Nov 11, 2011 - Tunbridge Wells. Significant Rural Conservative. South East. Dartford ... South West. North Somerset. Rur
LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: An analysis by the Campaign to Protect Rural England November 2011 Introduction The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) views the planning system as a vital tool for achieving environmental objectives while accommodating necessary development. We support elements of the Government’s planning reforms and in particular welcome proposals to encourage more people to get involved in shaping the future of where they live and work. While we recognise the need to streamline national planning policy, we have serious concerns about the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which represents a major threat to the countryside. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has received around 14,000 responses1 to its consultation on the draft NPPF. CPRE was keen to examine some of these to gain an understanding of the reception that the draft NPPF received from those planners working ‘at the coal face’ in local authority planning departments. Local authority planners will be responsible for implementing the final NPPF and play a vital role in delivering the Government’s ‘localism’ agenda. Their views therefore matter a great deal. This brief report outlines our methodology in analysing the responses from local planning authorities to the draft NPPF, and assesses to what extent these responses reflect CPRE’s concerns about the draft policy. Methodology The local planning authority responses to the draft NPPF were assessed against CPRE’s headline concerns about the document. These have been condensed into our ‘five key asks for the NPPF’, which are as follows: The National Planning Policy Framework must: •
recognise the intrinsic value of unprotected countryside which covers more than half of England, and set out stronger policies to protect the Green Belt and specially designated areas;
•
retain the ‘brownfield first’ policy to promote urban regeneration and efficient use of land by ensuring previously developed land is used to meet development needs before greenfield sites and effective integration of transport and land use planning;
•
define sustainable development so that environmental limits are respected, rather than giving primacy to economic development;
•
reinforce the plan-led system, including by ensuring effective transitional arrangements are put in place to allow time for up to date plans to be developed; and
•
promote, rather than undermine, the delivery of affordable housing in appropriate locations to meet identified needs, particularly in rural areas.
As we were unable to assess every response submitted by a local planning authority, we ensured that we had a geographically representative sample of local authorities across England by analysing three responses from each English region, including London. Using the Department for 1
House of Lords Grand Committee Debate, 27 October 2011, c GC383
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ rural/urban classification of local authorities2, we sampled one deeply rural (Rural 80 or Rural 50) local authority from each region, one very urban (Major Urban or Large Urban) local authority from each region, and one rural/urban (Significant Rural or Other Urban) local authority from each region. In London these classifications clearly do not differentiate local authorities; we therefore ensured that at least one Outer London borough with responsibility for Green Belt was represented in the sample. Those responses analysed were also largely dependent on which responses we were able to obtain, as these are not yet all in the public domain. We did not review the content of the responses before selecting them as part of our sample, in order to ensure that our analysis would provide a balanced representation of views across the country. The political make-up of local planning authorities was not a factor in selecting our sample. For information, however, the political leadership of each council is shown below in table 1. This shows that 15 of the local planning authorities sampled have majority Conservative leaderships, and seven Labour, with no political party having overall control over the remaining authorities. This sample closely reflects the political makeup of local planning authorities across England as shown in table 2 below. Table 1 - Sample (27 local planning authorities) Region
North East North East North East North West North West North West Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber Yorkshire and the Humber West Midlands West Midlands West Midlands East Midlands East Midlands East Midlands East of England East of England East of England South East South East South East London London London South West South West South West
2
Local planning authority
Defra rural/urban classification Redcar and Cleveland Significant Rural Durham Rural 50 Stockton-on-Tees Large Urban Cheshire East Rural 50 Sefton Large Urban Fylde Significant Rural Leeds Major Urban York Other Urban East Riding of Yorkshire Rural 50 Warwick Significant Rural Coventry Large Urban Malvern Hills Rural 50 Gedling Large Urban Harborough Rural 80 South Derbyshire Significant Rural South Cambridgeshire Rural 80 Castle Point Large Urban Welwyn Hatfield Other Urban Winchester Rural 50 Tunbridge Wells Significant Rural Dartford Major Urban Southwark Major Urban Redbridge Major Urban (Green Belt) Wandsworth Major Urban Bournemouth Large Urban Bath and North East Somerset Significant Rural North Somerset Rural 50
Political leadership Labour Labour No overall control Conservative No overall control Conservative Labour Labour Conservative Conservative Labour Conservative Labour Conservative Conservative Conservative Conservative Conservative No overall control Conservative Conservative Labour No overall control Conservative Conservative No overall control Conservative
Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/rural/what-is-rural/rural-urban-classification/, 11 November 2011
Table 2 – Political control of English local planning authorities, and our sample of authorities Leading party
Conservative Labour Liberal Democrat Other No overall control
Number of LPAs in England controlled by party 139 78 13 1 56
Percentage of all LPAs in England controlled by party 54 24 4 0.3 17
Number of LPAs in our sample controlled by party 15 7 0 0 5
Percentage of all LPAs in our sample controlled by party 55 26 0 0 19
Once the sample had been established, each response was read and analysed against 5 questions framed to establish whether the local planning authorities share CPRE’s concerns about the draft NPPF. Each question was answered with either ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘qualified’, or ‘no comment’. ‘Qualified’ was assigned where local authorities offered qualified support or concern, or where no clear answer to our question could be inferred.
Results Key ask one - Does our sample of local planning authorities believe that the interpretation of sustainable development given in the draft NPPF is adequate?
