that “planning should be genuinely plan-led...” It is assumed that in order to gain approval all Local Plans will necessarily have to accord with the NPPF, make appropriate provision for housing, employment and other infrastructure and receive the endorsement of an independent planning inspector. Once the plan has been adopted planning decisions should be taken in accordance with that plan. 3.7. To be internally consistent, the draft NPPF should make it clear that the only circumstance where the default answer to development might be yes is “...where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date” (14). This would accord with paragraph 26 in the draft NPPF: “In the absence of an up-to-date and consistent plan, planning applications should be determined in accord with this Framework including its presumption of sustainable development”. 3.8. In the County Council’s view the statement that “...the default answer to development is “yes”...” is not a core planning principle at all but rather a fallback position where the above statement might apply. As such it should be removed from the list of Core Planning Principles”. 3.9. The draft NPPF proposes to remove the target for achieving 60% of housing development on brownfield sites on the basis that it is arbitrary and has led to distortion in the land market (page 49, Draft NPPF Impact assessment). According to the Impact Assessment the removal of the target would give greater discretion to cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w319

local councils to determine the most suitable sites for housing without top down Central Government intervention. 3.10. While the County Council has no objection to the removal of targets and greater discretion being afforded to local councils, it believes that, in the first instance, priority should be given to the development of suitable brownfield sites to minimise the development of the open countryside. The County Council considers that this should be a core planning principle. 3.11. No reference is made in the core principles to the importance of ensuring that appropriate infrastructure is provided in the right place and at the right time to support planned growth. However, the importance of infrastructure planning is acknowledged in the draft NPPF: “...Local Plans should: plan positively for the development of infrastructure required to meet the objectives, principles and policies of this Framework...” (24) and: “Local Planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to: — Assess the quality and capacity of transport, water, energy, telecommunications, utilities, health and social care, waste and flood defence infrastructure and its ability to meet forecast demands; and — Take account of the need for nationally significant infrastructure within their areas” 3.12. The core principles should recognise the key role the planning system plays in the planning and delivery of infrastructure. In addition some reference should be made to the need to maximise spare infrastructure capacity wherever possible. 3.13. In summary, as they stand, the core principles in the draft NPPF contain a number of significant omissions. In addition, there is scope for considerable improvement in the way in which these principles are drafted to improve both consistency and clarity.

4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements planning policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 4.1. No. There is no reference to the National Infrastructure Plan or National Policy Statements and how these relate to the NPPF. As drafted the NPPF is somewhat insular and fails to make connections to other relevant Government Strategies and White Papers. This could be addressed by including an Appendix setting out a list of other relevant national policy documents (which would need to be regularly updated).

5. Does the NPPF, together with the duty to co-operate, provide a sufficient basis for larger than local strategic planning? 5.1. No. The Government’s declared intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and allow local authorities to determine appropriate growth levels has resulted in a number of authorities significantly reducing proposed housing allocations in their emerging Core Strategies/Local Plans to levels well below those set out in RSSs. This has very significant implications for achieving the broad quantum of housing development needed at national and sub-national levels. 5.2. Clearly, the Government believes that sufficient housing can be provided by planning across local boundaries based on the duty to cooperate: “Joint working should enable local planning authorities to work together to meet development requirements which cannot wholly be met within their own areas—for instance, because of lack of physical capacity or because to do so would cause significant harm to the objectives, principles and policies of this Framework” (47). 5.3. It is difficult to see why local authorities that are planning to meet assessed housing needs in their own areas would also voluntarily seek to accommodate unmet demand arising in neighbouring authorities. This issue is likely to be particularly significant in those authorities where a decision has recently been made to reject “top down targets” in RSSs (incorporating unmet demand elsewhere) in favour of locally assessed housing needs in accordance with Government’s localism agenda. 5.4. Up until 2004, County Councils, through the preparation of County Structure Plans, were tasked with resolving complex issues regarding the best locations for meeting unmet demand arising in those Districts heavily constrained by planning and environmental designations e.g. Green Belts and AONBs. This was usually resolved by increasing housing allocations in less constrained Districts. As a result County Councils broadly met housing needs arising within their administrative areas, albeit not necessarily in those local areas where housing need was generated. When Structure Plans were abolished this role passed to the Regional Assemblies in the formulation of Regional Spatial Strategies. 5.5. The County Council believes that further guidance is needed in the draft NPPF to explain how the “duty to cooperate” will ensure that housing needs across sub national or housing market areas can be met. As drafted, NPPF relies on a process of negotiation under the duty to cooperate to fill the policy vacuum created by the abolition of RSSs. In the County Council’s view, this aspiration may prove to be somewhat difficult to achieve in practice. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w320 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

5.6. For the “duty to cooperate” to be successful it must be capable of meeting the Government’s aim of signiﬁcantly increasing housing supply. At present there is a lack of clarity as to how this might be achieved. It is far from clear how sufﬁcient housing will be provided, should negotiation between authorities not be successful, without compromising the Government’s localism agenda. 5.7. As far as economic growth is concerned the draft NPPF comments: “Local planning authorities should work collaboratively on strategic planning priorities to enable delivery of sustainable economic growth in consultation with Local Enterprise Partnerships.” (45) 5.8. However, the draft NPPF is silent regarding those areas that are not within a Local Economic Partnership (which applies to three of the four Districts in Buckinghamshire) 5.9. The County Council welcomes references to the need for county and district authorities to work together on relevant issues in two tier areas (45); the need for local planning authorities to work with County and neighbouring authorities and LEPs to maintain a robust evidence base to support economic development (29); and, the need for local authorities to work with transport providers in developing strategies to support sustainable economic growth. However, the County Council believes that the draft NPPF underplays the key role of County Councils play in the planning and delivery of key infrastructure such as transport and schools which are essential in supporting planned housing growth and economic development. This could be addressed in the NPPF if upper tier authorities were to be given the role of preparing Infrastructure Plans as proposed in the Conservative Party’s Green Paper, “Open Source Planning”, 5.10. Very little information is given in the draft NPPF regarding the funding of infrastructure needed to support planned growth other than in paragraph 18 which refers to revenue generated from development helping to sustain local services, fund infrastructure and deliver environmental enhancement. Under the CIL charging regime District Councils are the CIL Charging Authorities and have discretion regarding the allocation of CIL payments. However, there is no guarantee that payments will be made to County Councils to fund the key infrastructure for which they are responsible. 5.11. For larger than local (and local) planning to work successfully, the duty to cooperate must address the way in which CIL funding is to be apportioned to County Councils.

6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidenced-based? 6.1..The draft NPPF proposes a number of measures to achieve the Government’s aim of significantly increasing the supply of housing. One of these seeks to: “…identify and maintain a rolling supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements. The supply should include an additional allowance of at least 20% per cent to ensure choice and competition in the market for land…” (109). 6.2. Although the justification for increasing housing supply is addressed in the NPPF Impact Assessment (pages 56—59) there appears to be no evidence base to support the figure of 20%. The County Council believes that robust evidence is needed to justify this figure as it could potentially result in an oversupply of housing sites. September 2011

Written evidence from the Heritage Alliance The Heritage Alliance The Heritage Alliance is the largest coalition of non-government heritage interests in England. Together its members own, manage and care for the vast majority of England’s heritage. Our heritage plays an outstanding role in our national culture for residents and visitors alike; it is a powerful force that brings multiple benefits to individuals and communities. Established in 2002 by the voluntary heritage groups themselves, the Alliance brings together 91 major organisations from specialist advisers, practitioners and managers, volunteers and owners, to national funding bodies and organisations leading regeneration and access projects. Their specialist knowledge and expertise across a huge range of issues—including planning matters and asset transfer—is a highly valuable national resource much of which is contributed on a voluntary basis for public benefit. They are supported in turn by thousands of local groups and around five million members, with a huge volunteer input of over 450,000 a year. This evidence has been prepared following a meeting of the Alliance’s Spatial Planning Advocacy Group, which brings together Alliance members with particular planning expertise to establish our policy positions on specialist issues such as this.

Summary — The Alliance supports the principle of simplifying planning guidance. — The Alliance supports many of the policies in the Historic Environment chapter. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w321

But — The Alliance has strong concerns about the operation of the overriding presumption of sustainable development and the default answer to development being “yes”, which appears to trump historic environment protection — The historic environment is not properly recognised as a major driver for economic change and regeneration — The Alliance notes the weak protection for developments where less than “substantial harm” may be caused to historic buildings — There should be a presumption in favour of developing brownﬁeld sites ﬁrst.

The Draft National Planning Policy Framework The Alliance welcomes the National Planning Policy Framework’s (NPPF) basic premise of simplifying planning policy, which has proliferated over the years to a large number of complex documents. We are pleased to see the prominence given to heritage in the NPPF with mentions in the ministerial foreword and the introduction, particularly paragraph 2 as we believe our heritage is a national asset, bringing economic, social and environment beneﬁts. Its long-term future is best protected through the planning system since once destroyed, it is gone for ever. The Historic Environment chapter (pp 50–52) has broad support among Alliance members, with some caveats where developments might cause less than substantial harm to the historic environment. However, the Historic Environment chapter is subordinate to the NPPF as a whole—in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development—will mean that adverse impacts of a development on the historic environment can be overridden by the wider government policy objectives for economic growth. The Alliance fully recognises and supports the need for sustainable development, and we believe that a properly balanced approach to sustainable development is consistent with protection of the historic environment. But we are concerned that the considerable weight applied to the economic and growth component will lead to development of mediocre quality with adverse effects on our heritage and the wider environment.

The Questions Our responses to the questions asked in the committee brieﬁng are as follows:

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 over planning decisions? The NPPF will require supplementary practice guidance in a number of areas of the historic environment, on determining significance and value, on proposals which will cause less than substantial harm (paragraph 183). Guidance will be required on other areas, in particular in the case of marketing of a heritage asset to demonstrate lack of viability and the enabling development policy. Without these clarifications, and greater clarity of language throughout, the NPPF may lead to less certainty and confidence in the planning system, not more. Further clarification will benefit all users of the system. The status of supplementary practice guidance is as yet unknown, but would be critical to the efficient operation of the planning system. It should be recognised as a material consideration.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? The broad definition of sustainable development is appropriate (paragraph 9), as it mirrors the Brundtland principles which have general acceptance. However, the UK Government’s 2005 sustainable development strategy includes a helpful set of guiding principles which should be used in the NPPF to ensure that the policy translates into practice. Our members believe the presumption in favour of sustainable development is weighted excessively in favour of the economic component of sustainable development to the detriment of social and environment components. The historic environment is not a barrier to economic progress, indeed it has the capacity to be a major driver for economic change and regeneration notably its essential underpinning to the tourism industry. The value of heritage to the wider economy does not come through the text of the draft NPPF at present and we suggest that an introductory paragraph to the Historic Environment chapter might outline how our heritage contributes to sustainable development, outlining its economic and other values including the importance of re-use in the context of energy efficiency. Other chapters in the NPPF would benefit from similar treatment. Paragraph 14 states (inter alia) that Local Plans should have flexibility to respond to economic changes and that Local Planning Authorities should grant permission where plans are absent, silent, indeterminate or where cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w322 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

relevant policies are out of date. It goes on to say that 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”. This test of development only being refused where the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh benefits is a high one, and poses a considerable risk to the historic environment. The balance of harm to the environment against the benefit of the development is heavily weighted in favour of development.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? We have responded to the principles expressed in paragraph 19 where they apply to the historic environment.

Planning should be genuinely plan-led, with succinct Local Plans setting out a positive long-term vision for an area. These plans should be kept up to date and should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of certainty and efﬁciency. That the system is plan-led is accepted, but few local authorities have adopted local plans at present. This will put considerable pressure on them to prepare them. The requirement to keep plans up to date will depend on the resources available to local authorities and our concern here is further compounded by the loss of specialist conservation and archaeological expertise in Local Authorities which may exacerbate the shortfall.

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 development proposals is “yes”, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in this Framework The purpose of planning is wider than purely economic goals. The role of the planning system is to balance economic development with the wider social, cultural and environmental needs. The default answer being “yes”, will mean it is difﬁcult to refuse consent, to negotiate improvements in detail and design, and to impose conditions to achieve the same. This is our most serious concern.

Planning policies and decisions should take into account local circumstances and market signals such as land prices, commercial rents and housing affordability. Plans should set out a clear strategy for allocating sufﬁcient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business community Market signals may be temporary and transitory. The value of a truly plan-led system is to facilitate the longer-term view, framing the management of development and avoiding potentially harmful decisions taken, based on short-term ﬂuctuations in the market.

In considering the future use of land, planning policies and decisions should take account of its environmental quality or potential quality regardless of its previous or existing use The term environmental quality needs to be better defined. The Alliance strongly supports an approach which means developing brownfield land first, and one that recognises the value and amenity of the historic and natural environment, both designated and undesignated.

Planning policies and decisions should seek to protect and enhance environmental and heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their signiﬁcance, and reduce pollution. Where practical and consistent with other objectives, allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value. The Alliance supports this core principle, subject to appropriate deﬁnition of land of lesser environmental value.

Planning policies and decisions should make effective use of land, promote mixed use developments that create more vibrant places, and encourage multiple beneﬁts from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, ﬂood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production). The Alliance supports mixed use developments for rural and urban contexts. Urban heritage is usually found to have mixed uses, supporting sustainable local economies.

Planning policies and decisions should enable the reuse of existing resources, such as through the conversion of existing buildings, and encourage, rather than restrict, the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy). The Alliance and its members actively support the re-use of existing buildings. The existing building stock has much to offer in the process of sustainable development, meeting social needs by regenerating places which cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w323

people value, meeting economic needs by avoiding comprehensive redevelopment, and meeting environmental needs by reducing the loss of embodied energy.

Planning policies and decisions should actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus signiﬁcant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable. The Alliance supports measures to improve provision of public transport and cycling as an alternative to car use. Many older areas are themselves the products of a low carbon economy, providing examples of more sustainable patterns of living.

Planning policies and decisions should take account of and support local strategies to improve health and wellbeing for all. The Alliance supports this principle. Our heritage is highly valued for its own sake by people across all parts of society so much so that it is integral to our quality of life.

Planning policies and decisions should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and buildings. The historic environment contributes to good standards of amenity for occupants of buildings as well as the wider public amenity value afforded to many others through much-loved landscapes and streetscapes, now and in the future. Good policies for managing changes to heritage assets will allow them to continue to do this.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? We would welcome clariﬁcation of the relationship between the NPPF and National Planning Statements. We believe that there would be value in Government producing a national spatial plan.

