The National Planning Policy Framework · Oxylane Group Ev w165 Partnership for Urban South...

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

House of Commons

Communities and Local Government Committee

The National Planning Policy Framework

Eighth Report of Session 201012

Volume II

Additional written evidence

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

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 Committees email address is [email protected]

List of additional written evidence

(published in Volume II on the Committees 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 Associations 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 orsupplement points during implementation but it is a clear and balanced approach to plan makingand development management.

The authors request that it is read in the round (Paragraphs 8 and 12). If done so the key principlesare very clear and provide for a planning balance to be achieved in line with the economic, socialand environmental factors put forward.

It generally provides sufficient guidance to the parties identified in question one on generalprinciples. There are few areas for supplementary guidance to be developed (calculating housingrequirements, viability and strategic environmental assessment). These are detailed in the maintext. As a principle however these should be kept to a minimum and only considered wherenecessary to provide consistency of approach.

With regard to sustainable development provided the document is read as a whole and all of thereferences to sustainable development are picked up it provides a comprehensive and workableframework.

The core planning principles are clear, concise and relevant.

The relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning related policies isclear. 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 faithrather than a statement of fact. The matter presumably will be dealt with through the test ofsoundness in the examination of local plans.

The need for the provision of up to date evidence including market trends is given sufficient weightin the document. Supplemental guidance on technical matters may be necessary. These points arereferenced in our main text.

Q1. Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate andothers, including ministers and developers while at the same time giving local communities sufficient powerover planning decisions?

Answer

The guidance on general principles is fit for purpose. There are three matters which perhaps should beconsidered 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 futuredemographic trends/market trends. There should be consistency of approach in the preparation ofthis evidence and an ongoing role for SHMAs and SHLAAs. In this context further guidance onthe methodology for the calculation of housing requirements would be welcome and have thebenefit of avoiding duplication of effort and debate at Local Plan examination and Inquiry ifnecessary.

Viability

The recognition of viability as a material factor within the NPPF is fully supported. Although amatter frequently debated it would be helpful if the NPPF could be supported by a clear statementof CLG policy on the appropriate parameters to be consistently applied in verifying viability. Thiswould assist local plan inspectors in determining soundness of the plan, the communityinfrastructure levy (CIL) if a charging schedule is proposed and to inform local authorities andPINS 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 helpfulto give a timely reminder to local planning authorities of the need to subject Development PlanDocuments to an SEA. This would help remove potential for future judicial review with all of itsattendant 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 thepresumption 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 NPPFbecause of all the criteria which could be applied to evaluating sustainability are referenced within the maintext of the framework. It may be helpful to bring all of these references together in one appendix. TheBrundtland 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 withequal 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 largerthanlocalstrategic planning?

Answer

Provided the parties establish early strong and effective methods of co-operation then perhaps the duty ofco-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 withthe default position based on the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the absence of anapproved 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 inplan making.

Fitness for Purpose

As a starting point the draft NPPF is fit for purpose. It provides a clear and balanced approach toa plan lead system which fully recognises the basic principles and interaction of economic, socialand environmental considerations with a strengthening of local choice and determination. Theauthors 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 simplya 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 StrategicHousing Market Assessments (SHMA) and will be dealt with more fully in formal responses toDCLG by 17 October 2011.

As a final point there is a need for consistency in plan making and for the plan making cycle tocomplete itself. One of the factors behind low housing delivery in the recent past has been theplethora of planning reforms introduced since the turn of the century which seem to have frustratedrather than enabled effective plan making. The introduction of the NPPF provides a very clearstatement of intent, incentive and sanction to encourage effective and up to date plans to beproduced. There will undoubtedly be tensions in implementing this framework, if it is confirmedin this form, but that is inherent in the nature of planning where judgment is exercised to achievean appropriate planning balance. The strength of the document is the clarity it brings to the coreprinciples of planning which are themselves balanced and contribute to sustainabledevelopment.

11 August 2011

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


Written evidence from McCarthy and Stone

A. Summary There is much to welcome in the draft NPPF and we support the Governments work through the

document to promote economic growth and address the countrys chronic housing shortage.

While we welcome its overall direction, it is our view that the Framework requires more focus onpolicies that support the delivery of housing for older people. Three reports in 2011, including oneby the APPG on Housing and Care for Older People in July,1 called on the NPPF to referencethe housing needs of those in later life across all tenures. Such measures will ensure that localcouncils plan properly for housing the elderly and address many of the policy challenges causedby 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 currentform. Current planning policy requires authorities to plan for housing for older people, yet fewcouncils do this adequately.2 As a result, around 65% of planning applications for this form ofhousing 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 Presumptionof 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 acrossall tenures including for private ownership as part of their SHMAs. Historically, these havefocused on the social rented sector.

The Government is hoping industry will produce its own guidance to fill the gap left by therollback of national policy. Local authorities should be advised in the NPPF to proactivelyseek such guidance to ensure it is considered.