Does the local planning authority believe that the interpretation of sustainable development given in the draft NPPF is adequate?
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Yes
No
Qualified
No comment
• None of the responses sampled indicated a belief that the definition of sustainable development given in the draft NPPF is adequate, with all but one expressing clear concerns that it is inadequate. • Many of the responses, while expressing sympathy for the principle of the Government’s growth agenda, argued that economic matters had been given too much prominence, to the potential detriment of environmental and social ones. • The response from Cheshire East Council states that: ‘It is acknowledged that economic considerations have for too long been ignored and therefore merit much greater prominence. However the current wording risks over stating the economic case to the detriment of the social and environmental considerations.’
Key ask two - Does our sample of local planning authorities believe that protections for the ‘ordinary’ countryside are adequate?
Does the local planning authority believe that protections for the 'ordinary' countryside are adequate? 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Yes
No
Qualified
No comment
• Of the eleven local planning authorities that commented on this issue, ten expressed concerns that the draft NPPF would not provide sufficient protection for non-designated (not Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or National Park) countryside. • Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council’s response to the draft NPPF states that, ‘Protection of the wider countryside has been weakened as there is no longer an explicit reference to the need to protect it for its own sake.’ • South Cambridgeshire District Council’s response to the consultation states that, ‘The framework does not address the protection of the countryside for its own sake. Landscape, its character and qualities and what it can bring to sustainable development, is not mentioned at all.’
Key ask three - Does our sample of local planning authorities agree with the Government’s approach to brownfield first?
Does the local planning authority agree with the Government's approach to brownfield first? 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Yes
No
Qualified
No comment
• 50% (11 out of 22) of the local planning authorities in our sample who addressed this issue in their response did not agree with the omission from the draft NPPF of a ‘brownfield first’ approach to development. • Only three local planning authorities expressed support for the changes made to existing policy, which remove an explicit reference to preferring re-use of previously-developed land before greenfield sites are developed. • Concerns around the removal of this policy tended to be twofold, with local planning authorities concerned about the impact of the approach on both regeneration and the ability of local planners to protect the countryside from unnecessary development. • The response from Leeds City Council states that, ‘The NPPF is not fit for purpose in tackling housing challenges and opportunities in Leeds and will lead to a significant pressure upon greenfield and Green Belt land, undermining priorities to promote regeneration in inner city/brownfield locations.’ • In response to the Government’s argument that the draft NPPF does retain a more sophisticated wording of the ‘brownfield first’ policy, Winchester City Council states, ‘The phrase ‘land with the least environmental or amenity value’, does not carry the same understanding as ‘brownfield’ and is also ambiguous in that the development industry will readily argue various sites fall into this category.’
Key ask four - Does our sample of local planning authorities believe that the transitional arrangements are sufficient?
Does the local planning authority believe that the transitional arrangements are sufficient?
25
20
15
10
5
0 Yes
No
Qualified
No comment
• All but one of our sample of local planning authorities who responded to this question were concerned that robust transitional arrangements must be put in place so that the shift from existing planning policy and guidance to the finalised NPPF does not cause significant disruption. • In particular, concerns were raised that the draft NPPF as written could lead to increased numbers of planning appeals, because of the lack of clarity about when local planning policies are deemed to be in place and up to date. • In its response the London Borough of Redbridge states that, ‘Redbridge has one of the most up to date development plans in the country. Its integrity as an effective decision-making tool must be maintained until it is reviewed for full consistency with the NPPF. A review is already underway, but is necessarily a lengthy process. The current proposals for a Certificate of Conformity do not adequately address the transitional period and should be reconsidered’.
Key ask five – Does our sample of local planning authorities believe that guidance in the draft NPPF on the provision of affordable housing is sufficient?
Does the local planning authority believe that guidance in the draft NPPF on the provision of affordable housing is sufficient?
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Yes
No
Qualified
No comment
• Seven of the sixteen (44%) local planning authorities who commented on this issue were concerned that guidance on the delivery of affordable housing in the draft NPPF is not adequate. • The concerns expressed are wide ranging, but many local planning authorities highlighted that the guidance on affordable housing, and particularly rural affordable housing, in the draft NPPF is extremely unclear. • In response to the unclear suggestion in the draft NPPF that market housing will be allowed on rural exception sites, which currently may only be designated where they are to provide 100% affordable housing, in perpetuity, for those with a local connection, Winchester City Council states, ‘[Winchester City Council] does … object to the removal of the concept of allowing rural exception schemes of purely affordable housing. In Winchester District such sites have been a valuable source of new affordable housing to meet the needs of rural communities. Their loss would be a retrograde step and be likely to be an impediment to rural affordable housing supply.’ Conclusion This sample of local planning authority responses to the draft NPPF clearly highlights that the concerns CPRE has been raising at the national level about the draft are broadly reflected at the local level, by those officers and councillors who will have responsibility for implementing the new system. The results concerning the definition of sustainable development and transitional arrangements are especially striking, with local planning authorities raising concerns that a lack of clarity in these areas could severely undermine the planning system. The Government needs to consider carefully the 14,000 responses to the consultation on the draft NPPF that it has received, and address the real and serious concerns about the adequacy of the policies it contains. When published, we hope that the final NPPF will offer clear policies which truly integrate economic, environmental and social considerations. Only this will allow planning to fulfil its role in facilitating sustainable development that is in the long term public interest. CPRE November, 2011
