Off balance

Last month, in a hotel room in Amsterdam, I saw a remarkable thing. No, not that, but on a day when the biggest change to hit my part of our profession was announced, my only contact with the English speaking world was BBC World's offering of Newsnight. And there, despite Jeremy Paxman almost begging them to disagree, were Lord Wolfson of Next, cheerleader for the business sector, and Simon Jenkins, chairman of the National Trust, falling over themselves to agree on the wisdom and effectiveness of the newly published National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Can they both be right?

The new framework

The NPPF does not change the essential legal framework, under which planning applications are to be determined in accordance with the adopted development plan 'unless material considerations indicate otherwise'. Instead, it sets out the most important 'material consideration' of all: central government planning policy on both the making and contents of local plans and on the determination of individual planning applications. In so doing, it purports to fulfil the coalition's pledge to reduce the volume and complexity of planning guidance. The first noticeable aspect of the document is the scope of what it replaces. All 21 of the existing planning policy guidance (PPG) notes and planning policy statements (PPS) are swept away, as are nine minerals planning policy statements and some of the most important guidance circulars. Several thousand pages of policy are replaced by just 59 pages.

For the practitioner, however, that change may amount to less than it might seem. The real experience of using the PPGs and PPSs was that each document often contained only a few paragraphs of hard, usable policy. The rest was aspirational or 'motherhood and apple pie' material which might find its way into an introductory paragraph in closing submissions but provided little real assistance in coming to a decision.

The NPPF has frequently taken the operative parts of policy from each PPS and put them together in a single document. Much of the language will be familiar to practitioners. In many areas of policy, the initial reaction is that little has changed. Green belt policy remains little changed and retail policy is still based upon a sequential test and retail impact analysis. Moreover, there remains plenty of apple pie, particularly in the calls for high-quality design and in the exhortation to better cooperation between developers and local planning authorities.

Turning to the changes the NPPF makes, the 'golden thread' which 'should be seen as running through both [local] plan making and decision taking' is the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'. For the purposes of plan making, this presumption requires local authorities to set out a plan that meets the objectively assessed needs of their area unless the adverse impacts of meeting those needs would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. In other words, all the land needed for housing, employment uses, infrastructure and so on, must be planned for in each local plan. In deciding individual applications, this means approving proposals that accord with the development plan without delay (nothing new in that) but also, where the development plan is 'absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date', granting permission unless adverse impacts would 'significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits'.

But what does 'sustainable development' mean? The absence of any definition attracted considerable comment during the consultation period on the draft NPPF. The final version sets out two sources of enlightenment. The United Nations General Assembly defined sustainable development as 'meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'. The UK's own Sustainable Development Strategy sets out five guiding principles: 'Living within the planet's environmental limits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; promoting good governance; and using sound science responsibly.'

If you're none the wiser, you're not alone. The reality is that the so-called golden thread of the NPPF does nothing more than restate the fundamental balancing act that is at the heart of any planning decision. The framing of all the arguments in any planning case is likely to remain much the same '“ do the benefits of the proposal outweigh any environmental harm that is caused by the development?

Supporting growth?

Nevertheless, in some of the nitty-gritty of the policy text, there are real changes. There is an explicit acknowledgement of the need for the planning system to support economic growth, reflected in clear policy that 'significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system'. This is reflected in policy for both urban and rural areas and in policy for transport and support for a high-quality communications infrastructure.

In housing provision, local planning authorities are required to identify a rolling five-year supply of specific deliverable sites to meet their housing requirements together with an additional buffer of five per cent. In something of a victory for conservationists, this figure is a reduction from a general requirement of a buffer of 20 per cent which was proposed in the draft NPPF.

However, for those local planning authorities that have 'a record of persistent under delivery of housing' the buffer figure must be increased to 20 per cent to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply. There is no definition of 'persistent under delivery' and it is not difficult to foresee this will be a battleground at many future housing inquiries. So much is assured by the further provisions that housing land supply policies which cannot demonstrate the necessary five-year supply (presumably including the buffer) will be regarded as out of date. As such they will fall within the purview of the central presumption in favour of sustainable development, which requires that permission be granted unless there are clear and demonstrable adverse impacts so as to outweigh the presumption.

Furthermore, in contrast to the restrictive control on the density of housing development in earlier policy documents, the NPPF simply allows local planning authorities to set their own approach to reflect local circumstances. There will no doubt be huge pressure in many areas to allow the provision of larger, less land-efficient family homes.

So much, then, for the pro-growth agenda. However, changes made to the draft NPPF have clearly had the effect of watering down some of the push for development. While the body of policy for the natural environment appears to focus solely upon landscape and scenic beauty in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, to which great weight is required to be given, the core principles of the document require a recognition of 'the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside'. While this falls some way short of the previous explicit recognition of the value of protecting the countryside for its own sake (regardless of its designation), it nevertheless represents a usable piece of policy which can be employed by opponents of development in the countryside.

Equally, in contrast to the draft NPPF, there is an explicit requirement that the redevelopment of brownfield land should be encouraged, albeit without the stipulation that such development should be in preference to development on greenfield land. In response, no doubt to one of the greatest bugbears of middle England, the definition of previously developed land is rewritten explicitly to exclude private residential gardens and local planning authorities are encouraged to consider policies to limit 'garden grabbing'.

The protection of green belts remains, albeit with somewhat contradictory policy on the redefinition of green belt boundaries. On the face of it, the position is clear: 'Green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances.' However, when defining boundaries through the local plan process, local planning authorities are required to 'ensure consistency with the local plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development' and to 'not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open'. Given the requirement to ensure that local plans provide all the needs of their area, these stipulations probably foreshadow real pressure on green belt boundaries.

So, were Lord Wolfson and Simon Jenkins right to be so much in agreement? Not in my view. It is clear that the changes introduced from the draft NPPF do represent changes to appease the conservationists. Nevertheless, taken as a whole the final NPPF still seems to represent a firm push in the direction of development. While there is still plenty of scope for arguments against, one may anticipate rather more cries of pain from those opposing development than one might have expected listening to the debate on that balmy March evening.