Publish CLGs proposed new SHMA guidance before the final NPPF is agreed and for it tobe adopted as part of the Framework.

Make a greater acknowledgement of the link between health and social benefits andspecialist housing.

Recommend that local authorities supply the results of their SHMAs to neighbourhood forumsso 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, promoteeconomic growth and address the countrys chronic housing shortage. It is a step in the right direction withsome very positive measures.

2. We welcome the attempt to stimulate housing delivery, which has been stymied in part by an unresponsiveplanning system. We support two policies in particular. Clause 19 states that planning should proactively driveand support the development needs of the country and that every step should be taken to meet the housing andbusiness needs of an area. Clause 39 states that council planners should not subject proposals to a scale ofobligations and policy burdens that would make developments unviable. It also states that councils shouldassess the cumulative impacts of their plans and policies and ensure their impact does not put development atrisk. This is welcome and is a step towards a recommendation made in a recent report by the University ofReading that specialist housing for older people should treated as equal to affordable housing.3 Both measureswould be of real assistance in boosting housing and economic growth and this approach is pleasing at a timeof economic uncertainty.

3. However, the challenges facing the retirement accommodation sector are severe, and as a result, the NPPFneeds 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 hasbuilt just 105,000 specialist retirement homes for owner occupation, significantly less than other developedcountries. As half of new household growth by 2026 will be by those aged over 65, it is essential thatdemographic 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 biggestpolicy issues of modern times, impacting across Government departments. Specialist housing for older peopleis a key determining factor in the well-being of the elderly and to unlocking a range of public benefits. As wellas being relatively affordable, it: provides a higher quality of life for older people; increases energy efficiency1 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, 20113 Ibid, P404 All Party Parliamentary Group on Housing and Care for Older People. Living Well at Home Inquiry, P7, July 2011



in the home; boosts local communities; reduces the impact of the elderly on public services; allows for equityrelease; and supports local housing markets by releasing much-needed family homes back onto local housingmarkets. 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. Asnoted in more detail below, local authorities have failed to plan properly for housing for older people acrossall tenures (and particularly in the private sector) within their needs assessments and housing strategies. Theyhave 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 justa building, so it is critical that schemes are suitably located and designed as well as fully built before anyoccupations 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 thatthere are few developers in this sector.

7. It is therefore imperative that planning constraints and burdens are removed to encourage delivery. Whilethe 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 isblocking 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 beremoved. 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 ofolder people across all tenures, particularly in their Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMAs). Whilethe 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 differingneeds. 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 toplan for all types of housing,5 and focused on public, rather than private provision when around 70% ofpeople live in owner-occupied homes. As a result, around 65% of planning applications for new retirementhousing schemes are met with refusal first time round because of a lack of understanding and appreciation ofthe 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 forolder people and to have regard to demographic trends, yet few councils did this adequately.7 Unless thisrequirement is suitably clear and powerfully enforced in the NPPF, concern remains that few councils will actas intended. Failure to do so could result in a more challenging planning system with more applications goingto appeal.

11. Clauses 28 and 111 in the draft NPPF make reference to the need for local authorities to plan for newhomes and prepare SHMAs. It is pleasing to see Clause 28 make specific reference to the need for councils toidentify the housing needs of older people across the range of tenures. Clause 111 also states that they shouldidentify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required, including for the elderly. It is essential thatthese clauses remain in the NPPF.

12. However, the Framework needs to go further given the lack of action to date. It is important to strengthenand clarify the requirements on local authorities to undertake robust assessments in order to ensure the deliveryof more specialist housing for older people. One recommended change is in Clause 28, line 11, where acrossall tenures should be added after community. This should help ensure that local authorities plan for privatehousing 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 toprepare its own best practice guidance to help inform local councils. It would be helpful if the NPPF was toencourage 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 evidencebase to inform their housing and planning strategies, there is nothing within the NPPF regarding how theSHMA should be compiled. SHMAs vary greatly from authority to authority and in our experience they areoften deficient. Many look at the housing needs of younger people, families and those in the social rentedsector, but few plan for the housing provision for older people in the private sector. In 2007, CLG producedbest practice guidance on how SHMAs should be produced and we understand this document will be updatedin late 2011. Given the weight the NPPF places on the SHMA, CLGs updated SHMA guidance should bepublished before the final NPPF is available. The SHMA guidance document should also be adopted as partof the Framework to ensure that local authorities give sufficient weight to its advice and recommendations.5 Breaking the Mould, National Housing Federation, P39, 20116 Housing markets and independence in old age: expanding the opportunities, University of Reading, P6, May 20117 Breaking the Mould, National Housing Federation, P39, 2011