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? The duty to cooperate is key to ensuring that economic and development objectives are met in the most appropriate manner. Alliance members are concerned that the duty to co-operate is not an adequate replacement for the loss of regional spatial strategies and co-ordinated green belt policies where a number of local authorities are involved. September 2011

Written evidence from Surrey County Council Summary of Main Points — The draft NPPF appears to place far greater emphasis on the beneﬁts of economic growth compared with the environmental and social aspects of sustainable development. Local views that are equally concerned with environmental and social issues and the impact of more growth may not be given voice in planning decisions. — If more weight is to be given to the achievement of economic objectives, then the presumption in favour of sustainable development risks new development that is not necessarily in the right place or of an appropriate scale for the location being permitted where there is no up to date local plan. — The proposed duty to cooperate needs to be strengthened further to provide a sufﬁcient basis for strategic planning, including both plan-making and delivery aspects and more guidance is required. — As part of the duty to cooperate, the NPPF should introduce a requirement for a strategic infrastructure assessment to ensure that strategic planning issues are properly addressed and to help co-ordinate investment and address some of the challenges for delivering sustainable development in two-tier areas.

Introduction 1. A prime objective of the County Council is to support the sustainable growth of Surrey’s economy, which is one of the strongest in the South East and nationally, but it is important that economic growth should not be at the expense of social and environmental considerations. 2. Surrey experiences considerable demand for housing and economic development, However, because the county includes Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and some 73% is designated Green Belt, regional planning policies over the last 20 years have recognised these constraints and taken a strategic view of housing provision by directing more housing to growth areas in the South East such as the Thames Gateway, Milton Keynes and Ashford. Nonetheless, the county has taken substantial growth over the past few decades and for cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w324 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

most of those years achieved its annual housing requirement. Similarly, within Surrey itself there are some districts and boroughs where there is more capacity in their built up areas to take a greater share of growth to meet needs. 3. Much of this growth has been through small-scale and incremental development and consequently it has been difficult to secure sufficient developer contributions to deal with the cumulative impact on local and strategic infrastructure. Congestion on the road network and pressure on school places arising from new development are key current concerns for many of our communities. 4. We welcome the Government’s objective to condense existing national planning policy guidance into a simpler and clearer National Planning Policy Framework to help make the planning system more accessible. Given the above, we consider that such policy guidance must provide an adequate framework within which councils can draw up local plans that give sufficient weight to environmental and social considerations in promoting economic growth and enable strategic issues to be fully addressed and the timely delivery of infrastructure to support development. However, we have a number of concerns that the draft NPPF does not provide such a framework for the reasons set out below in response to some of the Committee’s questions.

Response to Committee Questions 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 over planning decisions? 5. The draft NPPF states that local planning authorities should cater for housing demand and the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this demand and also refers to ensuring that Local Plans meet the full requirements for market and affordable housing in their housing market area. The demand for new housing in Surrey significantly exceeds the annual housing requirement set out in the South East Plan. We believe that any future housing requirements should be set on the basis of need rather than demand and are concerned as to whether the proposed duty to cooperate will be able to deal with housing requirements that cannot be accommodated in an area where there is a lack of physical capacity or to do so would have adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 6. The draft NPPF places a clear emphasis on economic growth and appears to give this far more weight than environmental and social issues. Therefore, local views that are equally concerned with environmental and social issues and the impact of more growth may not be given voice in planning decisions. This seems inconsistent with the localism agenda and giving local communities greater control over the planning of their areas. 7. We consider there is a need for further guidance on the duty to cooperate. See comments below.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 8. The definition of sustainable development set out in the NPPF at paragraph 9 based on the 1987 Brundtland Report is a widely accepted definition, but this is over 20 years old. More recently, Defra’s “Securing the Future Delivery of the UK’s Sustainable Development Strategy” (2005) has set out how the goal of sustainable development should be pursued. The NPPF, however, although referring to economic, social and environmental roles as components of sustainable development that planning should pursue in an integrated way, is clear that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth. Indeed, taken as a whole, the NPPF appears to place far greater emphasis on the benefits of economic growth compared with the environmental and social aspects of sustainable development with more references made to the economic dimension. 9. The majority of local authorities do not have an up to date local plan in place (in Surrey five out of the 11 districts have adopted core strategies) and the NPPF indicates that in such areas planning applications should be determined in accord with the NPPF, including its presumption in favour of sustainable development. This risks insufficient weight being given to environmental and social issues in assessing development proposals, where grounds for refusal would have to be on the basis of there being adverse impacts that “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole”, and new development that is not necessarily in the right place or of an appropriate scale for the location being permitted. We consider it particularly important that new development should not give rise to undue pressure placed on existing infrastructure without the ability to secure appropriate mitigation.

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 10. While we acknowledge that the proposed duty to cooperate in the Localism Bill has been strengthened since the Commons Committee Stage, we do not think it provides a sufﬁcient basis for strategic planning, including both plan-making and delivery aspects. There are particular challenges in two tier shire areas where county councils provide much of the infrastructure and services to support new development. While we are working closely with our borough and district council partners to develop infrastructure and delivery plans and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w325

CIL charging schedules that will help deliver their plans for growth there is no obligation for the districts as CIL charging and collecting bodies to spend the receipts on the infrastructure and the priorities identiﬁed to support growth. This presents a challenge if larger-than-local strategic planning and infrastructure issues are to be addressed. 11. We would like to see county councils designated as charging authorities as well as district councils and, as part of the duty to cooperate, for the NPPF to introduce a requirement for a strategic infrastructure assessment or framework that looks across all infrastructure and service needs to support development. County councils are well placed to lead on the preparation of such assessments, which would ensure that strategic planning issues are properly addressed and help co-ordinate investment and address some of the challenges for delivering sustainable development in two-tier areas. September 2011

Written evidence from South East Strategic Leaders I am writing to you on behalf of the South East Strategic Leaders, a group of 14 county and unitary authorities who work together on issues of joint concern, sharing best practice and promoting efficiency and collaborative working. We will be working with our member authorities to identify issues of common concern for the South East in order to respond fully to CLG’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) consultation, which closes on 17 October. In the meantime, I would like to draw to the Select Committee’s attention some continuing concerns we have about the Localism Bill’s “duty to cooperate” and whether the NPPF will be effective in situations which require larger-than-local strategic planning decisions. I note these are amongst the questions on which you have asked for feedback for the Committee’s Inquiry. The overwhelming majority of our members supported Hampshire County Council’s proposed amendments to the Localism Bill, requiring that Strategic Infrastructure Assessments (SIAs) be undertaken as part of the Duty to Cooperate, and for those to be referenced in Local Plans and CIL Charging Schedules. I note that the Leader of Hampshire has written to your Select Committee and we agree with his observation that the draft NPPF fails to fully appreciate the nature of decision-making and service delivery in two-tier areas. We believe that a requirement for upper-tier authorities, in cooperation with local planning authorities and other infrastructure providers, to produce SIAs would encourage sound plans that more effectively take account of the different spatial scales on which infrastructure planning needs to happen. Additionally, many of our members continue to feel strongly that county councils should be given the same powers as the London Mayor to produce a strategic infrastructure plan and act as a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging authority. We would urge the Select Committee to seek clarification from Government on how county councils can continue to meet their responsibilities to provide strategic infrastructure, when there is no certainty that the necessary CIL funding will be transferred to them by their districts. Clearly in many areas, strong working relationships exist between counties and their districts. However, in the occasional locality where cooperative working across the tiers is more difficult, we are concerned that the consequences will have a negative impact on local communities. This is a particular issue for us in the South East where congestion and inadequate investment in infrastructure are already a significant problem. The South East Strategic Leaders are drawn from county councils and unitary authorities. Our membership includes: Bracknell Forest, Buckinghamshire, East Sussex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire, Portsmouth, Reading, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, Surrey, West Berkshire, West Sussex and Wokingham. We also have an affiliate member from the Eastern region: Central Bedfordshire. September 2011

Written evidence from Kent County Council Kent County Council (KCC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the questions set out by the CLG Select Committee on the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Our comments are as follows:

Clarity and objectives 1.1 The policies of the NPPF are generally clear, and the document succeeds in the Government’s aim that planning should become more user-friendly and accessible, so that it is easier for members of the public to have a meaningful say in planning decisions. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w326 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

1.2 KCC has carefully considered its objectives for Kent, working with the District and Borough Councils and others, and its Medium Term Plan “Bold Steps for Kent”, has three headline aims: — to help the Kent economy to grow — to put the citizen in control, as individuals, local communities or through their democratic representatives. — to tackle disadvantage, by being a County of opportunity. The NPPF is welcomed as it gives support for these principles. 1.3 However, the NPPF has been subject to widely different interpretations and speculation about the impact that it will have on planning decisions and development. Clarification is therefore needed. 1.4 Para 14 includes two clauses that could give rise to particular concern in local communities. These are the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” and the stipulation that local planning authorities should “grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date”. 1.5 These policies, taken with the second principle in para 19, that “the default answer to development proposals is ‘yes’” could be seen as undermining the first principle that “planning should be genuinely plan led”. This concern exists, not withstanding the NPPF makes clear that these polices would not apply if “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.” (para 14). 1.6 The NPPF therefore needs to say more about the balance to be struck, and the circumstances in which development might be approved that is not foreseen by a local plan, and may not be supported by the local community. The intended balance can be drawn from the Framework, but the strands need to be brought together. For example, it states that “objectively assessed development needs should be met” and removes the target that 60% of new dwellings should be located on previously developed land. It requires a five year rolling supply of residential land and there should be choice of deliverable sites over the plan period. 1.7 However, it must be clear that there is no blank cheque for development. Protection for Green Belts, designated landscapes, habitats and heritage remain. Development of poor design can be refused, remote development is discouraged and local amenity is to be protected. Green space within urban areas is to be protected and the policy of at least 30 dwellings to the hectare has been removed.

Planning for housing 1.8 The South East Plan provides a target of 139,400 dwellings in Kent and Medway to 2026, and this number is the result of dialogue with the local authorities. Some local planning authorities have yet to adopt their local plans but the combined outcome of published plans and the ranges under consideration would match this number or exceed it. The exact number will change as District and Borough Councils make progress with their local plans, but it demonstrates that local communities will take a responsible approach and come forward with substantial development proposals. 1.9 The proportion of new dwellings completed on previously developed land in Kent rose to 82% in 2008–09 but dropped back to 75% in 2009–10 and may now have past its peak: 90.0

80.0 Kent (KCC area) housing completions on Green and PDL land as a % 70.0

60.0

50.0

Per cent Per 40.0

30.0 Green % 20.0 PDL % 10.0 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

1.10 Even so there are planning consents for 48,200 new dwellings in Kent, 68% of which are on previously developed land. Land for a further 22,600 dwellings is allocated in local plans, 80% of which are on such sites. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w327

1.11 The use of brown land on this scale in Kent is crucial to reducing development on green land, and regenerating town centres and urban areas. These aims should continue to be an important part of planning policy in the new Framework, and the use of previously developed land should be preferred where it is viable and offers the best planning solution. 1.12 However, the towns of Kent include growth points where development is mainly on green sites, and former industrial areas which are to be transformed by new uses on previously developed land. The national target for at least 60% of new housing to be located on previously developed land was a “one size fits all” policy that now needs to be replaced with a more flexible approach. 1.13 Local planning authorities should strike the balance between development on previously developed and green fields, tailoring a solution for each urban and rural settlement. It is important that these judgements take account of local services, and the quality of the landscape and countryside surrounding settlements. The optimum size planned for settlements should also maintain their character and the amenity of existing communities. 1.14 National planning policy should make clear to developers and owners of previously developed land that they should bring forward planned development. If not the development opportunity may be lost, especially if major investment in infrastructure and services are also required, and local planning authorities may have to look to alternative sites. 1.15 The achievement of a suitable mix of new dwellings is very important, and affordable housing can be the most important additional cost that developers are asked to meet. The draft Framework emphasises the viability of development in drawing up local plans, and the charges to be set for Community Infrastructure Levy are to be based on the local viability of different land uses. The draft Framework requires local planning authorities to consider the cumulative effect of national and local standards on viability. 1.16 This may mean that the scope for affordable housing will be reduced, especially when market conditions are relatively weak. It will be necessary for local authorities to take a flexible view of CIL charges and planning obligations, both geographically and over time. The Government can help the delivery of affordable housing by clarifying the role of CIL and planning obligations in providing for social housing.

Local plans 1.17 The new policy Framework will without doubt provide a strong incentive for local planning authorities to adopt and keep up to date a local plan that conforms with its policies. However, our focus in Kent is on the delivery of proposals that are delayed by the need for infrastructure and a stronger market, and we would not wish to see a rush to review local plans that have been recently adopted. Therefore if local plans are referred to the Government for certiﬁcation as consistent with the Framework, we ask Government to indicate the aspects that need to be updated but to ensure that broadly sound plans are not undermined.

Enforcement 1.18 Enforcement of minerals and waste planning decisions is an important matter for the County Council and local communities. However, there is no mention of planning enforcement in the draft Framework, and the removal of established and detailed policy and guidance will cause uncertainty at Planning Inquiries and may give rise to a more adversarial approach. If local planning authorities develop their own principles the industry will encounter inconsistent approaches across boundaries. The Government should ensure that a consistent policy framework for planning enforcement is maintained. 1.19 KCC’s response to the consultation on the draft NPPF will refer to other area of planning policy that it feels would beneﬁt from greater clarity, or where valuable principles may be lost. — Local communities power over planning decisions 1.20 The Localism and Decentralisation Bill includes provision for the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies such as the South East Plan, and as a result local planning authorities will determine their own dwelling numbers. The Bill also introduces the power for communities to prepare Neighbourhood Plans and to grant Neighbourhood Development Orders, and will establish Community Right to Build Orders. These measures are anticipated in the draft Framework. 1.21 It is important that local communities are clear about the scope of their new planning powers and that they are seen in perspective. The draft Framework makes clear that Neighbourhood Plans are not to be used to prevent development, and it states that neighbourhoods should: — develop plans that support the strategic development needs set out in Local Plans, including policies for housing and economic development — plan positively to support local development, with the power to promote more development than is set out in the Local Plan. 1.22 However, it is not clear how Neighbourhood Plans could sensibly proceed in advance of the adoption of a local plan if consistency is to be achieved, or if they will be suited to taking forward without delay the large scale developments identiﬁed in local plans. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w328 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

1.23 The draft Framework also states that neighbourhoods should: — identify opportunities to use neighbourhood development orders to grant planning permission for developments that are consistent with an adopted neighbourhood plan. (paras 17 and 50) 1.24 Neighbourhoods will need to understand their responsibilities to be fair and objective in their plan making and decisions, and not to promote particular interests at the expense of others, as land owners or residents. The Government must ensure in the Regulations that the interests of all in the community are safeguarded. 1.25 The great majority of planning decisions will remain with the local planning authority, and will be subject to existing consultation procedures. There are existing consultation processes for plan making and for development proposals, and increasingly opportunities are provided for engagement of the community in design and planning. These less formal processes may be more appropriate and involve less delay than the insertion of a new layer of plan making at the neighbourhood level.

2. Is the deﬁnition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? 2.1 The deﬁnition of Sustainable Development in the draft Framework means using the planning system: “to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy…to promote strong, vibrant and healthy communities...and to protect and enhance our natural and historic environment, use natural resources prudently and mitigate and adapt to climate change” (para 10). 2.2 This statement is critical to the clarity of the document and its interpretation. KCC supports such a broad approach, which underpins the strategies that we are pursuing for housing, transport, the economy and the environment.

