The Lymington Society

 

National Planning Policy Framework Branch Seminar: note of  meeting

14 September 2011  CPRE, 128 Southwark Street

Chair: Charlie Watson

MORNING SESSION

Introductions

Charlie Watson introduced the event the aim of which was to identify constructive points on how to improve the NPPF and to discuss campaigning moving forward.

A brief overview of the NPPF

Paul Miner outlined the background to the NPPF, CPRE’s initial thoughts on key priorities and what work would be required following the consultation. It was noted that National Policy Statements on major infrastructure, PPS10 on waste and most Circulars or best practice guides would not be affected. The presentation is available on request (insert link).

Identifying key priorities for CPRE

Attendees were asked to outline their concerns. Key points raised are outlined below:

o        concern with the apparent equation of housing requirements with housing projections

o        it was noted that there were many sites currently with planning permission that remain vacant

o        if linked to market housing villages were less likely to allow development

o        it was noted that when associated with market development, the percentage of affordable housing was often renegotiated down once development commenced

o        concern was raised over the removal of rural exception sites

o        it was felt that the brevity of the NPPF may create a ‘policy vacuum’

o        it was suggested that the proposed ‘certificate of conformity’ for up to date local plans, to show that they conform the NPPF, would be difficult to issue, as local plans were based on existing policies and could therefore be argued to be out of date. This would mean the NPPF always takes precedent.

o        Local Plans – about half of planning authorities currently have adopted plans

o        if an application came forward that was not in line with the local plan would a refusal be upheld if it went to appeal ie. what was the relative weight of local plans and the NPPF?

o        It was noted that there was little mention of offices and commercial rents. The concern was that developers would focus on places with high commercial rents, affecting regeneration

o        Town centres were disadvantaged by NPPF as town outskirts would be easier for developers. It was felt this could lead to ‘doughnut’ towns. Town centre regeneration would be further affected by funding cuts

o        Lack of brownfield priority would particularly hinder regeneration of northern cities and would have an adverse economic impact on town centres

o        Windfalls – Avon an example of where major brownfield windfalls were causing plans to be reconsidered; thus leaving the area without an up to date plan and vulnerable to the NPPF policies of (a) the presumption and (b) discouraging the use of windfalls

o        It was felt the NPPF does not allow sufficient flexibility for LAs that wish to create new Green Belt

o        Green Belt boundary reviews were being brought forward in light of housing land requirements of the NPPF, eg. Chester, Cheshire and Cheshire West

o        The purpose of Green Belt is not related to landscape quality which needs to be clearer

Having outlined key concerns attendees were split into groups to identify top priorities. Feedback from each group was as follows:

Group 1

·         Brownfield land – concern regarding the link between house prices and house building. Also noted some areas lacked finances to encourage regeneration

·         Economic need have primacy over other concerns

·         Process and lack of clarity in wording

·         Lack of recognition of intrinsic value of countryside

Group 2

·         Brownfield land – most housing requirements could be done on this – LSE report

·         Office development – impact on regeneration if taken out of town centres

·         Inherent contradiction between localism and NPPF

·         Lack of recognition of intrinsic value of countryside

Group 3

·         Lack of recognition of intrinsic value of countryside (cf. Natural Environment White Paper commitments)

·         5 year land supply for housing

·         Line by line analysis of NPPF with officials and representatives of environmental NGOs

Group 4

·         Brownfield land – key to regeneration and place making. This creates people want to live and work and so benefits the economy

·         Green Belt protection and creation of new ones – can argue an economic case as they protect town character, again ensuring places people want to live and work

·         Rewording of NPPF paragraph 24 to provide protection for other landscapes

·         Economic asset value of countryside to be recognised

Group 5

·         Proper definition of sustainable development, to include transport

·         Need for proper transitional arrangements

·         Brownfield land

·         Lack of recognition of intrinsic value of countryside

Summary

Charlie Watson summarised the key priorities emerging from the discussion. The below areas were identified:

AFTERNOON SESSION   

Charlie Watson welcomed Greg Clark and noted that CPRE supported the plan led system and the desire to speed up the planning process.  If this was to be consistent with the Government’s localism agenda this should not reduce opportunities for local engagement.