15. It is also important that the NPPF makes sufficient acknowledgement of the link between health andhousing. While the inclusion of a (single) paragraph on the importance of health and well being factors inplanning (Clause 38), is welcomed, it is our view that this needs to be strengthened given the wealth ofevidence that notes the role of specialist housing in improving the health of older people. The impact of anageing society is being felt across Government, particularly in relation to health, social care, economic growthand welfare. Specialist housing for older people delivers substantial health benefits and the Dilnot Commissionnoted that better housing for older people can help remove the pressures on social care provision by delayingthe need to move into care. For instance, providing suitable housing conditions that delays the move toresidential care by one year saves on average 28,080 per person.8 By addressing this in the NPPF, councilswill be required to view future applications for retirement homes positively. To achieve this, the followingadditional sentence is suggested to be included in Clause 38:

Local authorities should view positively those planning applications that deliver social and health benefitsto 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 forumsto ensure neighbourhood plans are produced using the correct evidence base. The increased role by local peoplein neighbourhood planning means it is essential that they are provided with sufficient information to make thebest decisions. A requirement on the local authority to circulate the results of the SHMA to participants inlocal 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 onwindfall sites. As most sites that come forward for retirement accommodation are normally classified aswindfall 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 sitesfrom the housing numbers when they can and should form part of an authoritys housing supply. Again thisputs retirement housing at a disadvantage compared to traditional house building.

D. Is the definition of sustainable development contained in the document appropriate; and is thepresumption 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 qualityhousing while delivering economic growth. It should also spur councils into ensuring that they have up-to-dateplans 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 constructionprocess and in freeing up the housing chain, which eventually assists first time buyers), we welcome thestatement in the Presumption that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growththrough the planning system.

20. However, given the impact of our ageing population, we feel that the need to plan for demographicchange should be included as a core part of the definition of what is sustainable development. It is difficultto contemplate a more sustainable form of development than that of well designed and located housing forolder people and which helps to address many of the impacts of our ageing population. The need to plan fordemographic change should therefore be included as part of the Presumption in Favour of SustainableDevelopment, and a fourth bullet to Clause 14 is suggested:

View positively housing applications that seek to address the changing nature of the UKs demographic, suchas specialist homes for older people across all tenures, when assessed against the policies in this Frameworktaken 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 peopleand the positive personal and public benefits of specialist housing for older people, the need to plan fordemographic 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 theneeds and aspirations of older people and the need to plan for more suitable homes for the elderly across alltenures, including specialist retirement housing.

22. While it may be viewed that specific reference to the housing needs of older people is inappropriate ina 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 viewthat the demographic imperative of planning properly for our ageing population is important enough to begiven significant weight and specifically referenced in the NPPF.8 Housing LIN figures, 2011



F. Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate andothers, including investors and developers, while at the same time giving local communities sufficient powerover planning decisions?

23. In our view the balance between the role of the developer, local authority and the community is aboutright. 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 areclarified. 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 localplans take precedence if the two are in conflict on strategic decisions. However, Clause 51 then states Whena neighbourhood plan is made, its policies take precedence over existing policies in the local plan for thatneighbourhood. The two clauses therefore seem to be in contradiction. Further clarity is needed, particularlyon what is deemed a strategic decision. It is our view that local plans must take precedence and the twoshould 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 toneighbourhood 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 olderhomeowners 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. Allof our developments are built for private ownership at an affordable priceusually 10% to 15% below theaverage house price in a particular area. Our two main development types are Retirement Living (similar totraditional Category 2 type sheltered housing) and Extra Care (Assisted Living). More recently we havelaunched a new form of specialist housingTailored 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 developmentin practice.

Sustainable construction is of major significance to the UK economy as well as to theGovernments aspiration to be the greenest government ever.

Schemes such as the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM (BRE Environmental AssessmentMethod) provide a way of addressing sustainable development issues holistically. Reference to anational framework for the setting and evaluation of sustainability standards would provideconsistency for the construction industry and avoid confusion, while allowing local planningauthorities discretion in how to apply such standards in their areas.

BRE Global would be happy to help with drafting good practice guidance on the implementationof 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 theDepartment for Communities and Local Government. It is also responsible for the BREEAM (BuildingResearch Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) family of schemes. BREEAM is the longestestablished and most widely used methodology in the world for assessing the environmental performanceof buildings.

2. BRE Global is one of the BRE Trust group of companies with a history stretching back over ninetyyears. It was formed following the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment which had been partof 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 contractto develop an innovation park in China which is worth up to 100 million to UK industry. It has also recentlysigned an accord with the Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology to collaborate on Brasilia InnovationPark.

5. Many leading organisations in both the public and private sectors require BREEAM assessment of theirbuildings as a matter of policy because it provides a comprehensive and cost-effective way of improving both



environmental and economic performance. The Government includes a requirement9 for all buildings in itsestate to undergo assessment as an integral part of its drive to reduce carbon emissions and improvesustainability.

6. BRE Global thus occupies a unique position, as part of the de facto centre of excellence for the builtenvironment and in terms of its track record and expertise in promoting sustainability. In particular, the Codefor Sustainable Homes and BREEAM have achieved national and international recognition as the leadingassessment methodologies in their field.

