Blogs and Briefings
Arrested development?
As consultation closes on the Draft National Planning Policy Framework, Steve Barwick argues that there will always be need for proper public and stakeholder engagement.
17 October 2011
The origins of the Government’s draft National Planning Policy framework lie in the Government’s desire to eliminate bureaucracy, increase transparency and improve the speed of decision making by reducing 3,250 pages of planning guidance into a document that is just 191 paragraphs and 52 pages long.
The ensuing hullaballoo involving groups like the National Trust has demonstrated that there were, at least for some, many good aspects of the old more bureaucratic process. They would argue that long-windedness has its advantages. It allows clarity on what the Government wants to see from new development and complexity often ensures best standards, allowing rules to be laid down that can make the difference between good and bad development.
With planning, less is certainly not more- but it is different. The Draft NPPF signals a radical shift towards a heady mix of national can-do growth and local control over what happens in their back yard - defining planning rather than detailed regulations. Of course this will inevitably create its own complications when these two principles clash.
Sustainable development is at the centre of the new draft planning framework, but sustainable development is hard to define. Those with differing perspectives understandably emphasise one of the agreed three pillars - environmental, social and economic - as most important. The fact that there are three pillars is often all that can be agreed upon.
The Draft Framework adopts a very loose definition, stating that sustainability means “ensuring that better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations." The fear from the environmental lobby is that this principle significantly tilts the field towards developers. As Greg Clark puts it in the forward to the draft NPPF "Sustainable development is about change" and goes on to plainly assert that all "development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay."
It is likely that, as a result of the rows over the draft framework, the Government will try and reassure opponents by providing more clarity about the definition of sustainability and expand the simplified guidance by reintroducing rules on some of the areas of greatest controversy. However this radical simplification of guidance is still likely to lead to more contestability of what is sustainable development.
Meanwhile delays in implementation announced at Conservative Party Conference – with discussions ongoing - complicate further an issue where simplicity was promised. And in addition to the effect of the NPPF, key changes will come as the result of the Localism Bill most importantly by the development of neigbourhood planning.
Neigbourhood planning will give local people more of a say over the development in their area, but not veto powers over any planning application - contrary to what many had been led believe. Of course this may make development plans more likely to be contested with different sections of the population taking differing views. With local communities having more of a say over local authority development plans the hand of those with strong feelings will be strengthened.
The contestability of what kind of development that local people want to see in their local area will mean that developers will have to think of new ways to engage with communities. There will be a need to look beyond the vocal minority to communicate the advantages of development with as much of the wider population, and significant other voices within it, as possible.
Other changes in the Localism Bill will make good consultation more important. There is a requirement for major developers to engage with local communities at the pre-application stage and the development of a plan-led approach to development will make it more important for developers to develop longer-term relationships in order to ensure that, as plans are developed, they consider the best ways to deliver appropriate development in the local area.
So whilst the rhetoric is about streamlining planning procedures, both the NPPF and the Localism Bill will lead to the need for more detailed consultation. Getting this right is set to become a much more important part of successfully delivering development.