3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 3.1 KCC supports the concept of ten core planning principles as set out at paragraph 19, and considers them to be clearly expressed, subject to the reservation in paragraph 1.5 above. 3.2 The principles do not however recognise the importance of building homes and communities, rather than simply building housing estates. Nor do they fully recognise the importance of ensuring that new housing is provided with infrastructure and services. These are important principles in “Bold Steps for Kent”, alongside choice and affordability of housing, and we encourage their adoption as core principles in the Framework.

4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? 4.1 To ensure that the planning system can be understood by local communities, the Framework should list the National Policy Statements that will form part of Government’s overall planning policy. It should state clearly the process that will apply to determining nationally significant infrastructure projects, and summarise the types of development that this includes. The Framework then needs to provide guidance on how local planning authorities should provide for smaller scale infrastructure not covered by National Policy Statements and the procedures of the Infrastructure Planning Commission and its successor. 4.2 The Framework should also provide more guidance on how Local Plans should address nationally significant infrastructure projects in the transition period, prior to the adoption of National Policy Statements. 4.3 The County Council as minerals and waste planning authority for Kent notes that the draft Framework includes no policies for waste, and that these will be provided by the National Waste Management Plan for England. We believe that the National Waste Management Plan will consist of a number of documents, and these and the timing of the Plan should be clarified. Similarly the content of the proposed Aviation Framework and the relationship with the Natural Environment White Paper should be clarified. 4.4 These are examples of the need for consistent policy across Departments. We urge the Government to maintain its commitment to a simplified and transparent approach to policy, and this should be set out in the Framework.

5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning? 5.1 The Framework requires consultation with County Councils in two tier areas on housing and “relevant issues”, and with “other authorities” on infrastructure including energy and ﬂooding. It states that “Local authorities should work with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable economic growth.” This is welcome recognition of the need for cooperation to secure the delivery of development. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w329

5.2 The Framework also requires local planning authorities to plan for “Integrated Coastal Zone Management across local authority and land/sea boundaries”, and “Planning policies should take account of the need to plan for biodiversity at a landscape-scale across local authority boundaries”. It refers to Local Plan “strategies” for the economy, “robust and comprehensive” policies for design, “proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change” and “a strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment”. These are all matters in which County Councils have expertise and which can be more economically provided by the two tiers of local government working together. 5.3 The Framework also states that: “National incentives and relevant local charges will help ensure local communities beneﬁt directly from the increase in development that this Framework seeks to achieve. The revenue generated from development will help sustain local services, fund infrastructure and deliver environmental enhancement” (para 18) 5.4 The immediate priority in Kent is to fund infrastructure that will enable planned sites to proceed. KCC provides services such as highways and education that are critical to the implementation of development, and enable the creation of sustainable communities. The Community Infrastructure Levy and New Homes Bonus do not guarantee that upper tier authorities such as KCC will receive these new sources of revenue proportionate to their responsibilities. 5.5 KCC provides highways and schools and these are the services most likely to determine whether development can proceed. KCC also provides youth services, adult care and libraries that are important to the creation of communities. Over the past nine years at least £148 million of developer contributions have been secured by KCC for schools, community facilities, and other services excluding transport, plus land for 16 schools. The majority of these contributions have been secured using Section 106 agreements with developers. 5.6 Section 106 agreements are best suited to fund infrastructure directly serving development sites, but in future they may be used only on a restricted basis alongside the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). In two- tier areas such as Kent, District and Borough Councils will set the charges for CIL, collect the revenue and determine how it is used. Upper tier authorities will need to seek agreement with local planning authorities that CIL revenues will be made available to fund the services essential to bring forward and support development. This is a major concern and is creating uncertainty. 5.7 The duty to cooperate is welcome but it does not address this potential gap in the delivery of strategic development. The Government must ensure that there are effective mechanisms to channel revenues to priority infrastructure projects and services if “larger than local” planning is to be achieved. In this way, providing the infrastructure necessary to allow permitted development to proceed would lead to an immediate stimulus to the economy.

6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence-based? 6.1 An apparent gap in the evidence on which the draft Framework is based is the lack of recognition that the development market is not strong at present. The need for support in funding major infrastructure to enable planned sites to proceed is now critical. September 2011

Written evidence from the British Council of Shopping Centres As you may be aware BCSC represents businesses operating in the retail property sector. Our membership is made up of approximately 2,600 professionals working within the retail property sector. This includes investors, developers, shopping centre owners, major retailers, surveyors, architects and local authority ofﬁcers. Given our members’ interest in the regeneration and the growth agenda we thought it would be appropriate to offer some thoughts on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as requested in your recent call for evidence. The retail and retail property industries together play a strategic role in sustaining communities, with 7.6 million people currently employed in the UK. In 2008 alone around £6 billion was invested in the UK by the retail property industry, creating tens of thousands of new jobs. Since 2008, as a consequence of the economic crisis the retail property pipeline has faltered, with 50 million sq ft effectively on hold, awaiting a signiﬁcant improvement in economic conditions before building can commence. The consequence of this is that jobs, in construction and in retail, are not being created, public spaces are not being renovated, and, in some cases, town centres are suffering further degradation and decline. Against this backdrop, we welcome the Government’s commitment to streamline the planning system, acknowledging that there has been broad recognition that the existing system was slow, complex and unresponsive—adding to the already dire situation whereby it is not unusual for a complex retail scheme to take 10 years to deliver from concept to opening. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w330 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

As evidence of this, you will no doubt be aware of the recent British Chambers of Commerce survey of 5,300 businesses which revealed starkly that businesses with the potential to expand currently have little conﬁdence that the planning system responds to proposals in a fair or even-handed way: — Seven in 10 experienced applicants (who have been through the planning process on multiple occasions) believe planning decisions are taken on political grounds, rather than on the merits of the application itself. — Over half believe that planning Committees make decisions contrary to the advice of planning ofﬁcers. — Among those businesses who have never applied for planning permission, more than one in 10 had not done so because of cost, complexity, delays, and/or a belief that they would simply not be granted permission.

This clearly supports the Government’s original premise: there is a real need for a simpliﬁed national framework. In the current economic climate, therefore, it is crucial that we work together, industry, Government, local government and communities and interest groups to ensure that all unnecessary barriers to sustainable growth are eliminated.

We have set out our position on the NPPF in a number of responses to Government, and are, as requested by the Committee, keen not to simply regurgitate messages that have been articulated elsewhere. That said— we do believe that it is useful to note the key principles that we believe should inform the planning process. These include: — the role, purpose and benefits of a plan-led system; — the importance of maintaining up-to-date development plan documents; — the role of neighbourhood planning in the plan-making process, and the relationship between national and local plan making; — the importance of evidence-based planning that reflects the need and demand for new retail development and the capacity to accommodate it, to enable appropriate sites to be identified in the right locations; and — need for planning to be a transparent and democratic process emphasising the importance of appropriate and proportionate consultation.

We have always maintained that there should be a strong emphasis on promoting sustainable economic growth, greater productivity and building prosperous communities, with additional objectives to: — promote the right business in the right place stimulating sustainable economic growth and enhancing competitiveness; — protect and enhance town centres; — build prosperous communities; — deliver more sustainable patterns of development; — promote high-quality and inclusive design; and — improve accessibility.

We would be more than happy to discuss these principles in more depth with the Committee and would welcome the opportunity to present oral evidence.

To take each of your questions in turn:

Whilst we recognise the Government’s reluctance to provide centrally produced guidance given its commitment to local decision makers’ autonomy, we strongly believe there is a requirement for Government to work with local councils and industry to produce some form of advice to council on the interpretation of particular elements of the NPPF, and especially in our view the application of the sequential approach.

The Guidance in PPS4 was useful for councils, developers and their advisors and should be the starting point for any discussion of additional advice on the streamlined NPPF. BCSC is of course willing to contribute to a working group looking at this. If local authorities are being expected to shoulder more responsibility to establishing an evidence base on the suitability, availability and viability of sites for development then Government needs to ensure that Councils are equipped to do so—and at the highest professional standard. Otherwise, there will be a danger of delays, due to challenges and appeals, and inappropriate development being delivered as a result of poor decision making. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w331

We would therefore strongly urge the Committee to push Government to develop guidance to support local authorities as they seek to implement the policies of the NPPF.

Is the deﬁnition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach? We have previously publicly supported the Government’s aim to make planning policy localist in its approach and we strongly support the Government’s commitment in favour of sustainable development. We consider, importantly, that such an overarching commitment to sustainable development is critical in ensuring a local approach does not add unnecessary delays and costs to delivering retail-led development, and all of the social, economic and environmental beneﬁts it delivers for local communities. Clearly, we recognise that the presumption of sustainable development will be applied locally. It is therefore important that each local authority sets out its own criteria with clear policies in local plans to guide developers as they draw up proposals for future projects. Clarity on a local level will be essential in this regard.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? We are supportive of the core planning principles as expressed on p.5 of the NPPF document. In particular, we are strong advocates of a plan-led system with up to date Local Plans setting out clear frameworks for interested developers to respond to. We also welcome the Government’s explicit commitment that the default answer to development proposals should be a “yes”, except where this would compromise sustainable development principals. We note that the planning principles include a commitment to the promotion of mixed use development. We are supportive of this. However, we are concerned that the NPPF actually contradicts this by removing offices from the sequential assessment. BCSC urges the Committee to refer this point to Government to encourage them to treat office development in the same vein as retail. On the principle that local planning policies should take into account market signals in decision making we think that, though desirable in some circumstances, there is a danger that a move too far towards a market rather than plan led system would make it far easier for some types of development to receive a positive decision on the basis of a developer’s view of a particular market and the benefit it might bring.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based? We appreciate the sentiment expressed in section 27 onwards regarding the need for each Local Authority to ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate and up to date evidence. However, as above, we question whether all local authorities will be adequately resourced to deliver on this. We would suggest that the Committee recommends that the Government reconsider this point or clarify how it believes that each local authority will be able to meet this requirement. Beyond the evidence base for each local plan, we feel that the Government also needs to commit to analysing the effectiveness of the NPPF is in the years to come. Looking beyond the existing evidence base (both Government and privately held) we do have some concerns that there is insufficient collection of data relating to the development of in-town versus out of town space. At present, Government does not collect this information over time. As a consequence, in the future it will be very difficult to assess whether the introduction of the NPPF has been successful in its objective of maintaining a Town Centre’s First policy. We would strongly recommend that the Committee raises this concern within the contents of its final report.

To Conclude BCSC favours a clear and transparent plan-led approach to sustainable economic development. We believe that plan making and development management should be evidence based and take full account of the views of local communities, of which local businesses are a key component. We believe that neighbourhood planning has to be compatible with the rationale for a presumption in favour of sustainable economic development and does not add additional bureaucracy and cost for businesses. We are of the view that the “town centres first” approach to planning for new retail development remains a valid mechanism for promoting local economic growth and the vibrancy and vitality of towns and cities, and should therefore be maintained in the NPPF and extended to offices. Similarly, the present impact tests defined in PPS4 provide an appropriate framework to maintain a balanced approach to the positive and negative consequences of potential development and their weight ascribed in the decision making process. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w332 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these comments in more detail as part of the evolution of the NPPF and if there are any comments or points of clariﬁcation in the interim, then please do not hesitate to contact us. September 2011

Written evidence from the UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy (UKBCSE) 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy275 (UKBCSE) and the UK’s major energy trade associations276 has long worked in support of planning reform. 1.2 Together the companies with whom we work will deliver the vast majority of the sustainable energy projects necessary to achieve the UK Government’s policy objectives of continued security of supply and addressing climate change through clean, reliable and affordable energy supplies. Ofgem estimate that the level of investment needed is circa. £200 billion by 2020 in all forms of sustainable energy—big and small, onshore and offshore, and across the UK, including a range of capital intensive low carbon generation, transmission and distribution technologies. This very substantial investment will also make a signiﬁcant contribution to the Govern ment’s growth agenda.

2.0 Executive Summary 2.1 The UKBCSE & the wider industry would like to highlight the following key points which are covered in detail later on in this written evidence: — Stable Policy Framework—Energy developers need a clear and stable long-term policy framework and a planning regime that is effective, fair, and gives a reasonable degree of certainty to them, affected communities and their representatives. — We therefore support the establishment of a high-level, strategic and non-spatial NPPF that clarifies the policy context for planning under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA), and sits alongside the nationally significant infrastructure project (N SIP) regime. Reflecting the majority of the Energy National Policy Statements (NPSs), we recommend that the NPPF should be non-spatial and non-prescriptive in nature, as in companies’ view the market is best placed to determine where energy projects should be developed, in consultation with local communities. This should be the case unless there are compelling reasons, of national interest and practicality, as to why a proposed development should be restricted to a specific site or sites. — Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development—Companies welcome the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, and confirmation that in the absence of up to date plans permission should be granted, provided there is no overriding conflict with the NPPF as a whole. — Deliverability, Proportionality and Viability—Companies: — Support the need to avoid “burdening” development with conditions, obligations or assessments that may make a potential project non-viable or create delay. — Believe a proportionate approach should also be taken to enforcement, whilst ensuring appropriate protections are in place.

Key Recommendations /Areas of Concern 2.2 Industry welcomes the streamlining national planning policy and is broadly supportive of the draft NPPF, however, we have a number of recommendations to improve it further: 2.3 Energy investment and the NPPF—Given the scale of investment needed to deliver Government’s energy policy and climate change goals, Industry recommends: — Energy Section—The NPPF should recognise energy as a key area for growth and include a dedicated energy section, building on and incorporating the existing Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change section. — Relationship between the NPPF and NPSs—Companies strongly believe that the NPPF should conﬁrm the National Policy Statements (NPSs) as a material consideration under the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) and Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) regimes, as well as clarifying that NPSs are the primary basis for decisions on NSIPs. Additionally, it would be helpful to include a range of DECC information to aid local authorities when drawing up their Local Plans.277 275 Centrica, EDF Energy, EON, National Grid, RWE Npower, Scottish Power, Scottish and Southern Energy 276 Association of Electricity Producers, Energy Networks Association, The Gas Forum, Renewable Energy Association, RenewableUK 277 eg: “The unconventional hydrocarbon resources of Britain’s onshore basins—coalbed methane (CBM)” and “The unconventional hydrocarbon resources of Britain’s onshore basins—shale gas” and “The hydrocarbon prospectivity of Britain’s onshore basins” cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:48] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w333

— Relationship between the NPPF and Local/Neighbourhood Plans—Industry believes that the NPPF should spell out that Neighbourhood Plans should align with, and support the delivery of, the strategic aims of Local Plans/the NPPF, with the inclusion of an explicit statement that Neighbourhood Plans can promote more but not less development than set out in the Local Plan. — Streamlining of Planning Policy/Guidance—Whilst supportive of streamlining Planning Policy Statements (PPSs), Industry is keen to retain key areas useful for developers / local planning authorities, such as parts of the revised PPS1 Supplement on Climate Change / PPS 22 on Renewable Energy. — Opportunity areas for development—Industry welcomes the NPPF encouraging local authorities to consider identifying opportunity areas for renewable and low-carbon energy infrastructure. However, the NPPF should make it clear that there is no presumption against such development outside of those areas. In addition, it is vital that any spatial planning should be consistent and rigorous, and take into account the full range of other issues that affect site selection. We therefore suggest the inclusion of the DECC October 2010 Renewable and Low-Carbon Capacity Assessment Methodology for English Regions.278 — Planning Strategically across local boundaries and the Duty to Co-operate—Industry generally supports the positive wording within the NPPF requiring local planning authorities to work across boundaries to actively plan for the development and infrastructure required in the wider area. However, we believe this should be backed-up by strengthening the Duty to Co-operate provisions of the Localism Bill including a speciﬁc duty to jointly plan for strategic infrastructure. — Restrictions on development in certain areas—Under existing legislation and / or licence obligations companies will always seek to avoid or minimise adverse environmental impacts. However, there is concern that the Draft NPPF introduces restrictions on development which go beyond the requirements in existing national planning policy and indeed the Natural Environment White Paper. Companies therefore recommend the NPPF is amended to align with existing planning policy, which already provides strong environmental protection.