7. Our evidence relates primarily to a) the importance of sustainable construction to both the UK economyas a whole and to the Governments policies on sustainable development, climate change and carbon emissionsand b) the role that policies on sustainable construction can play in the planning system. Where appropriatewe 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 presumptionin favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?

Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficientlyclear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments?

Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others,including investors and developers, while at the same time giving local communities sufficient power overplanning decisions?

8. These three questions are closely inter-related. We have started by looking at the definition of sustainabledevelopment, as much else in the NPPF flows from this, along with the presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment. We have then considered how the NPPF relates to other aspects of Government policy, beforefinally looking at the implications for local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate, developers,investors, and local communities.

9. We consider that the draft NPPFs use of the Brundtland definition of sustainable development is a goodstarting point. As the Stern Report and others have made clear, two of the key features of sustainabledevelopment 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 carboneconomy in the economic section, as well as reflecting its environmental importance towards the end of thedocument. This could help it to align more clearly with Government policy elsewhere, for example in theCoalition Agreement, where the Prime Minister and Deputy PM state we both want to build a new economyfrom the rubble of the old. We will support sustainable growth and enterprise, balanced across all regions andall 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. TheUK has the sixth largest low carbon economic goods and services market in the world. [Department forBusiness 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 outfurther details of this agenda. Publishing the document, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs said: Moving to a green economy presents huge opportunities for British businesses not only to reducetheir environmental impact, but also to transform products and services, develop cleaner technologies, andcapture new international markets.

13. This is particularly important in relation to sustainable construction. Assessment methodologies such asBREEAM play a very significant role in enabling UK businesses to generate export opportunities. The UK isviewed internationally as a beacon of best practice in securing a low carbon, highly sustainable builtenvironment 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 PropertyFederation as a British success story [Delta T Magazine, January 2011]. Indeed, such are the skills of UKdesigners that their output is the second largest invisible export after financial services. The UK Low CarbonEnvironmental Goods and Services Market is the sixth largest in the world and grew by 4.3% in 2009. It isnow worth 112 billion, employing over 900,000 people. The UK leads on sustainable construction, with UKarchitecture and engineering firms creating and designing for sustainable cities across Asia and the MiddleEast. [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 constructionindustry representatives, the standards were found to be comprehensive, practical, achievable and cost-effective. They requirean assessment methodology such as BREEAM or an equivalent, and where BREEAM is used, all new projects are to achievean excellent rating and all refurbishment are to achieve at least very good.



14. The Governments Carbon Plan published in March this year states at para 3.12: The Government wantsto support and enable communities in their wish to adopt higher environmental standards for new homesincluding through: ensuring that there are robust sustainability standards for local authorities to use if theywant to set higher standards than those in the national regulations in their local plans. For example, the Codefor Sustainable Homes provides standards for the sustainable design and construction of new homes (includingwater 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 sustainabilityand design. As the planning system is the route by which this would be achieved it would be helpful for thisto be made explicit in the NPPF.

15. The Code for Sustainable Homes is one of the key tools in the Governments armoury for driving upstandards 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 industriesintegral to the Governments 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 havechosen to incorporate within their local plans/local development frameworks.

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

17. Assessment methodologies such as BREEAM and the Code are designed to address a raft ofenvironmental and sustainability issues in a holistic way, including all of those set out in the section onPlanning for places. The Code for Sustainable Homes, for example, covers the following: energy and carbondioxide 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 isimportant that a) they are seen as integral to the development process and b) that they are incorporated at theearliest possible stage. In this context, it might be helpful for the statement (para 58) that Consents relatingto how a development is built or operated can be dealt with at a later stage to be amended so as maximisethe opportunity to incorporate improvements at an early stage where it is both easiest operationally and likelyto 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 ofthe system, it might be helpful for the NPPF to make clear that in principle it supports the incorporation ofmeasures such as the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM within local plan policies as an importantcomponent of local choice. In order to adopt such policies, local planning authorities should be required toprovide 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 financialcrises, 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 thenbe on the developer to provide evidence in particular cases if they considered that the development would notbe 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 areexplicitly addressed by BREEAM and six by the Code for Sustainable Homes (the Code differs from BREEAMin not including transport as one of its issues). The impact assessment accompanying the NPPF recognises theimportance of many of these issues, stating, at p 68, There are however opportunities through the planningsystem to ensure that the new housing incorporates sustainable design and renewable energy, for examplethrough 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 specificallyendorsing assessment methodologies such as BREEAM and the Code. It would then be up to local planningauthorities, in line with the spirit of localism, to adopt these and indicate the level of performance they seekas appropriate to their local circumstances. Building on the already widespread use and acceptance of thesemethodologies, this would provide developers with a well understood framework which will allow them todemonstrate sustainability without extended confusion and debate.