Shaun Spiers thanked Greg Clark for coming and raised the concern, shared by a number of environmental NGOs, that the underlying approach of the NPPF, notably the primacy given to economic growth, was particularly concerning.

Minister for Decentralisation and Cities, Rt Hon Greg Clark MP

`Greg Clark opened by noting those present with whom he has worked over the years and commenting that he found it a strange situation to be at loggerheads with CPRE.  He said that planning is one of the most important things people can engage with and that this came with an enormous responsibility – shaping places we, our children and future generations will live in. He counted himself as a life long environmentalist.

He stated that planning was fundamental to balancing opportunities to accommodate development needed to provide homes, enabling new business start-ups and safeguarding the environment. Reforms would advantage planning as a policy tool. True plan-making expressed the view of the future through communities and until now design had been shamefully under-weighted.

The Localism Bill replaces regional strategies as these were too top-down, with the duty to co-operate. He understands there are larger than local aspects to planning but neighbourhood planning was absolutely crucial as it allowed people within villages and towns to be able to specify what they want their area to look like in future.  He was delighted CPRE was one of groups funded to help communities engage with that. Every neighbourhood plan which CPRE engages in will be better for our involvement.

With the current system having too much detail it was difficult local people to get involved and put together neighbourhood plans. He stated the primary purpose of the reforms is simplification, it is not to put economic matters above others. The fundamental purpose of planning is unchanged – to find the best way to accommodate changes the country needs.

The easiest thing for incoming minister, he said, was to make a token nod to simplification – do a few tweaks and take planning policy down to 900 pages then say it has been simplified. But if really want to try to empower communities then you need to do it well and properly.  While he hoped it was simpler and clearer, he accepted that it was never going to be pristine and perfect first time.

Regarding the Practitioners draft, he stated that it was not a sinister plot to allow developers to dictate government policy and that the group had included a planner, volume house builder, RSPB and leading local councillor. He noted that the PAG had been launched publicly and at the launch a vote taken on whether involving practitioners in suggesting policy was considered a good thing.

He noted that it should be gone through line by line and he wants everything to be expressed in optimum way, and he recognised that at present there are things that are not in but could be, and other aspects are not expressed as clearly as they could be. He stated that he wanted to get it right.

Greg Clark stated that there was a school of thought that we should move away from planning. He said he wanted the reverse of that. Every place should have a local plan.  He wanted the NPPF to stand the test of time, and unite all our ambitions. He concluded by reiterating that it was not his intention to elevate economic growth above all else.

Questions

1. There seem to be the potential for a number of unintended consequences from the draft, and the document purports to be a policy document but is actually full of lobbying statements about economic growth. As the document currently stands, a planning barrister would be able to argue all the good detail in core strategies were in conflict with the NPPF – from experience we know this happens already and it will get worse. It is important to get plans in place that have viable proposals for water, transport, housing, schools etc but developers will not let that happen as the draft currently is.

CG: I agree it needs to be edited. If there are aspects you think would divert attentions we need to go through and alter it. It is not a lobbying document and the practitioners participated in good faith, including Simon Marsh from the RSPB. It was an attempt to get PPSs down to a fair distillation of the essential policies. If there are loopholes where policy can be diverted we need to identify them and amend the document to make sure the NPPF is absolutely right, not almost right.

Think about if any of you had to take huge amount of documents and distil them down – would it be absolutely right first time?

2. Urban regeneration has been a lynch pin of planning policy for a very long time yet in the draft there seems to be very little support for urban regeneration – the term is barely mentioned. Of particular concern is the disappearance of the existing Brownfield first policy. We understand that LAs may be able to include this in local plans but there is no encouragement for them to do so. There are huge economic and social assets tied up in urban areas. We have a lot of concerns that inadvertently or otherwise, inner city areas will be left to rot. Please could you say something about strengthening that aspect?