3.0 Committee Questions—Key Points Context—Scale of the Energy Challenge 3.1 Planning reform is vital to deliver Government’s energy policy and growth agenda goals. 3.2 The Climate Change Act 2008 targets commit the UK to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, and the EU Renewable Energy Directive requires 15% of all energy to be from renewable sources by 2020. 3.3 This requires a step-change to move the UK from 6.7% of electricity generated by renewables in 2009, to in excess of 30% by 2020, needing extensive investment in renewable and low carbon generation and energy efficiency at smaller scales, as well as a very substantial increase in the use of renewable sources for heat supply, supported by smart grids. In addition, over a quarter of the existing generation needs replacing, in order to maintain security of the UK’s energy supplies. 3.4 Equally, transition to a low carbon economy will take time, yet within a decade the UK will be importing 60–80% of its gas. Therefore, sustained investment is needed in new gas import, reception and storage facilities, as well as the gas / electricity networks to bring the energy to market. 3.5 Paragraph 153, in line with the Supplement to PPS 1, states that planning authorities are precluded from questioning the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy. However, the Supplement to PPS 1 also states that local planning authorities should not question “the energy justification for why a proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location”. This has been omitted from the draft NPPF, which could potentially lead to protracted arguments over site selection at the planning application and appeal stages. We also believe that planning policy should retain a criteria-based approach (as per PPS 22), as opposed to an area or location-based one. 3.6 Industry recommends inclusion of these key points and a specific bullet point requiring Local Plans to “contain a clear strategy for supporting the delivery of the Government’s energy and climate change policies and targets and other national objectives” as opposed to simply requiring local planning authorities to having a “positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low-carbon sources” (Paragraph 152).

Committee’s Questions 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 over planning decisions? 3.7 The Industry supports much of the draft NPPF, however there are a few key omissions and suggested improvements, which could further enhance it: 278 http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/what%20we%20do/uk%20enerqy%20supnly/energe/020mix/renewable%20energy/ored/ 120100305105045_e_R( methodologyfortheenglishreqions.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w334 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

3.8 Stronger recognition of the importance of delivering the UK’s energy needs and addressing climate change and the resulting need for energy infrastructure development—which Industry believes should be included in the Ministerial Foreword, the Introduction and a dedicated energy section (see below). 3.9 The lack of recognition of the major contribution that the necessary infrastructure investment programme will make to economic growth—estimated by Ofgem as circa. £200 billion by 2020, Industry believes that energy development should be included alongside the major growth areas of housing, retail and leisure. 3.10 A dedicated energy section—Whilst there are some useful statements on energy and climate change, the NPPF would greatly beneﬁt from a dedicated energy section, recognising the crucial contribution new energy infrastructure will make to tackling climate change, energy security (which is not mentioned at all) and economic growth.

3.11 Stronger cross-reference to the Energy and other National Policy Statements—Industry recommends inclusion of a clear statement on the relationship between the NPPF and NPSs, their primacy for decisions on NSIPs, and their inclusion as a material consideration for energy projects consented and plans made under the T CPA and PCPA regimes. 3.12 Duty to Co-operate—The Industry welcomes the strong wording in the NPPF on the need for local planning authorities to jointly plan for development and infrastructure across boundaries. However, we believe this should be backed up by strengthening the Duty to Co-operate provisions in the Localism Bill, to include a speciﬁc duty to jointly plan for strategic infrastructure. The NPPF places much emphasis on the need for additional housing / other development, yet it is essential that local authorities talk to energy companies to understand likely increases in demand arising from housing / other growth. Without active assessment of, and planning for, strategic energy (and other) infrastructure, local authorities could be faced with shortfalls in network capacity and / or electricity and gas supplies. Additionally, given the integrated nature of the UK’s gas and electricity system, there needs to be a way of ensuring that Local Plans contribute to, and support the delivery of the UK’s energy needs as a whole.

3.13 Opportunity areas for development—Industry welcomes the positive tone of the NPPF in encouraging local authorities to consider suitable locations for renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure. However, Industry believes that the NPPF should make it clear that there is no presumption against such development outside of such priority / opportunity areas, which should be judged on the basis of their individual merits against the NPPF, including the presumption in favour of developme nt, and the relevant Local and Neighbourhood Plans.

3.14 In addition, to avoid inconsistent approaches and the risk of ruling out suitable sites, generic guidance and a robust and consistent process (using existing methodologies) is needed to assess the local and surrounding area energy needs, and all the factors that affect the suitability of locations for speciﬁc types of energy infrastructure. Additionally, the resource-intensive nature of undertaking detailed spatial planning is likely to lead to delays to the consenting of many projects that may hamper the UK in meeting its energy supply and climate change objectives.

3.15 Industry therefore recommends referencing the DECC October 2010 Renewable and Low-Carbon Capacity Assessment Methodology for English Regions, which identiﬁes the key factors—including technical, operational, commercial, ecological and environmental, and provides a rigorous assessment process.

3.16 Restrictions on development in certain areas—Companies recognise the vital role Green Belts and other designated areas can play, and the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt as set out in the draft NPPF. However, Industry has concerns that the NPPF, as currently drafted, would introduce restrictions on development which go beyond the requirements in existing national planning policy. These additional restrictions could undermine the provision of necessary energy infrastructure.

3.17 Whilst developers will always seek to avoid development that has significant adverse effects on sites protected under the Birds and Habitat Directives, the existing approach in PPS9 and Planning Circular 06/2005 provides that development proposals which adversely affect European sites could still be granted permission if certain tests / conditions are fulfilled. In contrast, Paragraphs 6 and 170 of the NPPF state that “development likely to have a significant effect on protected sites (under the Birds and Habitats Directives) would not be sustainable”. This is more restrictive and could undermine development proposals that would be acceptable under the current policy.

3.18 Paragraphs 130/131—states that “By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances.” Whilst it is recognised that the draft NPPF, Paragraph 131 states that “the Local Green Space designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space”, the associated criteria for considering the use of the designation are fairly wide and vague. Industry suggests there needs to be sufﬁcient safeguards and clear criteria in the ﬁnal version of the NPPF to ensure that Local Green Space designations are not used to prevent necessary development. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w335

3.19 Paragraph 146—states that “When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development”. Companies have particular concerns about this proposed wording, which seems to be in conﬂict with Government policy set out in NPS EN-1, Paragraph 5.10.12, which states that “It may also be possible for an applicant to show that the physical characteristics of a proposed overhead line development or wind farm are such that it has no adverse effects which conﬂict with the fundamental purposes of Green Belt designation.”

3.20 At a practical level, a presumption against development of energy projects, such as overhead lines in the Green Belt, could have signiﬁcant negative implications. Most of the major urban areas in the country are surrounded by Green Belt. Implementation of this policy could prevent necessary reinforcements and connections into major urban areas, with considerable impacts on the electricity supply and growth opportunities in those areas. Companies believe that the NPPF should therefore: — Be aligned with Government’s adopted policy in NPS EN-1—that the characteristics of overhead lines or wind farm are such that they may not have adverse effects which conﬂict with the fundamental purposes of Green Belt designation. — Not impose undue restrictions on development in designated areas that go beyond existing national planning policy. In particular, the provisions in relation to sites protected under the Birds and Habitat Directives, Local Green Spaces and the application of Green Belt policy to energy infrastructure projects need to be revised, as set out above.

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

Deﬁnition of Sustainable Development

3.21 The Industry supports both the deﬁnition of sustainable development, and the emphasis on all three social, environmental and economic pillars of sustainable development.

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

3.22 Industry sees the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” as essential to delivering Government’s energy policy and economic growth goals, and believes that the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, as well as being a core principle of the NPPF, should be enshrined within the Localism Bill.

3.23 Paragraphs 13 to 15—Industry strongly welcomes the Government’s commitment to “ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth,” and the positive wording within these paragraphs.

3.24 Paragraph 17—National, sub-national and local needs—Helpfully lays out how the presumption will impact on the development of Neighbourhood Plans, requiring neighbourhoods to develop plans that support the strategic development needs set out in the Local Plans, but with the option to promote more development than in the Local Plan if they wish. Yet, within Paragraph 51 (Neighbourhood Plans) it states that the policies of Neighbourhood Plan “take precedence over existing policies in the Local Plan for that neighbourhood, where they are in conﬂict.” This could result in Neighbourhood Plans: — Not supporting the strategic development needs set out in the Local Plan (conﬂicting with statements elsewhere in the NPPF). — Promoting less development than outlined in the Local Plan, threatening to undermine the delivery of local and national policy, including energy.

3.25 Industry therefore suggests that the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” needs to be set in the context of the need: — For Neighbourhood Plans to align with, and support the delivery of, the strategic priorities of the Local Plan, and Local Plans to align with / support the delivery of the NPPF—and other national policy (including energy policy and NPSs). — To recognise that delivery of the UK’s national policies will require wider consideration at a larger than local / neighbourhood level.

3.26 Industry recommends that the NPPF should: — Limit the circumstances when Neighbourhood Plans may take precedence over a Local Plan to only when Local Plans are absent or out of date. Otherwise Industry recommends the precedence of Neighbourhood Plans is removed altogether. — Establish the clear linkage between national policy, the need for sub-national/wider than local planning, Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w336 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed? 3.27 Paragraph 19—Industry agrees with the establishment of a set of core land-use planning principles to underpin both plan-making and development management. In terms of the principles Industry supports the statements: — “Planning should be genuinely plan-led, with succinct Local Plans setting a positive long- term vision for an area.” — “Provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of certainty and efﬁciency.” — “Planning should proactively drive and support the development that this country needs”. — “Decision-takers at every level should assume that the default answer to development proposals is ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in this Framework.” 3.28 Industry does not agree with some commentators that the NPPF is looking to “concrete over the countryside.” Indeed, as set out above, the wording of the NPPF covering designated areas, Green Belt and Green Spaces, would actually increase environmental protections over and above existing plan ning policy. 3.29 Industry recommends that the NPPF should retain the level of protection set in the existing PPSs and should not introduce further restrictions as set out above. 3.30 However, given the scale of energy development and major investment needed, Industry believes that this should be emphasised as a key growth area alongside housing etc. 3.31 Industry supports the requirement for planning policies and decisions to take into account local circumstances and market signals, with local planning authorities required to set out a clear strategy for allocating sufﬁcient land suitable for development, taking into account the needs of the residential / business community. However, it will also be important to consider national and even international market signals, such as within the energy market. 3.32 One of the planning principles states that “Where practical and consistent with other objectives, allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser value,” however as outlined in Paragraph 3.14, given the constraints that preclude many locations as suitable for energy developments, it may not always be possible to choose land of lesser environmental value. 3.33 Lastly, Industry supports the statement that “planning policies and decisions should..... encourage, rather than restrict, the use of renewable resources (for example the development of renewable energy),” however, given the scale of the energy challenge, Industry recommends the NPPF is amended to encourage all forms of low-carbon energy.

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufﬁciently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments? Relationship between the NPPF and NPSs 3.34 Whilst Industry supports the statement of fact in Paragraph 6—”Nationally signiﬁcant infrastructure projects are determined by the decision-making framework set out in national policy statements, which are part of the overall framework of planning policy,” the NPPF should provide greater clarity about the relationship with the NSIP regime and support the delivery of the Government’s objectives and policy in relation to NSIPs as set out in the National Policy Statements (NPSs). 3.35 In cases where developers may need to make applications for separate infrastructure as part of the same project under both nati onal and local planning processes, national policy takes precedence. 3.36 Industry welcomes the NPPF referencing the need for local planning authorities to “take into account the other policies within the Framework,” but believes this should be expanded to include other national policies, including NPSs. 3.37 Industry therefore recommends that the NPPF should particularly state that: (i) NPSs are the primary basis for decisions on NSIPs (as set out in the NPSs). (ii) NPSs are likely to be a material consideration in decision making on applications that fall under the TCPA and PCPA regimes, judged on a case by case basis, with wording similar to that in the Energy NPSs. (iii) NPSs and other national policy should be taken into account in the preparation, revision and review of Local and Neighbourhood Plans.

Relationship between the NPPF and Local / Neiqhbou rhood Plans 3.38 Further to our comments above, Industry believes it is essential that the NPPF spells out that Neighbourhood Plans should align with, and support the delivery of, the strategic aims of Local Plans / the NPPF, and that Local Plans should support the delivery of NPPF. The requirement in Paragraph 50 that cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w337

Neighbourhood Plans “must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan” is strongly supported, as is the statement that “Neighbourhoods will have the power to promote more development than is set out in the strategic policies of the Local Plan.” However, for clarity, Industry recommends the inclusion of an explicit statement that Neighbourhood Plans can promote more but not less development than set out in the Local Plan.

Does the NPPF, together with the “Duty to Co-operate”, provide a sufﬁcient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning?

3.39 Industry welcomes the positive wording in the NPPF that partly addresses industry’s concerns over the need for local authorities to jointly plan for strategic infrastructure, especially energy projects.

3.40 However, given that the NPPF is not enshrined within the Localism Bill, and is therefore Government policy rather than statute, Industry has consistently called for Government to strengthen the “Duty to Co- operate” provisions of the Localism Bill to place an obligation on local authorities to positively plan for infrastructure, particularly across boundaries. This is vital, because housing and commercial developments in one local authority area could have a major impact on another local authority area, due to the resulting increased demand for gas or electricity, and possible need to install additional network capacity. Positively planning for this, with early engagement with energy network companies, will guard against a piecemeal approach, which is more costly and often has a bigger impact on the environment and surrounding community.

3.41 Companies strongly support the statements set out in Paragraph 14, but believe that the NPPF should make clear that Local Plans or Neighbourhood Plans should not preclude sustainable energy developments in general, or in large parts of their plan area, simply to avoid a particular type of development. Currently, due to the limitations of some plans, energy developments do not always receive political support at local level, despite the urgent national need for all forms of energy infrastructure development.