24. Should the Government consider that there was a need for further informal good practice advice on theappropriate use of such policies and standards, BRE Global would be happy to assist in this.



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

25. It will be important for the NPPF to provide the guidance needed to secure the most sustainable outcomein circumstances where larger-than-local issues are involved eg where the renewable energy source to serve anew 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 thewider green economy benefits and the fact that transforming the built environment to low carbon could providethe industry with a 40 year programme of work and act as a springboard to growth for more than 200,000small businesses in the sector.

This is relevant to the Governments objective of achieving a sustainable built environment through theplanning system. As we have set out above, setting challenging standards for construction is good for theenvironment and good for the UK economy, as well as being entirely in line with the Governments intentionto 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 documentationis to be welcomed.

28. There are some areas, particularly in relation to sustainable construction, where as indicated beforeamendments to the NPPF might usefully provide greater clarity. In addition, there may be value in some furthergood 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. BREs 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 HomesUpdated costreview. 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 Committeesconsideration.

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 threeyears the average extra costs of building to level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes has fallen by almostthree quarters

6. In publishing the report, the Communities Minister said: Building greener homes is vital if we are tomeet our nations commitment to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate changeso todays report isgood news for the entire country. The progress that has been made does not only benefit developers buildingCode-standard homes, it also provides valuable lessons ahead of the transition to building new homes to zerocarbon standards from 2016:

As a country we still have lot of work to do to reduce carbon emissions from new development, butwhat 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 andthe costs associated with these. It finds that in many areas builders are now able to achieve credits at noadditional cost (section 5.1, pp 4446).

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 justfor local environmental and economic reasons, but also in terms of the continuing development and prosperityof a key export sector of the UKs economy. The Code for Sustainable Homes was derived from the BREEAMfamily of schemes. BREEAM is increasingly being adopted in other countries, with associated benefits for UKbusinesses involved in sustainable construction.



9. The report considers that those elements of construction which affect carbon will decrease in real termsover time as the industry finds more efficient (ie low cost) ways to meet the low carbon challenge (section7.1, p 69).

10. It notes that, while much progress has already been made, there will be further learning required in orderfor 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 animportant 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 forthe setting and evaluation of sustainability standards. This helps to provide consistency for the constructionindustry and avoid confusion, while allowing local planning authorities discretion in how to apply suchstandards in their areas.

13. The report notes that the Code is increasingly being adopted by local authorities as a planning conditionfor new development (section 2.1, p 18). The incorporation within local plans of policies which promote theCode and BREEAM can be a powerful way of encouraging further improvement, and of supporting theGovernment in its aims of addressing its carbon targets and encouraging the prosperity of the sustainableconstruction industry.

14. The Code is owned and promoted by the Government, aligns closely with other Government policiesand objectives, and is increasingly being embraced by local authorities through their planning function. Inthese circumstances, we consider that it would make sense for the NPPF to provide explicit endorsement forthe use of the Code (and methodologies such as BREEAM from which the Code was derived) within theplanning 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 PolicyFramework (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 haveadvised governments in England, Jersey and Bahrain on planning reform, and have worked on all sides of thefence as well as in Scotland and Wales, and helping community groups through Planning Aid for London. In2003 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 onthe UK planning system and its National Planning Policy and frequently advise clients of finding their waythrough it. I also run a widely read planning blog which has become the main resource for information anddebate 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 apologisefor going a little over your word limit. However I think it is vital for the emerging NPPF to undergo fullparliamentary 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 developmentand employment.

It effectively redefines sustainable development to equal property developmentit will not promotesustainability, rather its converse.

It will only be usable by experts, many of its phrases have meanings in planning precedent dating backto previous ages of planning. It undoes much of the progress of the last 25 years. Its parts interact incomplex ways which even the government may not have yet worked through, but which are alreadycausing delay and confusion.

I do not go into a point by point examination of the document, however it is not possible to understandthe fitness for purpose of NPPF, and the impact it will have, without highlighting a small number ofkey 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 leadto 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 willhinder this and the irony is it is already leading to a crude ant-development backlash.



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 ofsustainability, 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 onthese 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 runningup to the end of 2011. This is important as it is the aim of the Secretary of State that the work of yourcommittee the form in which parliamentary scrutiny of the document is undertaken.10 I would hope that theCommittee approach adopted by the Committee is that adopted by Planning Inspectorates to Draft developmentplans, is it the best possible plan in the circumstances, is it justified by the evidence, will it be effective inmeeting its goals? As the most important development in planning since 1947 it is important we as a nationget it right.

What is Planning For?

