1. Government myth: Planning is acting as a serious brake on growth, slowing the delivery of much needed new jobs and new business.

Transcription

1 Problems with the draft National Planning Policy Framework This note has been prepared to assist our members and supporters in responding to the current Government consultation on the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The note lists the 11 faults which collectively are of greatest concern to CPRE Hertfordshire in the Government s proposed future planning policy framework that is intended to underpin all future Town and Country Planning decisions in England following its adoption in the Spring It is set out in the form of comments on the myths that form the basis of the proposed policy changes, and our response to them and how they would affect the County. 1. Government myth: Planning is acting as a serious brake on growth, slowing the delivery of much needed new jobs and new business. The Government has swallowed the argument put forward by the development industry and big business that the planning system is damaging the economy. No independent evidence has been presented to support this assertion. CPRE Herts response: Whilst we recognise that the planning system can be time-consuming and that plan-making by local authorities has often taken longer than is desirable the majority of planning applications (about 80%) are approved by local planning authorities (LPAs). About one third of those that go to appeal to the Secretary of State are allowed. The planning applications that fail, or get held up, are usually those where there are material planning reasons for refusing them. This is a fundamental principle of the planning system, and one which the Government is trying to distort. House building nationally has slumped to its lowest level since 1924, with only 106,000 housing units built in England in the past year. The reason for the slump is not the planning system. Rather, it is the lack of finance to enable builders to build, and for prospective buyers to borrow so that they can buy their own property. The situation has been exacerbated by the Secretary of State (Eric Pickles)'s bungled attempt in July 2010 to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies (including the East of England Plan that covers Hertfordshire). That created a planning vacuum of uncertainty, in which LPAs were unable to progress their Local Plans, and developers held back on submitting new planning applications. Furthermore, developers are already sitting on huge land banks, with planning permission for about 330,000 dwelling units nationwide. This landbank is in addition to the 750,000 or so houses lying empty. For business, there is over 16 million square feet of empty commercial space in the UK on business parks alone, and in Hertfordshire nearly 2 million square feet of ready to occupy industrial and office floorspace in Hemel Hempstead alone.

2 2. Government myth: The presumption in favour will only apply to 'sustainable' development. The draft NPPF states (paragraph 9) that "sustainable development means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". This is the 'Brundtland' definition, dating from 1987, that covers development in its broader sense rather than just built development, and applies principally at the global and national level rather than at the level of individual planning applications. CPRE Herts response: The problem is that the draft NPPF does not provide a robust enough definition of 'sustainable' to ensure that planning proposals put forward by developers really are sustainable. The draft NPPF talks about planning for prosperity (an economic role), planning for people (a social role), and planning for places (an environmental role), but there is no guidance on how these aims are to be measured, balanced or reconciled. It is clear from statements in the draft NPPF and elsewhere, that the Government sees economic development as the overriding aim, and that the term 'sustainability' is being used as a cloak of respectability. There needs to be a clear statement in the NPPF that the purpose of planning is to promote the overall good of communities and the environment as much as delivering economic benefits, and that 'quality of life' covers much more than simply economic prosperity. 3. Government myth: Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other designated land will retain the protections they enjoy today. The section of the draft NPPF dealing with Local Plans makes it clear that the top priority will be planning for housing and economic development. In a list of twelve strategic policy criteria (paragraphs 23-24), "identify land which it is genuinely important to protect from development, for instance because of its environmental or historic value" and "a clear strategy for the environmental enhancement of the area" come last. The Green Belt (which is not an 'environmental' policy as such) is not listed. There is a separate chapter on the Green Belt. This is a watered down version of the existing PPG2 on Green Belts. Paragraphs of the draft NPPF call for LPAs with Green Belts in their area to review Green Belt boundaries through their Local Plans, taking account of "the need to promote sustainable patterns of development". This is government-speak for rolling back Green Belt boundaries to allow for long-term development needs. There are specific requirements to identify and maintain a rolling supply of available sites for a 5-year housing supply plus an additional allowance of at least 20% to ensure choice and competition, and to identify areas for development for up to 15 years (paragraph 109), and paragraph 140 requires Green Belt boundaries to be defined to identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt to meet longer-term needs stretching well beyond the plan period. So when is development in the Green Belt not development in the Green Belt? Answer: when the Green Belt boundary is first changed to take land out of the Green Belt to enable development to take place.