3.42 The NPPF will encourage Local Authorities to expedite their Local Plans in a timely manner, however, without active assessment of, and planning for, strategic energy (and other) infrastructure, local authorities could be faced with shortfalls in network capacity and / or electricity and gas supplies and the delivery of the UK’s energy needs as a whole could be jeopardised.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufﬁciently evidence based?

3.43 In the case of energy infrastructure development, which is not widely covered within the NPPF, Industry believes that this could be rectiﬁed by referencing: — The DECC 2050 Pathways Report. — The Energy NPSs—which, given the level of underpinning technical work, public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny / approval, provide strong evidence for both the urgent national need for renewable and low-carbon energy development and provide useful detail / evidence. — Other DECC documents, as referenced previously. — The DECC October 2010 Renewable and Low Carbon Capacity Assessment Methodology for the English Regions—which provides useful evidence and a structured and consistent approach for identifying suitable locations for renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure developments.

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 The Industry continues to support reform of the planning regime and is broadly supportive of the draft NPPF and welcomes this opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s deliberations.

4.2 In particular it is essential that all aspects of the planning system are aligned, and work as a cohesive suite of policies balancing the three pillars of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental— both for nationally signiﬁcant infrastructure projects and those consented under the TCPA and PCPA regimes.

4.3 Industry believes that much of the NPPF achieves the appropriate balance. However, we urge the Committee to call on Government to give much greater prominence to delivering the UK’s energy needs and addressing climate change, and the major contribution energy projects will make to economic growth, and to ensure a smooth transition to avoid unnecessary delay to essential energy projects. September 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w338 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from the English National Park Authorities Association Summary The English National Park Authorities Association (ENPAA) exists to support the policy making process by co-ordinating the input of the nine National Park Authorities (NPAs) and the Broads Authority within England. We welcome the decision by the CLG Select Committee to undertake an inquiry into the draft NPPF, which will be an extremely important document for years to come. We shall be submitting a detailed response direct to CLG and look forward to constructive dialogue with CLG on how the issues we raise below can be addressed. ENPAA highlights the following: — We welcome the aspiration to make national planning policy simpler, clearer and more accessible and Ministers’ desire to continue to protect National Parks; — We believe that the draft NPPF currently provides insufficient emphasis or flexibility to National Parks and AONBs to ensure policies and development management decisions can support their statutory purposes; — We look for the Government to re-instate in the NPPF, the established policy that National Parks, the Broads, and AONBs are confirmed as having the highest level of protection; — We would like the Government to use this opportunity to strengthen how the setting of protected landscapes (and not just heritage assets) are addressed in planning; — The current wording requiring planning permission to be granted where a plan is absent, silent or doesn’t have up to date policies raises serious issues particularly in the short term; — Discussion over the presumption in favour of sustainable development needs to consider the specific implications for protected areas and relationship with statutory purposes within National Parks; — Greater clarity would be welcome over the process of conformity with the NPPF; — Links should be made with the National Parks Circular and Vision, with the National Park Management Plans as inclusive processes that involve local people, together span large areas of the country and which provide an underpinning for planning in protected landscapes.

Introduction 1. The English National Park Authorities Association (ENPAA) exists to support the policy making process by providing a collective input for the nine English National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority. It is governed by the Chairs of the Authorities, and our response represents the collective view of the Authorities. It has been prepared by ofﬁcers, working within the policies established by the National Park Authorities (NPAs). 2. NPAs are independent bodies established under the Environment Act 1995 and are responsible for those areas designated as National Parks that cover almost 10% of England by land area. They have two statutory purposes: — To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of National Parks; and — To promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks by the public. 3. In undertaking these purposes, the NPAs have a duty to seek to foster the social and economic well being of their local communities. NPAs within England are special purpose planning authorities, in that they perform planning much as local planning authorities do, but need to undertake this task within the context of a nationally protected landscape. National Parks are living working landscapes with over 300,000 people living within them. We are therefore at the forefront of ﬁnding solutions that meet people’s needs within spectacular and sensitive environments.

Ability of planning to support National Parks is key 4. Spatial planning is an essential means to support the achievement of national park purposes and the duty. Indeed the National Parks Circular and Vision 2010 says: “The town and country planning system is a key instrument in the achievement of Park purposes.” (paragraph 136). 5. The Coalition Government conﬁrmed that the National Parks Circular remains current Government policy in March 2011 when the Government’s Uplands Policy document was published by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Furthermore, in its consultation on NPA Governance earlier this year the Government endorsed its desire to see NPAs continue to be independent planning bodies. It is from this unique perspective that we offer our observations on the draft NPPF. 6. We recognise that the draft NPPF that was published in July is likely to be subject to some change following consultation and we look forward to working constructively with CLG on areas for improvement. We shall be submitting a response to the CLG direct. As the Minister has speciﬁcally asked the Select Committee to address a number of over-arching questions as part of the consultation process, we also have pleasure in submitting our written evidence below. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w339

Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance? 7. ENPAA welcomes and supports the Government’s attempt to rationalise the plethora of planning policy to make it clearer, simpler and more accessible. We also recognise how difficult it is to achieve without omitting important detail. The NPPF is by definition a national document and needs to be applied in very different settings—urban, rural, designated and undesignated countryside. This represents a considerable challenge. Existing policies have enabled National Parks to take a different approach where this is appropriate for a nationally protected area. A good example of this is in how NPAs have sought to meet local needs affordable housing. Given the very high market prices in these areas, the low average earnings, and the need for sensitive building it is not appropriate to rely on a system of cross subsidy to meet local needs housing. To do so would require unsustainable levels of new housing development. To address the genuine needs that exist NPAs have adopted exceptions policies that encourage new housing development for local housing needs in perpetuity. This requires a different more nuanced approach than that contained within the current draft NPPF. Currently there are very few references to protected landscapes and whilst we accept word count is a poor indicator of emphasis, it would appear that the balance is not appropriate for National Parks at present, with the consequence that important issues of detail such as on housing policy are absent. 8. As ENPAA develops its response to the public consultation we shall be looking at ways in which the NPPF can continue to support the statutory purposes of National Parks. This extends beyond how major development is considered within National Parks and AONBs. 9. The problems of lack of policy detail pertinent to protected landscapes at the national level will also be reflected locally. Under the existing system a LPA in preparing its Local Development Framework was expressly told not to duplicate policy that was contained within national or regional policy. As a consequence draft policies were removed in LDFs by NPAs or following examination. There is now envisaged a significant reduction in national policy and the removal of regional policy. The draft NPPF also states that if a Local Plan is absent, silent or does not contain up to date policies, then development should be allowed to proceed (paragraph 14). Depending upon how this is interpreted, this creates significant risks in the short term for National Parks. We would welcome exploring how these might be lessened either through changes in the NPPF; the introduction of a transition period whilst policy is reviewed and updated; and/or a more supportive and flexible stance towards the development of Supplementary Planning Documents. 10. Whilst a transition period might assist in ensuring policies are as up to date as possible, NPAs are not in a position to foresee all potential future forms of development. There may well be completely new forms of development. We hope that CLG will consider how the planning principle of “prematurity” will be handled within the new framework. 11. There are some specific areas where we believe the draft guidance could be improved. These include on: — The need for Government policy to include landscape enhancement (and not just protection) as its policy objective and to embrace the European Landscape Convention (ELC) that the Government has ratified; — the setting of protected landscapes in policy and development management; — the role of the new Local Nature Partnerships and Nature Improvement Areas (established under the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper) within planning; and — the role of planning in influencing the location of development with a view to reducing the need to travel.

Is the definition of sustainable development appropriate? 12. National Parks seek to be exemplars in the delivery of sustainable development. National Park Authorities have always recognised and are proud of the contribution that local communities, businesses and land managers make to the special qualities of the National Parks. How this is achieved in a protected landscape is critical and we hope the NPPF will enable NPAs to define sustainable development for their specific areas. This is frequently done through the process of preparing a National Park Management Plan (NPMP) and we would welcome a stronger recognition for the place of the NPMP in framing sustainable development in national parks in the Draft NPPF. 13. ENPAA does not comment on the wider debates over sustainable development, but recognises that within National Parks it means: — development which makes use of the special qualities of the national park in a way which protects and enhances these qualities; — focusing on meeting people’s needs rather than focusing on demand or market signals; — recognising environmental limits; — considering the long term implications of development, both positive and negative; and — recognising (as the recent Natural Environment White Paper does) that sustaining a high quality environment is essential for future prosperity within National Parks. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w340 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

14. We note the presumption in favour of sustainable development is a central plank of the draft NPPF. For National Parks we believe the draft NPPF should clarify (as it does for sites protected under the Birds or Habitats Directive—paragraph 16) that development that would harm National Park statutory purposes should also be considered unsustainable under the NPPF.

Are the core planning principles clearly and appropriately expressed?

15. A long established principle of the planning process has been the “Silkin Test” for major development, that is more commonly referred to as the major development test and which was set out in PPS7. We welcome the fact that much of the existing text has been transposed directly into the draft NPPF—but with one very important exception. Current Government policy expressly states, “Nationally designated areas comprising National Parks, the Broads, and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), have been conﬁrmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty”. We are concerned to see this omitted from the draft NPPF and believe this to be a casualty of cutting the word count rather than any change in Government policy. Nevertheless, ENPAA attaches particular importance to its reinstatement which would continue a long established planning principle. Furthermore, it should be made clear that the principle applies to Government and Planning Inspectors as well as LPAs.

16. We note that a process is envisaged to enable a LPA to receive a certiﬁcate of conformity with the NPPF if it so wishes. ENPAA would be interested to learn more about how this would operate; and the extent to which anybody undertaking such an assessment will be versed with an understanding of National Park purposes? We also believe it is important for CLG to consider the impact of the draft NPPF on those Local Plans that have recently been found “Sound” by the Planning Inspectorate, but which may not have all of the policies or assessments undertaken which are now envisaged by the new NPPF. Our understanding is that within law, conformity requires a Plan to conform generally in each particular matter, rather than to conform exactly with the vast majority of areas whilst ignoring or taking a signiﬁcantly different approach in a minority. Clarity on this point and the process whereby conformity will be established would be welcome.

17. Linked to the above, we would seek clariﬁcation on whether the NPPF intends to return to a single Local Plan approach with all planning policy and guidance contained within one document.

18. We note that the draft NPPF refers to the fact that “neighbourhood plans will have the power to promote more development than is set out in the strategic policies of the Local Plan” (paragraph 50). The NPPF will need to address the problems of conformity that this could easily create in areas where growth is for good reasons restricted, including National Parks, which by their very nature are areas of constraint.

The relationship between the NPPF and other planning-related policy statements. Does the NPPF integrate national planning policy across Government departments?

19. We recognise the difﬁculty of seeking to integrate policy from a wide range of different topics and strategies into one document. Nevertheless, we hope that following consultation it will be possible for the NPPF to better reﬂect other planning related policy concerning National Parks. We hope to discuss how this might be achieved with CLG, but in the meantime would highlight: — the need to reference the English National Parks and the Broads Vision and Circular 2010 which the current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has indicated continues to be the statement of Government policy on National Parks; — the importance of the document recognising the role of National Park Management Plans (and their equivalents in AONBs) as plans for the area rather than the Authority and therefore the starting point for the development of Local Plans; and — the need to emphasise the value of the natural environment in providing ecosystem services (such as clean air and water, carbon and water storage, high quality food, and spiritual renewal) and recognise that a high quality environment is a crucial underpinning for sustainable development, as set out in the Natural Environment White Paper.

Does the NPPF and duty to co-operate provide a good basis for larger-than-local strategic planning?

20. ENPAA welcomes the attention being given to strategic planning and as NPAs whose areas span many local authorities we have considerable experience of joint working. Furthermore, the Natural Environment White Paper 2011 sees a signiﬁcant role for the public, private and voluntary sectors to come together at a landscape scale in order to support biodiversity. NPAs are playing an active part in discussions on how to do this, and increasingly looking beyond their boundaries to support “ecological connectivity” by linking up wildlife corridors.

21. We welcome the references made in the Draft NPPF on the duty to co-operate. We would like to see these apply to the development of the National Park Management Plan, as much as the Local Plans. And we would like to see reference made in the ﬁnal NPPF to the role of the newly established Local Nature cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w341

Partnerships (LNPs) and/or Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs) that stem from the Natural Environment White Paper and are leading landscape scale conservation initiatives. September 2011

Written evidence from Dr Tim Leunig Introduction (1) There is too little housing, particularly in the south east, to maximise any sensible definition of social welfare. This manifests itself in terms of prices, but what really matters is quantity. Too many kids don’t have space to do their homework, too many adult kids have to live with their parents, too many single adults and couples share houses, and so on. Furthermore, the lack of housing in the right place means that too many people have to commute long distances, or live in areas with weak employment prospects. (2) The lack of housing also leads to high housing costs, in line with supply and demand. (3) We therefore need more new housing. There are things that we can do with the existing stock—for example, reforming probate so that these houses get on the market more quickly—the quantity of housing is too low. (4) We have seen a huge collapse in mortgage availability, but house prices have not fallen to the extent that they did in the US. This is because the US had a significant housing bubble and we did not. Indeed, I would argue that we currently have a “negative housing bubble”, in that the lack of sensible mortgage availability means that current house prices are below their fundamental level given supply and demand. House prices will rise sharply as soon as the mortgage market recovers. (5) We therefore need to build more houses. No ifs, no buts. It would be reasonable to aim for 500,000 a year for the foreseeable future—say 10 years. It is plausible that this would get rid of the backlog of unmet housing need and suppressed demand. (6) They cannot all be built on brownfield sites—there are not enough of them, and they are not all in the right places. (7) We therefore need to build on greenfield sites as well.

The NPPF (8) The NPPF rightly sets out to simplify a very complex system. (9) There are issues—such as the definition of “sustainability” that are poorly defined. The current document may be too short (10) But most fundamentally we now have a system that claims to have a presumption in favour of development (which is not new, as many have remarked), while emphasising the primacy of the local plan. This is contradictory. We know that local plans have to be in conformity with national planning guidelines. What we don’t know is what that means. (11) It is likely that, if left to themselves, areas will opt for very low levels of development. There is already evidence that councils are scaling back housing numbers from RSS levels, which were themselves too low to deliver decent homes. (12) What we do not know is how low they will be allowed to go, because we have no sense of what it means to be in conformity with National Planning Guidance. After all, developers would build on every square inch of the affluent inner Home Counties—Bucks, Berks, Surrey, if the presumption in favour of development allows. (13) Let us imagine that an area pays consultants a large amount of money to tell them what they want to hear, namely that a relatively low target is appropriate for their area. They come up with a popular local plan on that basis. (14) Who decides whether this holds? The planning inspectors (aka Whitehall). Presumably there will be an appeal mechanism in case the inspectors make the wrong call. So people on each side hire lobbyists, etc, and it goes upwards to the Secretary of State. Perhaps to judicial review? (15) The reality is that neither I, nor any other respondent, or any person, including the relevant ministers, has a clear sense of how the tension between local people generally wanting less development will be balanced by due process against the presumption in favour of development. (16) My own guess is that there is an 80% chance that this will be a NIMBYist’s charter, a 10% chance that it is a developers charter that will lead to a free for all, and a 10% chance that it will lead to sensible outcomes. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w342 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

(17) As a nation we can choose one of the following options (these are in order, worst to best): (a) Build few houses, and have them allocated by the market. The result is a country of haves and have- nots, in which many people are priced out of a decent standard of living, and in which benefit bills for housing are huge. I think that this is barbaric. (b) Regulate housing, by either passing laws against having an excessive number of square feet per resident, or high taxes on the “overhoused”. I think that this is unnecessary. (c) Require house building in relevant areas, under pain of losing central government grant, or going further. If we can jail people for price fixing, we can jail council leaders and officers who do not grant enough planning permissions. (d) Allow developers a free for all. This would give us enough houses, but the communities would be poorly planned, and needlessly so. (e) Give local authorities sufficient incentive to say yes to development. All NIMBYs have their price, and the amount by which land prices rise when development is permitted is significant. It is likely to persuade a lot of people to accept development, rather than oppose it. The New Homes Bonus is too small, perhaps by an order of magnitude. That is why I proposed Community Land Auctions. The Barker Review urged the government to pilot them, the recent budget stated that government would work towards a pilot, but I am not aware that anything has happened.