Is planning the enemy? Many ministers from the Prime Minister down rarely miss an opportunity to knockplanners. We are castigated, without evidence or justification as the enemies of enterprise,11 when in factmost spend half their working lives promoting local enterprise. Or even castigated by the Prime Minister asblocking measures to prevent looting, when in fact they have been implementing Home Office Advice to ensureour town centres are not grey, dark and graffiti ridden.12 As RTPI president Richard Summers has saidPlanners in the public sector have broad shoulders and accept that they are often a convenient sitting targetfor ministers.13

Yet Britain is out on a limb internationally. Given global problems, such as for the first time more than 50%of the worlds population living in cities from 2008,14 the need to house, provide infrastructure and transportfor those people. Internationally town planning has never been considered so important. Emerging nations suchas China, India and Brazil see good town planning as a mainspring of growth, not a hurdle. Gulf States whichhad a disastrous let it rip approach to development before the 2008 crash, are, like Abu-Dhabi15 transformingtheir approach to town planning to avoid seeing wasted billions on investment in empty properties, the financingand building of which helped cause the great financial crisis. For example the carbon-neutral new city ofMasdar, designed by the UKs Fosters, outdoes the ambition of anything being done in the UK, as does manyof 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 andeconomic 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 speechs16 and articles has stated that planning should be seen as a crucial service operatingin the public interest. In the bluntest terms, as a force for good. and that the purpose of planning is to helpmake the way we live our lives better tomorrow than it is today.

And not just tomorrowbut a million tomorrows, so that nothing our generation does compromises theabilityindeed the rightof future generations to improve their own lives. But this uplifting wording, verydifferent in the ministers presentation of the draft NPPF from what it actually says, is nowhere to be found inthe shallow, negative, dull and repetitive content of the NPPF itself which above all needs a positive statementof 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 overplanning decisions?

The document is punchy. Reducing from 1,097 pages17 to 55. But punchiness does not mean that thedocument is clear or fit for purpose. Wales (Planning Policy Wales)18 shows that it is possible to reducenational policy considerably (in their case to around 200 pages) without losing its essence or clarityfollowingfour iterations it has been widely praised and easy to use (as a planning practitioner). There are aspects ofEnglish national policy where the editing pen has gone too fardeleting crucial national policies. I shall turnto 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 worlds 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/3817 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



There will be those who will rightly argue that England needs something like the Wales Spatial Plan or theScottish National Planning Framework. These are Spatial policies stating how infrastructure will join up andthe role of different areas in the nation. They are right. How can you judge, for example, HS2 without anational vision of transport and the connectivity of regional cities? How could a site for an additional hubairport, and the linking infrastructure for it, be chosen if the decision was made to develop one? But that is anargument for another day, as such a document would take over a year to develop and the government priorityis to put in place simplified subject based national policy. I would hope that your committee urge thegovernment to look again at this issue once the NPPF is complete; if only to ensure that billions of investmentis 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 withphrases that can only have meaning to planning consultants and lawyers because of the considerable baggagethey 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 fromcircular 22/80) means that arguably and slightly poor design is acceptable. Also many parts of the documentinterlock in complex ways, you need to draw up flowcharts to understand its operation. Some aspects of policyare only comprehensible at all, notably policy on flooding, if you have the old policy being replaced alongsideyou. As this is supposed to be a comprehensive standalone document this shows it is not fit for purpose. Alever arch file of inspectors reports and recovered appeals (by the SoS) will be needed as precedents aboutwhat some underbaked parts actually mean.

Before 2004 you often saw local plans and UDPs that ran to 500 pages or more. In climates where therewas a strong presumption in favour of development there was a feeling you needed a policy for everything. Inputting forward the concept of core strategies in 2003 the idea was to make local strategies shorter by removingthe need to repeat national policy. But if too much national policy is stripped away, for example on adverts inthe countryside, agricultural workers dwellings etc, then you could see, indeed you are seeing, local pressureto fll in the gaps that have been created and see plan balloon and take longer to complete.

A better crafted document of 100150 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 hooksto enable various impacts to be controlled or prevented. Planning professionals will want stability. Localpoliticians will either want the untrammelled ability to say no to unpopular development or an unequivocalorder from a third party to plan for itso they can blame that party. This means that planning will always beconflictual. But it does not mean that these stakeholders do not have shared objectives and that in many casesthese cannot be partially reconciled. Above all good planning can help reconcile these objectives by ensuringthat needed development goes in the right place and is well designed. It can also have a vision of the positiverole of planning in ensuring this.

This is where the NPPF falls down the most; its impoverished and negative view of planningeffectivelysays 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 whatit is, a developers charter. This means that the backlash from the shires and suburbs could be so great that itcould actually mean that the can, of where new large scale development goes, is kicked down the road as ithas 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 themtoo much.

The experience of the 1980s is that planning needs teeth to serve a purpose. The NPPF is a complete dentalextraction. Without the threat of a no to a poorly designed and conceived scheme in the wrong place you willnot get a good scheme in the right place. Planning Policy enables strong negotiating stances which add valueto the final scheme. Planners now find them themselves without the tools necessary to negotiate. A default yeswill 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 whatour distinctive challenges and solutions as a nation arevery uninspiring. Indeed minsters have wrongly madestatements that they are responsible for planning in Britain20rather than England, whereas the British Isleshas 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 theword 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 achievementof sustainable development by law (section 39 2004 Act). Oddly this function does not apply to developmentmanagement 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.html21 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/mindless-repetition-in-the-nppf/



Successive government have stated that defining it should be a matter of policy rather than law. The keyissue is whether the definition is meaningful.