3 Given that many of the larger towns and villages in Hertfordshire are tightly constrained by the Green Belt (eg, Stevenage, St Albans, Hemel Hempstead), and that Local Plans will be required to set housing targets that are demand-led rather than based on need and constraints (see 7 below), it is inevitable that there would be more development on existing Green Belt land. How much depends on the final version of the NPPF, but in Hertfordshire the Green Belt is particularly vulnerable because the belt is often wafer thin, where even small losses would be critical, and of course, permanent. Even if it were true that Green Belts and nationally-designated landscapes were protected under the draft NPPF proposals, what of the rest of the countryside? Most of the northeastern part of Hertfordshire, and huge swathes of England are not covered by such designations, and would lose the protection from development given by current policy guidance in PPS7, in the face of the proposed presumption in favour of development 4. Bringing previously developed ('brownfield') land back into use. The current planning guidance in PPS3 on Housing states that making effective use of land by re-using previously developed land is a key objective of Government policy. It sets a national annual target of at least 60% of new housing to be provided on brownfield land. Over many years, this policy has forced developers away from building on greenfield (undeveloped) land. The draft NPPF contains no targets for the level of new housing to be delivered on brownfield land. There is no requirement for previously-developed land, rather than greenfield land, even to be built on first. This undermines one of the five long-standing purposes of the Green Belt, which is to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The call for development to be 'sustainable' will not compensate for the absence of a 'brownfield first' policy. Developers will naturally gravitate towards greenfield development, which is usually cheaper and less complex. CPRE Herts response: It is imperative that the NPPF should set out a target-driven policy for developing previously-developed land ahead of greenfield land. 5. Government myth: Abolishing Regional Strategies with their top-down housing targets and putting the emphasis on Local Plans will give real control to local people. Measures to abolish Regional Strategies are included in the Localism Bill, and the draft NPPF states that planning should be genuinely plan-led, with succinct Local Plans setting out a positive long-term vision for an area (paragraph 19). CPRE Herts response: We welcome getting rid of top-down housing targets and arbitrary growth areas, and agree in principle that planning decisions should be plan-led. Unfortunately, the following provisions in the draft NPPF undermine the claims of local accountability: 6. The default answer to development proposals is "yes". This means that where a Local Plan is "absent, silent, indeterminate, or relevant policies are out of date", there will be a presumption in favour of development. In respect of out of date plans, since most local authorities have yet to complete the latest local plan process (including

4 all of those in Hertfordshire unless the Three Rivers Core Strategy is adopted by next Spring), due largely to its complexity and the uncertainty created by central government, they will find it impossible to refuse planning applications they would currently reject. Although ministers have said that transitional arrangements are being worked on, there has been no consultation or public airing of any of these and there are no provisions in the draft NPPF for a transitional period during which LPA s existing adopted policies will apply, or giving them the necessary time to draw up and have approved Local Plans that meet the new criteria set out in the NPPF. The Government is proposing to impose a new planning system almost overnight in the knowledge that most local plans on which it depends will not be in place for some time. Even the terms silent and indeterminate are undefined, so a further risk is that any specific form of development for which there is not a specific adopted local plan policy will be expected to be given permission. 7. Planning policies and decisions should take into account market signals such as land prices, commercial rents and housing affordability. This is a continuation of the policy introduced by the previous Government, to give priority in planning decisions to market forces. Paragraph 28 of the draft NPPF requires each LPA to prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) to assess the full housing requirements for their area over the plan period. These SHMAs measure demand for housing rather than actual need, and paragraph 28 requires that market demand is met. What this means is that development will be channeled to areas like Hertfordshire where there is the greatest demand, from other parts of the country (which is what market signals indicate). Thus the most attractive areas will be expected to provide for the highest proportion of development relative to their existing housing stock. 8. Planning strategically across local boundaries. This innocuous looking policy in the draft NPPF has potentially the most serious repercussions for Hertfordshire. Paragraph 44 et seq introduces a 'duty to co-operate' on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries. Adjacent local authorities will be required to work collaboratively with each other on strategic planning priorities "to enable delivery of sustainable economic growth". This means that LPAs will have to co-operate with neighbouring authorities to meet development requirements which cannot be met in the area of one of them. Paragraph 48 states that to be sound following an examination by a planning inspector, a local plan should seek to meet unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is practical to do so consistently with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This potentially puts growth proposals like West (and north) of Stevenage, East of Luton, and North of Harlow back on the agenda. When Stevenage, Luton and Harlow Councils declare - as they surely will - that they cannot meet their needs within their own boundaries, North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire would be forced to provide for their expansion.

5 Furthermore, LPAs will be required to consult Local Enterprise Partnerships on what constitutes 'sustainable economic growth'. Local Enterprise Partnerships were set up by this Government in 2010 and comprise representatives of local authorities and businesses to determine and drive forward local economic priorities. There are LEP s covering all of Hertfordshire. So much for local people having control. This is clearly far from the truth. 9. Government myth: Introducing neighbourhood planning will enable local people to decide planning priorities in their community. What the draft NPPF says: "Neighbourhood plans give communities direct power to plan the areas in which they live." (paragraph 49). "This provides a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure that they get the right types of development for their community." (paragraph 50). "... neighbourhood plans will be able to shape and direct development in their area" (paragraph 51). CPRE Herts response: The idea that neighbourhood planning will transfer power over planning matters to local people is a sham. Neighbourhood plans will have to be in general conformity both with the LPA's local plan and, crucially, the NPPF. Where they can vary from the local plan is that neighbourhood plans will be able to propose more development than is set out in the local plan - but not less. 10. Government myth: Pre-application engagement between developers and the local community improves outcomes for the community. Paragraphs of the draft NPPF set out the Government's aspirations for developers to consult the local community on a planning application before submitting it. This sounds fine in principle, but as always the devil is in the detail. The Localism Bill introduces compulsory preapplication consultations for all major applications, but only on the design, and not the principle, of the proposals. We know from experience what public consultation on planning applications means - public relations exercises involving exhibitions, glossy brochures and 'loaded' consultation questionnaires. 11. Affordable housing. Paragraph 40 of the draft NPPF refers to the need for affordable housing, but leaves it to LPAs to decide on local standards for affordable housing in their Local Plans. No guidance is given in the draft NPPF, and no targets or recommended minimum site size thresholds are set. If the existing guidance in PPS3: Housing, is swept away when the NPPF is adopted, there will be no central guidance or definition of affordable housing for LPAs to fall back on. Left to their own devices, developers will not provide for affordable housing in their housing schemes. There needs to be a clear signal from central government in the NPPF on how national affordable housing needs are to be met.