(18) Finally, changes on the scale of the NPPF should, as a rule, be piloted. Abolishing the RSS without evidence of how the new system would work was not a sensible approach to policy making.

Dr Tim Leunig is Reader in Economics at the London School of Economics, and Chief Economist at CentreForum think tank. He was a member of the Barker Review of Land Use Academic Advisory Committee, and a columnist for Inside Housing magazine. He is the author of “In my back yard: unlocking the planning system” (CentreForum) and will shortly be launching an updated version. September 2011

Written evidence from East Midlands Councils (EMC)

EMC fully supports the need to streamline and simplify national planning policy. However, the Draft NPPF will need to be amended for it to become “fit for purpose”. In particular: — Transitional Arrangements: The Government should “phase in” the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” to allow councils more time to develop their local plans—as a minimum to March 2013. There also needs to be greater clarity on the process and timescales for the proposed RSS revocation. — Conformity Issues: The process for “certification” of existing plans as being in conformity with the NPPF should be clarified and should not be used to undermine the “plan-led” system. — Housing Delivery: Planning authorities already approve over 80% of housing applications and there is currently permission for 85,000 new homes in the East Midlands. Whilst it is important for local housing provision policies to be well evidenced, the Government should give greater priority to addressing the financial barriers to increasing housing delivery. — Housing Land Supply: The NPPF should clarify that the 20% addition to the 5 year land supply will not have the long term effect of increasing housing provision above levels set in the local plan. — Affordable Housing: Greater efforts should be made by Government to address the long term under-supply of affordable housing. The NPPF should allow the continuation of “rural exceptions sites” policies, which have proved successful in the East Midlands. — Employment Land Supply: The NPPF should allow councils to maintain well evidenced employment land designations throughout the economic cycle. — Brownfield Land & Regeneration: The NPPF should have a greater focus on regeneration issues and be clearer on the priority to re-use brownfield land. — Neighbourhood Planning: There are concerns about the democratic legitimacy of the proposed “neighbourhood forums” and what is actually meant by “general conformity” with the local plans— the current policy advice appears contradictory. Neighbourhood plans should not undermine the primacy of local plans. — Role of PINS: The role of PINS in determining planning decisions should be limited to testing legal issues and matters of fact.

A number of other more detailed comments are set out in the accompanying Annex. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w343

Annex ADDITIONAL DETAILED COMMENTS Other National Policy The consultation document states that the NPPF will cancel all existing PPSs and PPGs, but also two Circulars and 15 letters to Chief Planning Ofﬁcers (CPOs). However, this still leaves 34 Circulars and 36 CPO letters apparently extant according to the DCLG web-site. It will be important that the ﬁnal NPPF is clear not just about those Circulars/CPO letters that have been cancelled, but the status and purpose of those that remain. A full list of National Policy Statements for infrastructure should also be included.

Understanding the Collective Impact of the NPPF Whilst is accepted that the NPPF does not constitute a plan or programme under the EU SEA Directive and therefore does not require a formal appraisal under the SEA regulations, it is designed to have a powerful impact on local planning decisions particularly in the absence of an adopted local plan. As with National Policy Statements for major infrastructure, some form of “appraisal of sustainability” should be undertaken on the impact of the document as a whole—not just the highlighted policy changes set out in the accompanying “impact assessment”. This would help ensure greater internal coherence (the key beneﬁt of combining previously separate policy statements into one document), and highlight the extent to which the Government’s aspirations for the NPPF can realistically be met through current policies.

Infrastructure and Viability The NPPF requires councils to assess infrastructure requirements and to plan for timely delivery to facilitate development, making use of planning obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy. It also requires that the collective “burden” on development should allow developers to make an “acceptable” return on investment and that infrastructure requirements should enable development to take place “throughout the economic cycle”. It will be important for developers to proceed on an “open book” basis. However councils and local communities may take a different view as to what is an “acceptable” return. Nor can requirements for essential infrastructure be obviated by economic conditions outside the control of the planning system to address. Further consideration should be given to the approach to viability set out in the Draft NPPF to ensure that development remains sustainable.

Definitions and Terminology The NPPF is a significantly shorter than the collective length of the documents it will replace, resulting in a general reduction in detail and specificity. As a result, the draft includes a number of qualifications to policy statements such as “where appropriate”, “where practicable”, “proportionate” and “normally”, with little discussion as to how and in what circumstances these terms would apply. Whilst this may be intended to give flexibility to decision makers, it will also introduce a further element of uncertainty into the planning system until precedents are set through EiPs, the appeals process or in some cases by the courts. As a result, there will still be a need for additional technical guidance to be produced on different aspects of the NPPF, if not by Government then by other appropriate bodies.

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development (PFSD) The draft NPPF requires planning authorities to approve proposals that accord with the local plan without delay, and grant permission where the plan is silent or out of date: “…unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of this Framework taken as whole”. Taken at face value, this would appear to indicate that the only basis for taking a planning decision will be the local plan and the NPPF. However, this is clearly inconsistent with Section 70(2) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, which requires to local planning authorities to have regard to “other material considerations” as well as the plan. The NPPF will be a strong material consideration—but not the only one. There will be many other considerations that could be material to a given decision. To avoid confusion, the section describing the PFSD should be redrafted to fully reflect the legal basis for making planning decisions. Leaving aside legal issues, on a practical level it may be very difficult to prove that any individual proposal would significantly conflict with the NPFF, given the breadth and generality of the current draft. Whether or not this is the intention of Government, the proposed primacy of the NPPF when the plan is silent will place pressure for local planning authorities to include plan policies that cover all eventualities.

Natural Environment The draft NPPF appears less certain than PPS7 or the East Midlands Regional Plan about the importance attached to National Park Landscape and fails to refer to the continued relevance of the National Park Vision and Circular 2010 on National Parks. Without a stronger statement to clarify these points, there is a danger that the NPPF will not maintain the carefully developed approach towards sustainable development in the Peak cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w344 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

District National Park. The Government should look carefully at detailed points made by the Peak District National Park Authority which aim to make delivery of the NPPF more compatible with statutory national park purposes.

Greenbelts and Green-wedges There are a number of proposed changes to greenbelt policy which, whilst individually minor, could in combination have a significant local impact in parts of the East Midlands. In addition, there appears to be no specific reference in the NPPF to the designation of “green wedges”, which have been used successfully as a flexible alternative to greenbelts for controlling patterns of development in a number of areas in the East Midlands (or example Leicester and Lincoln).

Transport The Draft NPPF appears broadly consistent with the approach taken in PPG 13 (Transport), apart from the removal of maximum car parking standards for new development. However the draft states that: “…development should not be prevented or refused on transport grounds unless the residual impacts of development are severe…” Traffic generation is one of the major concerns stated by local communities in opposition to new development. Whilst it may be un-realistic for new development to improve existing traffic problems, it is surely reasonable to expect future conditions not to be significantly worse once mitigation measures have been implemented. The test of “severe residual impact” should be reconsidered accordingly.

Waste The Government is proposing not to speciﬁcally cover planning for waste in the NPPF, but instead to include relevant waste policies in a separate National Waste Plan at some later date. In the meantime, PPS10 on waste will remain. The logic behind this approach is not clear and it is likely to lead to a less coherent and “joined up” approach to waste planning. Waste is not an isolated issue, it is product of the activities addressed elsewhere in the NPPF and should be considered as part of an integrated policy approach.

Minerals The Government appears to be retaining the system of a managed supply of aggregates supported by aggregates working parties (AWPs). However, it is not clear if AWPs will remain “regional” (as they have been since they were established in the mid 1970s), or reflect some other geography. Nor is it clear if they will continue to be supported financially by DCLG as they have been to date. The draft NPPF states that mineral authorities should: “...as far as practical, ensure sufficient levels of permitted reserves are available from outside National Parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and World Heritage Sites.” This implies a lower level of protection for the Peak District National Park and Lincolnshire Wolds AONB compared to Policy 37 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, which requires a “progressive reduction”in minerals extraction from these areas. The NPPF should be amended to reflect the current regional approach and the requirements of Circular 2010 on National Parks.

Floodrisk The “sequential test” and the “exceptions test” should be given greater prominence in the final NPPF. It will be important for Government to give sufficient clarity, either through the NPPF itself or supporting technical documents, to enable the current agreement with the Association of British Insurers to provide insurance in flood-risk areas (which expires in July 2013), to be continued. Large areas of the East Midlands are affected by flood risk, including the Lincolnshire Coast and parts of all the region’s main urban areas. September 2011

Written evidence from the CBI It is crucial that the draft National Planning Policy Framework supports a transparent, rigorous planning system that fully supports economic, environmental and social sustainability. The CBI proposes that in its current form, the draft NPPF has the capacity to effectively drive the plan-led system, while always weighing up the respective concerns of all stakeholders, be it local communities, businesses or government, and the principles of sustainable development. This will mean that local communities have a role in deciding what development can go ahead, while ensuring that it can only go ahead if it fulﬁls environmental and social, as well as economic values. As such, CBI welcomes the opportunity to provide written evidence on the draft NPPF, to the Communities and Local Government Committee Select Committee. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w345

The CBI is the UK’s leading business organisation, speaking for some 240,000 businesses that together employ around a third of the private sector workforce. Our submission reﬂects full consultation with our membership, including with the following sectors: energy, housing, transport, waste and water infrastructure management, planning lawyers and consultants, property development and retail. This written evidence makes the following points: 1. Infrastructure investment is a key economic driver but investment is being held back by the planning system. 2. Sub national development is crucial to facilitating infrastructure investment for economic growth, job creation and the decarbonisation agenda. 3. The draft NPPF is sufﬁciently pro-growth to deliver sub national development... 4. ...and strikes the right balance between environmental, economic and social development.

1. Infrastructure Investment is a Key Economic Driver but Investment is Being Held Back by the Planning System Infrastructure investment is a key economic driver, both in itself providing a positive “multiplier effect” on the economy, and by helping to attract and retain private sector investment. The 2011 CBI/KPMG infrastructure survey offers fresh evidence for this.279 For instance, over 80% of firms report that the quality of energy and transport infrastructure has a significant impact on their future investment decisions. We also know that infrastructure investment itself provides significant economic returns. For example, spending on construction has a strong positive impact on the economy—every £1 spent on construction increases GDP by £2.84.280 Similarly, the best transport schemes can offer returns of £5–£10 per pound invested.281 However, the survey paints a disturbing picture with regards to the current state of UK infrastructure. As many as 50% of firms believe the UK’s transport networks have deteriorated in the last five years, and 40% of firms believe the energy networks have deteriorated. Worryingly, over half of respondents thought the UK’s infrastructure compared less favourably to EU competitors. Planning stands out as a key issue—both as a barrier directly to the delivery of infrastructure itself, and as a hindrance to investor confidence as a result. The survey finds 98% of businesses see planning as a barrier to infrastructure delivery. The Government last year estimated £200 billion would be needed in the next four to five years to upgrade our infrastructure to meet demands; it also noted most of this would need to come from the private sector.282 So attracting private sector investment in infrastructure is key, and addressing the planning issue must be part of the solution.

2. Sub National Development is Crucial to Facilitating Infrastructure Investment for Economic Growth, Job Creation and the Decarbonisation Agenda Development at the major infrastructure level is absolutely crucial, and CBI continues to call for a major infrastructure planning system which instils investor confidence. However, a lot of development must take place below the major infrastructure level, and this is also crucial to securing the infrastructure needed for long term economic growth, job creation and delivering a low carbon economy including low-carbon energy infrastructure, waste infrastructure, housing and minerals infrastructure. The following are four examples which illustrate how sub national planning is critical to facilitating infrastructure development: —Onenergy infrastructure, in order to meet the 2020 decarbonisation targets and to secure energy supply in the long term, the UK needs to provide a diverse energy mix, for which the government is aiming to see 4,000 wind turbines built before 2020.283 Wind energy and wind farms are a low carbon source, which garners particular local level opposition. Around half the current capacity for wind energy is subject to the local level planning system284, yet the proportion of planning applications for wind farms that are rejected by local authorities is exceptionally high. In 2010, 32 of 66 wind farm applications were rejected.285 The approval rate of these applications will need to vastly increase if we are to meet our target and secure energy supply. 279 Making the right connections: CBI/KPMG infrastructure survey 2011 (September 2011). 280 Construction in the UK: the benefits of investment, L.E.K Consulting on behalf of the UK Contractors Group (UKCG) and the CBI. 281 The Eddington Transport Survey, Sir Roy Eddington, HM Treasury-Department for Transport (December 2006). 282 HM Treasury-Infrastructure UK, National Infrastructure Plan 2010 (October 2010). 283 Consents for Wind Farms—Onshore, House of Commons Library, www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04370.pdf 284 Embrace the Revolution: Delivering 2020, Manifesto for wind, wave and tidal power, BWEA, page 4, http://www.bwea.com/pdf/publications/Embrace%20the%20Revolution%20Delivering%202020.pdf 285 Ibid. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w346 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— Waste infrastructure requires considerable development if we are to meet growing demand, and use it to contribute to delivering a low carbon economy. The EU Landfill Directive demands that the UK reduce its landfill to no more than 35% by 2020, and it is now estimated that this will require £8bn investment.286 The majority of the applications for these new developments will have to pass through the sub national planning system. — Housebuilding is at its lowest level since the 1920s, and the number of houses no longer being planned since the government’s stated intention to abolish regional strategies is in the region of 100,000 to 200,000 houses. While the mortgage market is partially responsible for stimulating the housing market, planning also has a role as an enabler. Local authorities must take a positive approach to applications for housing if we are to reverse this trend and instil investor confidence in the house building sector. — Finally, 350 million tonnes of minerals are extracted each year to provide the essential raw materials on which the construction, electricity generation and many manufacturing industries such as glass depend. An adequate and steady supply of these minerals is crucial for sustainable economic growth. Not only does UK-based minerals extraction mean that we retain related jobs in the UK (the non-energy mineral sector employs over 60,000 people, and the coal industry directly employs over 9,000 people),287 we also keep down carbon emissions by avoiding the added transport carbon emissions, which would occur if we increased our minerals supplies from overseas. Under the current planning reforms, planning for aggregate minerals extraction will continue to be dealt with by local planning authorities. Thus, making the sub national planning system work for minerals extraction will be crucial to retaining a sustainable minerals extraction industry.