Firstly the government has not been consistent in its definitions. The official definition is from the UK (notjust English) Sustainable Development Strategy, Securing the Future,22 which remains in force, and at leastmerits a footnote in the NPPF. Neither mentioned is the coalition governments statement MainstreamingSustainable Development.23 Again unless DCLG wants to plough a different furrow on SustainableDevelopment than DEFRA there should be at least a footnote mention. Finally there is the older definitionfrom Brundtland used in the NPPF. What this means is that the government now has three different definitionsof sustainable developmentvery confusing. The issue of the Brundtland definition is that by itself it isuncontentious; it is simply a requirement not to be unsustainable, but to be meaningful in policy terms you needto 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 sothat property development = sustainable development.

The definition in para 9 of the NPPF seeks to redefine the Brundtland definition by referring only to basicneeds. This implies that widening inequality is acceptable if basic needs only are met. Wheras in fact theBrundtland Report refer to the key concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the worlds poor,to which overriding priority should be given. All references to lessening social inequalities and ensuringSocial progress which recognizes the needs of everyone (from the SDS) have been excised. Indeed by contrastthe NPPF gives overwhelming priority to the wealthiest who are able to carry out the most propertydevelopment.

The NPPF definition goes on in para 10 to define what sustainable development means for planningthe socalled 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 verysmall 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 producingtoo 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 waybut if the principlesthemselves 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 civilservants to obscure the real meaning of their words... I could not find one single reference to the notionof environmental limits. Not one. Lots of warm words about the importance of the environment, butnothing 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 ofSustained Growth: that is, growth that goes on forever. It definitely does not mean growth that recognisesenvironmental risks and constraints.25

The definition could be greatly improved if it recognized environmental limits. Indeed examples elsewherein 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 sustainabledevelopment used in Quebec, New Zealand and Wales.

For example the New Zealand Resource Management Act includes the concept of environmental limits andthis wording is reflected in the proposed definition put forward by Wildlife Link.26 The Quebec SustainableDevelopment Act builds on the Brundtland definition and includes the concepts an ongoing process to improvethe living conditions of the present generation that does not compromise the ability of future generations to doso and that ensures a harmonious integration of the environmental, social and economic dimensions ofdevelopment.22 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/03/25/securing-the-future-pb10589/23 http://sd.defra.gov.uk/documents/mainstreaming-sustainable-development.pdf24 http://www.jonathonporritt.com/blog/sustainable-development#comments25 http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/grea1.aspx?id=594526 http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/2011/Link_Localism_Bill_amendment_HoC_Committee_Stage_Sustainable_Development_

25Jan11.pdf



This is not rocket science and with it, it is possible to meld these well tested legal definitions together in aform of words that might be acceptable to both ministers and environmental stakeholders. I suggest combiningthe Brundtland, Canadian and New Zealand definitions as follows:

an ongoing process to improve the living conditions of the present generation that does not compromisethe ability of future generations to do so, and that ensures, as far as possible, a harmonious integration ofthe environmental, social and economic dimensions of development within the limits set by theenvironment and technology.

What matters though is how this translates into planning decisions. I would advise the committee to takeevidence from Clive Bates the Director General for Sustainable Futures of the Welsh Government. The Welshapproach27 is based on the concept of environmental well-being. This derives from UN/WHO28 work andconsiderable research. The principle is that the health and well-being of people will not be sustained if thewellbeing of ecosystems, natural capital, and social, human and economic capital. This concept is critical tothe 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 badlydefined and poorly operationalised, as here, is simply a presumption in favour of development without limitsunsustainable development.

Is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?

No, neither. The presumptionor PISD as it has become knownhas a central logical flaw. The fact thatsustainable development cannot be achieved without certain kinds of growth doesnt imply that all kinds ofgrowth promote sustainable development. Strikingly there is no presumption against unsustainabledevelopment. It is unbalanced.

A related flaw is apparent if we look at para 14, which sets out 3 combinations, but is silent on the fourthlogical one.

Development Plan Adopted Development Plan either non adopted , notand Up to Date up to date, Silent or Indeterminate

Scheme accords with Approve without delay Grant PermissionDevelopment PlanScheme contrary to NPPF is silent Grant PermissionDevelopment 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 theplanning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerationsindicate otherwise.