GC: One of my other roles is minister for cities. Trying to encourage people to reoccupy areas that are derelict is also concern. This is an example of where detailed discussion would be of benefit – we need a forensic conversation. There is no reason why government would not prioritise bringing these areas back into use. We thought we were making an improvement – paragraph 165 is a more subtle interpretation than the brownfield first approach. There are places in towns and cities that have been previously developed but in some places have now become important green spaces within an area. Under Brownfield First policies these areas would not enjoy the type of protection needed. The current approach of brownfield/greenfield is too binary. The intention is absolutely that we bring back into use land that has fallen into disuse but had previously been used. I hope fears of ulterior motives will subside. We do not want it to be found to be a loophole.

Charlie Watson noted that subtly can be lost on planners. Some things need to be spelt out when they are priorities. He also noted that Brownfield development is very sustainable.

3: CPRE Leicestershire has been very supportive of the rural housing enabler in their area and his work to get rural exception sites. We are concerned that rural exception sites are not in this framework. It is an important tool. There is the suggestion that you can have affordable housing in market development but in many villages this is not the appropriate approach and it will face more local opposition than a scheme which is only affordable housing. We are not saying there should not be other mechanisms but it is a very important tool.

GC: It is not the intention to taking away rural exception sites. The draft policy said mixtures of market and affordable should be allowed because of the lack of other sources of funding – so they were trying to offer more flexible options for delivery. I had thought the policy was clear but will look again if not.

4: We are concerned about the lack of protection for undesignated countryside, particularly in areas where there is little Green Belt land. This is particularly concerning where there is not a Local Plan in place – will there be a free for all?

GC:  First of all let me deal with concerns expressed about unprotected land. I haven’t yet seen a particular proposal for what should be done for this and open countryside has not previously been protected.

On the timing front – if there is not an up to date plan, the idea is that national policy will apply. This does not mean it is a free for all. National policy is meant to be a fair reflection of what a LA would have put in place if had produced its plan. It is not our intention to hold a gun to local authorities’ heads. We would much rather decisions are made in conformity with local plans. This is the intention of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the concerns being raised might be due to a fault in how the presumption has been communicated.

It is reasonable for LAs that have put a decent local plan together to expect that decisions should be made in line with it – we know this needs to be reflected in transitional arrangements. We will set out more about transitional arrangements shortly.

Comments from the floor: It was noted that a policy on undesignated countryside could reflect the wording in the NEWP that states all areas of countryside should be protected and enhanced. Some countryside has intrinsic value that a figure cannot be put on. While the language being used by the Minister about the presumption was reasonable today this was not being heard in the Shires – where there was great concerns. It was also noted that the draft text the Minister referred to about replaced Brownfield first [paragraph 156] applied to only plan-making and not development control.

GC: I do understand there are strong feelings across the country. It is easy to have a debate rather than a discussion but this can polarise and lead people to think there are malign and subversive intentions that are not there. Don’t want to miss the chance to clarify, amend or tweak. Here is an opportunity for us to get together and get it right and persuade people it will capture our joint intentions. The debate over the last few months has been at a very high level and now we need to move onto detail.

5: We are concerned about the requirements to identify effectively 6 years of housing land supply and we know in some areas this has meant local authorities have brought forward Green Belt review.

GC: The reason is not a desire to jack up housing numbers. Housing numbers will be assessed locally rather than handed down by regional strategies. In practice not all sites allocated turn out to be developable. If we are serious about plan making so the plan really does represent the best attempt to diagnose what a community needs in the years ahead we need to tolerate the need for some flexibility in land supply. Whether the 20% is the right number – whether there is different one or the figure should vary across country can be discussed. It is not to increase housing numbers but to insure that housing that is needed can be provided.