3. The Draft NPPF is Sufficiently Pro-Growth to Deliver Sub National Development... Once Regional Strategies are wound down with the enactment of the Localism Bill in April 2012, the NPPF policy document will be the only document governing planning decisions, either directly or by informing local plans, below those of nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). This makes the NPPF a crucial instrument for enabling effective and sustainable sub national planning. In order to create the sub national planning system needed to help secure effective, sustainable infrastructure at the local and “middle tier” (between local and national) levels of planning, the NPPF must be pro- development while respecting environmental and social sustainability principles. In February this year, the government launched a pre-consultation to seek early views on the NPPF. The CBI responded by setting out four tests by which to measure whether the NPPF would be sufficiently pro growth to allow crucial development to take place while respecting environmental and social principles of sustainable development. These tests were based around the presumption in favour of development; the duty to cooperate and strategic planning; local priorities and national targets; and the digestibility of the framework. The NPPF as drafted succeeds on meeting these tests, as set out below.

I. Comprising a presumption in favour of sustainable development which will be key to ensuring that the planning system helps rather than hinders the UK’s economic growth As currently drafted, the presumption has two prongs, both of which CBI sees as being crucial to ensuring the delivery of infrastructure and development, while importantly, retaining the principles of environmental and social sustainability. The first prong entails that a local plan must be pro growth and that it must meet the objectively measured needs of an area. The second prong applies where a local plan is not in place or out of date. CBI believes that the first prong would help ensure that any local plan would make provisions for the infrastructure needs of the area. Effectively, this prong is passing the national responsibility to deliver growth down to local authorities, along with the power to decide how and where development takes place. This is inevitably going to mean that tough decisions have to be made, but trusts those who know most about their local area to make the right decision, rather than being subject to top-down dictat. As part of this, the draft NPPF sets out that the “strategic priorities” to be provided for in local authority plans include housing, climate change mitigation and economic development. CBI sees as absolutely crucial that this side of the presumption be retained, in order that the development our country needs takes place. For instance, the housing targets contained within Regional Strategies were only valuable inasmuch as they ensured housing was delivered—and we have fallen well short of delivering enough housing. Ensuring that local authorities contain a plan with adequate housing numbers should help avoid a repeat of this failure. The same is true of climate change mitigation—a plan must contain evidence that this is being adequately provided for as a “strategic priority”. The second prong states that, if a plan is not in place or out of date, development should go ahead, “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”. We see this prong’s incentive effect as fundamental to ensuring plan-making takes place—if local authorities wish to control 286 Rubbish to Resource, Financing New Waste Infrastructure, Associate Parliamentary Sustainable Resource Group http://www.ciwm.co.uk/web/FILES/Technical/Rubbish_Resource_Financing_New_Waste_Infrastructure_2011.pdf 287 CBI Minerals Group written evidence to DCLG select committee on the draft NPPF (October 2011) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcomloc/547/547cvw19.htm cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w347

how and where development takes place, they must plan pro-actively. If they don’t have a plan any development will be weighed up against the NPPF. Given that such a small proportion of local authorities currently have an up-to-date plan (approximately 30%), we would have real concerns that without a strong incentive to plan, local authorities would not apply for a plan. CBI supports the plan-led system because it means, when consulting with their local communities, local authorities are offering them a say in the strategic development of their surroundings—be it for housing, waste, or transport infrastructure. A strategic “plan-led” system is better both for local communities who live and use the infrastructure around them—and so should have a say—and for investors in infrastructure who value long term certainty.

II. Reinforcing the Localism Bill’s “duty to cooperate”’, in order to make clear and ﬁrm provisions for strategic planning Cooperation between local authorities is important for strategic planning of energy, waste, minerals and housing. In the absence of Regional Strategies, we have only the “duty to cooperate” as a means of ensuring strategic regional level (or “larger than local” level) planning takes place via cooperation between local authorities. The Planning Inspectorate will be charged with enforcing this duty, and evidence that cooperation has taken place will be a criterion of a sound local plan. The Localism Bill supports the “duty to cooperate”, both by offering a strong incentive to plan (see above) and also by offering guidance on the issues that the duty is intended to apply to. We have urged government to make this more prescriptive in the Localism Bill, in order to ensure that sub national but supra-local development is planned for. To reinforce this, the NPPF’s guidance is welcomed as a means of supporting the Bill’s duty to cooperate.

III. Communicates the need for local authorities to use local priorities to deliver on national targets We urge government to continue to make explicit the need for local authorities to align local priorities with national targets, where possible. At present, national targets, such as the emissions reductions and renewable energy targets, are not referred to in the draft NPPF. While the Planning Inspectorate will ensure that local authorities adequately provide for “strategic priorities” so that national targets are met, an explicit reference in the draft NPPF itself would go some way to explaining a community’s responsibility to deliver on these targets. This linkage could also be achieved by including a reference in the NPPF to National Policy Statements (NPSs), which already set out the national need to deliver on these targets.

IV. Is sufﬁciently simple and succinct to be effective The draft NPPF is certainly short enough to be digestible, at only 65 pages long. The CBI believes the principles are set out clearly. The CBI recognises that in some instances, some sectoral guidance could be beneﬁcial to clarifying how the NPPF principles be applied. Any such sectoral guidance must kept as concise, digestible and short as possible, and drawn up in collaboration with industry.

4. ... and Strikes the Right Balance between Environmental, Economic and Social Development The CBI has always maintained that achieving sustainability is a matter of weighing up the three pillars of sustainable development—environmental, economic and social sustainability. The need to deliver economic growth, the urgency to secure low-carbon energy, and pressing social concerns (such as delivering housing and improved transport networks) puts pressure on the planning regime to strike the right balance between the three pillars of sustainable development. This is inevitably going to lead to some tough decisions, but is a realistic reflection of the growing demands from our growing population. An example of the pressure on the UK’s infrastructure is the £10 billion investment in waste infrastructure that is required to enable us to meet our target to reduce landfill waste to 35% by 2020; and a third of UK energy generating capacity needing renewal over the next five years.288 The CBI sees the draft NPPF as striking this balance, by giving significant weight to concerns of the natural environment and biodiversity, sustainable communities, the protection of birds and habitats and green belt (see below for more details.)

Giving Signiﬁcant Weight to Environmental and Social Values Setting out that planning must allow for natural environmental and biodiversity enhancement to be achieved: the draft NPPF sets out an aim for development to protect valued landscape, provide net gains in biodiversity, and prevent development from producing unacceptable levels of pollution.289 Seeking to promote sustainable communities: the overriding principle is to “create strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by creating a good built environment, with accessible local services that reﬂect community needs and support well-being”. This includes facilitating social interaction, providing local services, and delivering recreational facilities.290 288 Making the right connections: CBI/KPMG infrastructure survey 2011 (September 2011) page 11. 289 Draft National Planning Policy Framework, page 46. 290 Draft National Planning Policy Framework, page 35. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w348 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Giving strong weighting to the protection of birds and habitats: the Birds and Habitats Directive appraisal must be undertaken at plan and/or project level and the policies in the Framework are set to ensure the EU obligations are not compromised. Indeed, development with a “signiﬁcant effect on sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives would not be sustainable under the terms of the presumption”,291 so that the presumption straightforwardly could not apply to such development. Retaining special recognition of the environmental and social value of the Green Belt: the CBI welcomes that the draft NPPF retains the objective of not harming the Green Belt.292 The CBI welcomes that the draft NPPF proposes strict criteria as to the “exceptional circumstances” which would have to be met if Green Belt were to be developed. The draft NPPF proposes four minor new instances where development applications could be considered only so long as “the principles or protections of the green belt are maintained.”293 (The minor new instances are for (i) development on previously-developed sites; (ii) extension to park and ride schemes; (iii) development brought forward by local communities and (iv) the alteration of a “dwelling”.)294 October 2011

Written evidence from Professor Michael Ball I should like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to clarify the results of my research on planning delays, as requested in your letter to me of 11 November 2011. There seem to be two issues: (i) to what does the £3 billion planning cost ﬁgure refer and (ii) is it a reasonable estimate? I shall take both in turn:

1. To what does the £3 billion figure refer? The £3 billion figure is specifically the result of an estimate by me as part of a study of housing supply and planning delay, commissioned by Communities and Local Government, through the then existing National Housing and Planning Advisory Unit, and published by them in 2010: Housing supply and planning controls. The impact of development control processing times on housing supply in England. The Impact Assessment of the draft NPPF clearly differentiates between Kate Barker’s work and mine: “Kate Barker’s Review of Land Use Planning estimates the cost of the associated planning delay to the economy at between £700 million to £2.7 billion. However, these figures do not differentiate between reasonable and unavoidable delay. More recently, a report for Department for Communities and Local Government by Michael Ball suggested that the transaction cost of development control for major housing projects development ‘may be up to £3 billion a year’.295 The major components of this relate to ‘more than £750 million annually in consultant and legal fees’ and ‘financing costs of holding onto land and other assets whilst their projects are being evaluated’ (estimated at £1 billion per year).” [p 10. Their emphasis]. The other reference to my results in the impact assessment is more general, but still clearly refers to my research alone: “As described earlier the annual cost of development control to the economy is estimated at up to £3 billion, of which a major component was the financial cost of holding onto land and other assets whilst projects are evaluated (Ball, ibid). An increase in the probability of being granted planning permission (ie an increased approval rate) may reduce these costs as the uncertainty is reduced.” p 17. Draft National Planning Policy Framework: Impact assessment, Communities and Local Government, 25 July 2011. http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/draftframeworkimpact I only make passing reference in my report to the Barker Review figure. It comes directly after a one and a half page analysis leading to my own figure, which concludes that: “Although other land-use activities require development control, the transaction costs of development control for major housing projects are likely to be of the order of £3 billion or more annually.” (Ball ibid, p17). Yes, the rounded £3 billion numbers are coincidentally the same but the context makes perfectly clear the fact that the one of relevance in my report refers to my own calculations. I put no great weight on the Barker figure in my report, focusing unsurprisingly on my own research. I was not party to the government’s discussions; only finding out that my estimate had been used on publication of the Impact Assessment. In view of this evidence, I am perplexed and disappointed that Trudi Elliott of the RTPI can state to the Committee that my report “does not have evidence about £3 billion”. At no time, I should add, has anyone at 291 Draft National Planning Policy Framework, page 4. 292 Draft National Planning Policy Framework, page 38. 293 Draft National Planning Policy Framework—Impact Assessment, Pages 71–72. 294 Ibid. 295 Ball, M (2010). http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/507390/pdf/1436960.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w349

RTPI contacted me with concerns about the sources of these ﬁgures. A quick conversation or correspondence would easily have cleared up any confusion.

The Committee may also be interested to know that I gave a presentation of my work to members of the RTPI mentioning my estimate of £3 billion in March 2010 and that the slides I produced for that talk are still available on the RPTI’s website.

2. Is it a reasonable estimate?

I cannot agree with the view expressed by the RTPI that there are concerns about the quality of my research. They are unsubstantiated by them and without foundation. I am an independent academic of high standing; whereas the RTPI is the representative body of the planning profession with a self-interest in discrediting reasoned argument about the costs of planning, as part of a so-called “myth busting” exercise (as termed on its website).

To allay any fears regarding research quality, I should also like to point out that my research report was peer reviewed by the NHPAU Board, which contained some highly distinguished academic members, has been published by CLG, and been in the public domain since early 2010. The research project also developed out of a similar earlier research stream with colleagues at the University of Reading that was peer reviewed on behalf of the Economic and Social Research Council, and had resultant publications in three refereed academic journals. Furthermore, an academic conference presentation of that research was awarded a prize.

With regard to the £3 billion ﬁgure itself, my estimates refer to the overall costs of development control for major housing projects. The calculation is rather complex and its details are given in the boxed text at the end of this memorandum. Inevitably, such exercises are approximate. With that in mind I erred to the low side in the ﬁnal estimate.

The purpose of my estimate was to assess the annual transaction costs of development control for major housing developments, which are the direct costs to the public sector and developers of development control. This is not the true economic cost of this aspect of planning: that would, instead, be the public and private resource costs of the development control process (ie items 1, 2, and 4 below); plus the value of the housing delayed, using my delay estimates; and, in addition, the value of the housing not built because of the costs of delay and risks associated with obtaining planning permissions. The value of delayed housing alone is the present value of two years of the implicit annual market rents of the houses built, plus an estimate of the lost consumer surplus. Therefore, the resultant economic cost would be a much higher than the transaction costs approach I adopted. In other words, the true economic cost of planning delay includes the cost of the housing foregone, and that would result in a much higher “cost of planning” ﬁgure than the one given in my report.

Overall costs clearly depend on the level of housebuilding and associated planning applications. My study was for circa 2006–07, when over 170,000 homes annually were being built in England. The numbers of new homes being built are far lower now, but the 2006–07 period is more likely to be representative of housing supply pressures when the market fully recovers again.

The RTPI continues to claim that housebuilders hold large stocks of land with planning permission (Top 5 Planning Myths, Sept, 2011). Obviously, given the depth of the current housebuilding recession, there are going to be some permissioned sites owned by builders that cannot currently be built upon for want of demand, but in normal housing market conditions thorough research has dealt comprehensively with this matter already and shown that builders do not horde land. For example, the OFT’s 2008 study of housebuilding concluded that: “The homebuilding industry, which owns a signiﬁcant land bank, does not appear to systematically hoard land with implementable planning permission …” (para 5.91).

Other building and development activities also incur planning costs, and plan-making itself absorbs signiﬁcant resources. I have not estimated them myself but a large and growing body of analysis and literature suggests that those costs are likely to be high as well. So, it seems reasonable to conclude that the overall economic cost of planning is considerably above £3 billion a year.

I think it is not fruitful to engage in detailed disputes about the overall costs of planning but rather to accept that they are high and act as a potential barrier to development. On the other side of the equation are the beneﬁts of planning. I do not think that my research gives any grounds for suggesting that planning should be abandoned because of its high costs. Instead, it highlights the scope that exists for beneﬁcial reform.