But a reader from outside a planning background will not know this. The NPPF is a document that issupposed to be usable by non-experts, but which will in fact but unusable unless you know the legal principleson which the planning system is based and on which the NPPF is silent. It will not be usable by lay peoplecontrast 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 theChamberlain Housing Act of 1923:31

the presumption should always be in favour of the person seeking consent to interim development, andobstacles should not be placed in the way of such development, except in the case where it is clearlydetrimental 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 incircular 22/80. Following the passage of the Planning and Compensation Act 2001, which introduced thePresumption in Favour of the Development Plan national policy at the time (PPG1) was alteration to squarewith itthough there was a tension. In 2005 PPS1 abolished the Presumption in Favour of DevelopmentLeaving 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. Currentlyaround 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.pdf28 http://www.who.int/globalchange/ecosystems/ecosys.pdf29 http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/30 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/5/section/3831 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).



and plan making is the primary means to provide additional housing, then they will create a continuouslygrowing 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 togrow 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 2011housebuilding fell 4% in England from the previous quarter.35 In 2011 we look likely to build only aroundhalf the houses needed as a nation.

When the Q1 housebuilding statistics were released the government claimed this was evidence that thepolicies of revoking regional plans and introducing the New Homes Bonus was working. In fact analysis ofthe data showed that the Q1 rise was due to a rise in London, the one region to have maintained regionalhousebuilding targets.36 In Q2 housebuildingfell year on year by 26%. Planning approvals for housing arealso down dramatically. This has lead to a furious dispute between bodies such the the CPRE and the HBF onthe significance for the NPPF.37 A detailed analysis I have conducted on the data is that both are wrong onthis issue (or right depending on how you see it), houses arent being build because of lack of demand in adepressed market, but if demand recovered landbanks of housebuilders are dangerously low, only about a thirdof what they should be to meet household formation.38 This is storing up a problem as it will slow recoveryfrom the great recession. The problem is not the number of applications being refused but the fall in the amountof 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 inthe years following the 2004 Act, The Barker Review 2004 and the Housing Green Paper 2005 which setnational housebuilding targets, progress sustained until the Great Recession. This progress has been undone, inpart by the by the recession and in part by the dramatic lowering of housebuilding targets in development planssince May 2010 (this is not a political point simply a statement of fact). A reduction estimated by BNP Paribasin 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 Authoritieswere programmed to have examinations completed and adopted plans in place by the end of 2011. So clearlydespite the slowness of plan making a big bulge of catching up was due to come forward. Finally by the endof 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 numbersmeeting housing need, otherwise they would not have been found sound. When these plans were adoptedthere 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 regionalplans 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 dounder a European Directive, a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the effects of revocation,41 consultedon this and react to the results of consultation. This consultation has not yet even begun, but is required to bythe EU directive, be at an early stage of the decision making process. One that the SoS needs to take withan open mind. Given ministers statements and caselaw it is likely that statements of predetermination willsee a successful legal challenge. Please question the minister on the reason for the delay. Please also questionthe minister, in the light of his wholly inadequate response to your committees earlier report on the abolitionof regional plans,42 that if the SA/SEA finds significant adverse social, environmental or economic impactswill 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 committeefound. Plans about to be submitted have been delayed by a year or more. Even plans mid examination havebeen delayed, with one examination (South Wilts) that should have lasted at most a few weeks now lastingover a year as the authority rewrote it mid inquiry to reduce housebuilding. Even in one case a plan waswithdrawn the day it the inspectors report was received (Coventry). Other plans have been withdrawn the eventhough they have been submitted (Aylesbury), and the SoS has allowed them to do so (the power to preventthis stalling is proposed to be removed by the Localism Bill). So for these and many other local planningauthorities 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 ClimateTCPA, PWC, The Smith Institute 2009 and new and novelhousehold projections for england with a 2008 basesummary and review TCPA/CCHP.

34 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/2033household111035 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#1104055800000442 http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/government-response-to-the-clg-committee%E2%80%99s-report-abolition-of-

rss-a-planning-vacuum/



What we have seen is the largest and most important housing sites in England deleted. Growth areas aroundMilton Keynes, Aylesbury, Northampton, Bristol and many other towns have now gone, or have been frozenin ministerial induced uncertainty. The system of planning for housing has been thrown into chaos. Ministershave stated that eventually the New Homes Bonus will induce more housing to be allocated, one has to askwhere? Can ministers name a significant number local planning authorities that have decided to increase itshousebuilding levels above regional plan levels?. Rather LPAs have overwhelmingly either kept to the sametargets or significantly reduced them.

Seeing this dramatic scaling back one has to ask if Ministers are giving up on the plan-led route and arelooking for a plan b?

Frustration with slow progress on plan making has affected national policy several times before and I wouldsuggest 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 in2004, on which I advised the then ODPM . Unfortunately the implementation was poor. By creating newstatutory plans rather than amending existing statutes there was the impression given that

The National Planning Policy Framework · Oxylane Group Ev w165 Partnership for Urban South...

Documents

Transcript of The National Planning Policy Framework · Oxylane Group Ev w165 Partnership for Urban South...