Draft National Planning Policy Framework (July 2011)

I have now had a number of discussions on this, with the National Trust, CPRE, Civic Voice, and other well-informed parties.  It has become clear that taken as a whole it is a deeply misguided and very dangerous document.  A determined developer with good legal advice can find in it wording to invalidate objections to almost any well-constructed planning application, unless expressly forbidden in an approved local plan.  The rules which planning authorities have constructed to provide balance, via Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidances, are invalid unless it can be shown that they do not impose a financial burden on the developer.  In this way, the whole purpose and function of planning has been undermined.

The outcome will be either that planning authorities are pressured into accepting applications which they should not or that, it they refuse them, the developer will have good grounds for appeal.  In both events, the planning system will be thrown into chaos.  The definition of sustainability, on which so much stress has been placed, has been reduced so that it only provides protection against the demolition of a designated heritage asset.  There is no reference in it to amenity, infrastructure, or environmental benefit.  The good features in the document, such as good design and design reviews, do not outweigh the huge emphasis that it places on developer power.  The wording is so loose that its interpretation is likely to end up in the courts.

The central question has always seemed to me to be: Who is in charge of planning, the developer, the local planning authority, or the Government via the Planning Inspectorate?  I believe that planning authorities should be able to decide, after consulting local opinion and in accordance with an approved local plan, what sort of houses are built, where they are located, and with what services.  This basic idea has been entirely nullified by the present Draft NPPF. The Newbury Society made representations against it within the consultation period, which has now lapsed.