The main purpose of the research project being discussed here was actually not to put a cost on planning but to investigate the time it takes housebuilding sites to pass through development control. Data were collected on over 900 sites in 45 English local authorities. Examining the experience of development sites—rather than simply looking at individual planning applications—reveals a slower, more uncertain system. Even developers of small schemes must expect the planning process as a whole to last at least a year and face the risk that it could take far longer. As my Housing supply and planning controls report concludes, development control bottlenecks are likely to slow housebuilding recovery and to limit any further desired increases in housebuilding once recovery has occurred. In my opinion, they remain issues of major concern. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w350 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

CALCULATING THE ANNUAL COSTS OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FOR MAJOR HOUSING PROJECTS Calculation was based on referenced sources plus my own estimates and is outlined below (see pp16–17 of my report): 1. Local authority development control costs. In 2006, the cost of local planning service work was estimated to be £1.2 billion (Planning Costs and Fees: Report, CLG, 2007). Perusing the items in their Table 3.2, I estimated that £750 million was attributable to development control, noting “It is difficult to know how much of those development control costs are attributable to major residential developments but the share is likely to be substantial.” 2. Other public costs. Statutory agencies, such as the Environment and Highways Agencies, are involved in development control as well and incur substantial costs. There were approximately 500 staff in Planning Inspectorate involved in appeals in 2006; the Environment Agency employed 250 planners to scrutinise around 50,000 applications annually; etc. 3. Planning applicants’ fees. The information was taken from the same source as in the first point. Local authority fee income was £232 million (£40 million from private households), which goes towards funding their costs (ie net off local authority costs and add to those of developers). 4. Developers’ costs. Apart from paying planning fees, they face their own costs of submitting an application and, according the Killian and Pretty Review: Planning applications—A faster and more responsive system: Final Report CLG 2008 p16, incur £750 million in consultants and legal fees. No data exist on developers’ own administration costs in applications and appeals but it may be reasonable to assume that they are of at least the same order as their external administrative costs. 5. Developers’ land holding costs. Developers and landowners face further financing and opportunity costs in holding onto land and other assets while their projects are being evaluated. I estimated these to be of the order of £1 billion a year for the sites in England that successfully achieved permission. There are further substantial holding costs associated with the land banks required by the uncertainty of development control and for sites that were rejected, which push those costs to over £2 billion. The calculation was based on the following: In 2005–06 approximately 4,500 hectares of land were used for new housing and the average cost of that land was £1.8 million a hectare, excluding London, according to Valuation Office data. The time estimates in my report suggest that sites are in development control for an average of 1.25 years, while other studies suggest that pre-application discussions and discharge of conditions add at least a further 6 months. At the end of 2006, bank rate was 5% to which should be added 2% to reflect developers’ likely extra cost of finance.

Michael Ball is Professor of Urban and Property Economics in Real Estate and Planning, Henley Business School, University of Reading. Lead Panel Member, Expert Panel Housing Markets and Planning Analysis, Communities and Local Government, 2007–10. Joint Chair of the European Network for Housing Research Housing Economics Group.

Other recent policy reports Author of annual European Housing Review, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Landlord returns, taxation and the future of the private rented sector, Residential Landlords Association, November, 2011. Housing markets and independence in old age: expanding the opportunities, M Ball, R Blanchette, A Nanda & P Wyatt, REP, University of Reading, 2011. The UK private rented sector as a source of affordable accommodation, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Nov., 2010. The Housebuilding Industry. Promoting Recovery in Housing Supply, Communities and Local Government, 2010. The Credit Crunch and Regeneration: Impact and Implications. An independent report to the Department for Communities and Local Government, M Parkinson, M Ball, N Blake and T Key, Communities and Local Government, 2009.

Recent relevant academic journal articles “UK planning controls and the market responsiveness of housing supply”, Urban Studies, 48(2), 349–362, February, 2011. Ball, M, Meen, G & Nygaard, A. “Housing supply price elasticities revisited: evidence from international, national, local and company data” Journal of Housing Economics, 19.4, 255Ð268, December, 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w351

“Critical Commentary. Cities and housing markets: changes and continuities in the aftermath of the 2007–08 World Financial Crisis”, Urban Studies, 2010, 47, 931–944. Ball, M., Allmendinger, P. and Hughes, C. “Housing supply and planning delay in the south of England”, Journal of European Real Estate Research, 2009, 2.2, 151–169. Allmendinger, P and Ball, M. “Explaining the paradox of performance improvements in delay in development Control”, Urban Design and Planning, 2009.

Written evidence from Kate Barker This is a short note on an issue which arose in the session of oral evidence taken before the Committee on 9 November, from a group including Trudi Elliott form the RTPI, and subsequently from the Right Hon Greg Clark MP, Minister of State for Decentralisation and Cities. (It is not intended as a full submission covering the wider questions which the Inquiry is considering).

The £3 billion Figure In that evidence session, a query was raised about the source and reliability of the £3 billion number which has been quoted as the cost of planning delays in England. In particular, Trudi Elliott suggested that this figure was drawn from a paper by Professor Michael Ball, which in turn referred back to the Interim Report of the Review on Land-Use Planning which I led in 2006 at the request of the previous Government. I am aware of Professor Ball’s excellent response to the Committee in which he explains that the £3 billion in his paper was in fact his own estimate, published in 2010. I attach to this note a scan of a page from the Barker Review interim report, which refers to two separate studies of the cost of delays. You will note that it is clear that these were out-of-date estimates, and that the Review further commented that the CBI study did not distinguish between avoidable and unavoidable delay, and was therefore not an estimate of undue planning costs. On a quick re-reading, little was made of this particular figure in reaching the conclusions and recommendations in the Review—and given the age of both estimates cited in the box it would not have been appropriate to place much weight on them. However, it may be worth noting that the 1992 CBI estimate referred to the cost of delay for infrastructure and commercial projects, not the transaction costs of development control for housing, including the cost of delay, which is the subject of Professor Ball’s work. In addition, Professor Ball, as I understand it, is looking at the cost of delay by reference to the financing cost to developers of holding the land and other assets before being able to put them to use. The estimates in the land-use planning review seem (unfortunately I no longer have these references to hand) to be considering the cost of delay from being able to enjoy the economic (and other) benefits of new development. These figures are therefore attempts to measure something different from that considered by Professor Ball. The costs of delay and the other costs associated with a planning application, are to some extent unavoidable. The issue is to what extent that they represent unnecessary delay, or are unduly demanding of documentation and detail. Since the Land-Use Planning Review I worked on in 2006, there have been two further reviews (the Killian Pretty review of Planning Applications in 2008 and the Penfold Review of Non-planning Consents in 2010). Both of these sought to reduce these costs and contained many sensible recommendations—which Government is following up. But of course these costs cannot be reduced to zero.

The Overall Costs and Benefits of Planning The transactional costs of development control are however only part of the picture of the overall cost of planning. More significant is the role of planning in restricting the overall level of housing supply, increasing house prices and most clearly evidenced in rising residential land prices. In addition, there have been several recent pieces of work looking at the impact of planning restrictions on the cost of office accommodation, or the efficiency of retailing (much of this work is from Professor Paul Cheshire of the LSE, and I am aware he has given oral evidence to your Inquiry). In carrying out the planning review, one of the questions considered was whether some plausible estimate could be made of the overall cost of planning in restricting development. This is a daunting task—for example, it is very hard to know how much development (commercial or residential) does not take place because potential applicants are deterred by perceived or real planning issues). However, the review did consider the various ways in which planning restrictions and complexities might add to the costs of doing business in England, or in some cases might reduce competitive pressures. It is these rather wider costs which need to be set against the undoubted benefits of having a planning system. The English planning system has indeed delivered many benefits, most obviously in terms of preserving open countryside and in protecting business and households from having unsuitable uses made of neighbouring sites. Equally important is the more detailed work of good planning in striving to make our towns, cities and villages pleasant places to live. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Ev w352 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

The big question, however, is whether the present planning system permits enough development in the right places (taking account of the environmental costs) to meet economic and social needs. Both for major infrastructure projects and for housing there is evidence that planning has failed to deliver, or has not done so in a timely fashion. For commercial activity the picture is more mixed, although again there are instances where planning has not provided for business needs. The reasons for this lie partly at the level of plan-making and partly at the level of individual development control decisions. For these reasons I strongly support the direction of travel in the draft NPPF, although agreeing with some other commentators (I am signatory to the submission to the Committee from LSE academics and some others) that in some cases the ﬁnal document may need to be clearer. November 2011 Author: Barker Reviews of Housing Supply (2004) and of Land-Use Planning (2006) commissioned on behalf of HM Treasury and Communities and Local Government. Presently a non-executive director of Taylor-Wimpey, but writing in a personal capacity.

Written evidence from the City of London Corporation 1. The draft National Planning Policy Framework rightly emphasises the role of the planning system in promoting economic growth and prosperity—or, to quote from the principles set out in paragraph 10 of the draft, in building “a strong, competitive and responsive economy.” Paragraph 72 sets out the laudable ambition to “plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century.” It is clearly acknowledged, in paragraph 19, that this will require local planning authorities to strike an appropriate a balance between the needs of the residential and business communities. 2. A separate aspect of the Government’s proposed reforms to the planning system threatens seriously to undermine these objectives. A consultation has already taken place on removing the need to obtain planning permission before converting commercial premises into dwellings. Such a move might be helpful in some parts of the country, where office buildings stand vacant or derelict but housing is seriously under-supplied. However, if applied indiscriminately, it risks having a deleterious effect on local authorities’ ability to preserve key business districts, with all the clear economic benefits which they bring. 3. The danger is particularly acute in relation to the City of London. The City’s success in maintaining its position as one of the world’s leading commercial centres depends in large part on its confining residential development to certain areas of the City, leaving others for exclusively commercial uses. This is a central and long-standing feature of the City Corporation’s strategic planning, including the recently adopted LDF Core Strategy which has been endorsed by the Mayor of London and an independent planning inspector. It has played a vital role in sustaining the “critical mass” of diverse commercial activities which drives the international success and economic contribution of the Square Mile. It enables a continuous programme of development and renewal to ensure a steady supply of buildings fit for the requirements of a growing and ever- evolving business sector. It also allows the City Corporation to allocate services and resources in the most effective manner for businesses and residents alike. 4. The position of the City of London as an area predominantly focused on business is recognised in the Mayor of London’s London Plan, which emphasises the importance of “local approaches” to the mix of housing and offices, “especially to sustain strategically important clusters of commercial activities such as those in the City of London”. 5. If the City Corporation were to lose all control over the volume and location of residential development, the predominantly commercial character of the City would come under threat from short-term market forces. In the present circumstances, these forces could well provoke a spate of residential conversions across the City, as housing offers the immediate prospect of higher returns than offices on many sites. An independent study commissioned by the City Corporation recently revealed findings which very ably demonstrate the scale on the scale of this risk. It is estimated that some 13 million square feet of commercial floor-space—approximately one fifth of the total office stock in the Square Mile—would become vulnerable to residential conversion within the next five years.296 6. The effects of this would be damaging in a number of ways, which, taken together, would pose a genuine threat to the competitive position of the City. First, there would be the straightforward reduction in floor space available for commercial use. Given that residential premises are generally let on long leases, this would be difficult to reverse once it had occurred. Second, the presence of individual residential units distributed within commercial areas would inhibit developments of new commercial premises. It would only require one or two resistant homeowners effectively to stymy large-scale and valuable schemes, whether through presence in the site proposed for development or through objections based on matters such as rights to light. Third, the day- to-day operational needs of businesses would be brought into conflict with residential amenity. For instance, it is often most efficient for construction work, deliveries and servicing to be undertaken at night, but this would 296 Relaxation of Planning Rules for Change of Use from Business to Residential: Implications for the City of London, prepared for the City of London Corporation by Quod Research, November 2011. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:49] Job: 016786 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w353

lead to problems with noise in areas where residents were present. Such issues have already arisen in the few areas where residential development has occurred in the vicinity of commercial premises. 7. The City recognises the importance of increasing the capital’s, and the country’s, housing supply. The City Corporation has played its part in this, with the number of residential dwellings in the City of London almost doubling over the past two decades. The City Corporation also manages some 2,700 houses in neighbouring boroughs. Surveys of residents in the City reveal high levels of satisfaction—on the latest figures, 92% of residents were satisfied with their local area as a place to live, and 73% expressed themselves satisfied with the Corporation’s provision of services (compared to just over half in Greater London as a whole). However, if this broad residential satisfaction is to be maintained along with the City’s position as a modern business district of global strategic significance, it is vital that residential development is undertaken in a controlled and coordinated manner. 8. It would seem unlikely that the ambition behind the proposal was to displace the vital commercial activity of the Square Mile in favour of residential apartments, which, given the nature of the affected areas, would no doubt serve the higher end of the market. It is important that this should not become an unintended consequence of the policy. There is therefore a strong case for the proposed change not to apply within the City of London. The peculiar nature of the City, as well as being recognised in the London Plan, is reflected in existing legislation—both in the planning field, where the City Corporation has greater freedom to consider applications for taller buildings than in other areas, and more generally, with the City retaining the only business franchise for local elections in the U.K. and levying a small supplement on business rates to provide additional services to businesses. Therefore there are sound precedents for the City to be treated in distinct form where matters of commercial importance are concerned. 9. An alternative might be to encourage the conversion of vacant offices into homes through a strong statement of policy to this effect in the National Planning Policy Framework, rather than deploying the “nuclear option” of a general grant of permission. This would seem a more proportionate solution, and would amount to a sensible compromise between the legitimate policy objectives of the Government and the role of local democracy in shaping the character of local areas. It would increase the confidence of developers in initiating schemes for commercial-to-residential conversions in suitable cases, while crucially leaving room for manoeuvre for local authorities to protect strategic commercial interests. 10. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government have rightly spoken of their determination not the let the planning system act as a “brake on growth.” For all the valuable policies in the draft Framework, to allow unconstrained residential development in the commercial heart of the U.K. would be to create a new and unnecessary brake on growth. The City Corporation urges that the existence of this risk be recognised, and that sufficient flexibility be shown in the implementation of the change-of-use policy to ensure that the international competitiveness of the Square Mile is not undermined. November 2011

Written evidence from Nicholas Ducker & Co Changer of User Legislation Along with numerous other advisors to rental property I am becoming very concerned with the massive inﬂux of Tesco/Sainsbury’s/Marks and Spencer convenience stores which tend to open at 7am until 11pm and are causing havoc with small local retailers within the areas of these stores. I practice in Leicester and manage property on behalf of clients and can report that four tenants are shortly to have to give up their properties because of unfair competition from the large monopolistic retailers. At present no Change of User is required when coming down the scale to Class A1 Retail, ie Class A2 (Financial Services), Class A3 (Restaurant) and Class A5 (Hot Food Take Away) can all be utilised by A1 retailers with or without planning consent and in the main in order to obtain their city centre sites, the large supermarket retailers are taking large space users which have become redundant, ie banks, building societies, etc and converting them to shops for their own occupation. The only way that loval councils will be able to put a halt on their, “steam roller” activity is to make a change in the planning law whereby a planning consent will have to be granted if the accommodation is greater than 1,000 square feet. This would mean that local retailers could object to the planning applications and the local planning authorities could take this consideration when looking at whether or not to approve the consent. If the growth with the major retailers looking for convenience stores in the city centre or the outskirts continues the city streets, town centres and outlying neighbourhood shopping centres will become decimated with the closure of local and smaller retailers which could hardly be a good thing for the country as a whole. I would like to think that you will take these points into consideration and draft in legislation on this matter. September 2011

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Ofﬁce Limited 12/2011 016786 19585