Charlie notes that yes, some sites that are allocated fall out but windfall sites often compensate for these.

GC: We want local plans to properly express how a community will develop and make the plan sovereign. The downfall of windfall sites is that they are unpredictable – you don’t know where or when they will come, and that uncertainty means you cannot plan for necessary infrastructure. Relying on windfall does not give a true plan. Often windfall sites tend to be infill. But if we want to have a plan which is sovereign we need to be explicit about windfall development in local plans. There are however places where windfalls are more predictable than others and if there is a good case people can include them.

Comment from the floor: How is a 6 year identified housing supply land different from a rolling 5 year plan?

GC: It is just bringing the 6^th year forward so it is available sooner.

Comment from the floor: But requiring more sites to be allocated will mean that more Greenfield sites are allocated and built on before Brownfield. We have evidence of LAs looking at Green Belt boundaries in light of the draft NPPF. In light of the lack of reference to Brownfield development, in light of the lack of protection for normal countryside, in practice it seems it will be very difficult to honour Government promises to protect Green Belt.

GC: When Ministers have said they are determined to win this battle it means that the Government will reform the system and part of that will be new national planning policy. Debate has been rather polarised. We have a commitment to simplify national policy and we will do it. We need to get the document right and I hope CPRE will help improve it. It is far better to have a discussion about getting it right rather than to have document that has unintended loop holes. We want your expert diagnosis of what those loopholes might be. We have been clear with the Planning Inspectorate that this is a genuine consultation document. The weight to be given to it will be determined locally. We want to participate in the consultation in good faith.

Comment from the floor: What is a sovereign plan?

GC: A sovereign plan is a sound plan. This means decisions are made on the basis of that plan and there is less need to go to the Inspectorate. This means decisions are made locally and accountably rather than from a distance and unaccountably. Having things determined by the Inspectorate takes power away from communities.

6: In simplifying there is a danger of creating a policy vacuum. This might be tackled through having very lengthy local plans but where policy is lacking the legal side takes over and decisions rely on case law. There is a danger that the system reverts to planning by appeal. For example – paragraph 121 refers to ‘obviously poor design’ – how can this be proven? Vagueness like this needs to be removed.

GC: That is a very constructive suggestion and a good example of how we should have this dialogue at the moment. I am particularly interested in design. We are often encumbered with mediocre and worse design. We have a history of international excellence of design but a number of recent developments do not reflect this. We want to elevate the standard of design and they think they have strengthened policy on design in the draft NPPF.

Regarding the danger of leaving things out of local and neighbourhood plans that then need to be repeated in lots of plans across country – CPRE might want to make suggestions of standard policies that can be taken up by councils across the country. This was one of the reasons why CPRE was appointed to the supporting communities project. Only 50% of LDFs are approved and there is frustration and delays. Simplification is an important means by which plan making can take off.

Charlie followed up this point highlight that current plans need to be tested for soundness. However, once the NPPF is in place no plan can be sound as they are being measured against new policies that were not in place when the plan was developed. This means plans will be considered out of date and developments will go through. The necessary transitional arrangements need to be thought through very carefully.

GC: We have been and are thinking about the transitional period to make sure procedures are in place to embrace various stages of plan preparation. Have also been talking to the Inspectorate. We will have more to say about transitional arrangements. They are being considered in parallel to the consultation.

Charlie Watson closed the session and thanked the Minister.  A short session on immediate reactions following the discussion was undertaken.

Following the Minister’s departure there was a brief discussion.  Greg Clark’s willingness to engage was welcomed, but it was strongly felt that the Government needed to give assurances, at a senior level, that the NPPF was not intended to give primacy to economic development, but was genuinely about ensuring sound planning in the public interest.

Campaigning Work

Fiona Howie introduced the session and outlined 5 areas of work. It was emphasised that the close of the consultation was not the end of opportunities to apply pressure.

The PowerPoint presentation is available on request.

Discussion: