A blog about planning, planning law and planning policy

Disclaimer

The information on this blog is not intended to be advice, legal or otherwise. You should not rely on it and I do not accept liability in connection with it. If you do have a planning law question on which you would like advice, seek legal advice from a suitably qualified solicitor. Specific advice should be sought for specific problems.

Sign up for The David Brock Blog

A monthly email containing links to recent posts
* = required field

powered by MailChimp!

NPPF – a need for reasoned debate.

Twenty-three former presidents of the RTPI have written to the Telegraph today calling for reasoned debate on the draft NPPF and offering the resources of the RTPI to mediate what they call the openly-hostile debate. That is very helpful.

The National Trust can perhaps claim to have got the ball rolling with its petition and statements on its website. “Planning”’s website reports that Greg Clark called their claims that “the Government’s planning reforms could lead to unchecked and damaging development in the undesignated countryside on a scale not seen since the 1930s are “risible”. The BPF and the chief executives of 16 property companies, including David Camp of Stanhope, Sir Stuart Lipton of Chelsfield Partners and Francis Salway of Land Securities have written to the Prime Minister to support the reforms.

CPRE chief executive Sean Spiers is reported by Planning to say that “Growth should not come at the expense of the environment”. The National Trust’s website also says “For decades our planning system has protected much loved places from harmful development. The Government’s reforms turn this on its head, using it as a tool primarily to promote economic growth instead.” No doubt there is more in other newspapers and blogs (in fact I have just seen that the Telegraph has a comment piece today which criticises the Government on this and claims there are strict curbs in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 on development in the countryside – just what curbs are those?, I know of no such curbs in that Act, nor any TCPA since).

In my view it is time to remind ourselves why we have a planning system. It began in 1947 and was most definitely a tool to promote economic development. Just read the Uthwatt Report which invented the system to see that.

Secondly it has always been underpinned by a presumption in favour of development, a presumption which can be traced back to a 1923 Circular under the pre-war forerunner of the current system. That presumption was reiterated in 1949 as the 1947 system came into effect and has been there all along, with slightly different wording from time to time. In the 1980s it was a presumption in favour of development unless it would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. And we also had the requirement that refusals had to be accompanied by sound and clear cut reasons.

In 1991 the Conservative Government passed the Planning and Compensation Act which contained s.54A, stating that planning decisions had to be taken in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Informally, officials said they did not think this made any difference to the presumption. And now we have a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Which means development which meets the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (see the Brundtland report). The so called “new presumption” is not new at all. It is the way the system operates and always has.

Thirdly the economic crisis affecting the West is a material consideration of immense importance. Government policy is a major consideration as well, and the Government wants to get the economy moving. Overseas investors constantly list our planning system as a major obstacle to their investment decisions. It is a legitimate aim of the planning system to help economic development, particularly in times of difficulty and crisis.

Fourthly, growth and the environment will always be in tension. There is always going to be some effect on the environment – our mere existence as human beings affects the environment, let alone development – and it cannot be right to say that “Growth should not come at the expense of the environment”. There is a trade off and the question is how much is acceptable at a given time.

Fifthly, the presumption recognises that land owners own their land and that the planning system takes away their right to do with it as they please. Now I am not arguing for a free for all – there are concepts of good neighbourliness and also imperatives of environmental protection introduced by European and international law which we must observe. But perhaps if individuals could see that they will be getting more ability to do that extension they have always wanted – provided it fits the sustainable development test, or the interests of acknowledged importance test – they would be keener on the presumption. After all, one of the frequent beefs about the system is that big developers can get things through but individuals are thwarted by planning officers and committees. The planning system nationalised development rights in 1947 without compensation, but against the background of the presumption. Governments should honour that. It is an important backdrop to the operation of the system which ministers seem to have forgotten (except Bob Neill who did refer to it at the Town and Country Planning Association earlier this year).

I am going to stop there for now. Just one last comment. The consultation was issued at the end of July. I have monitored and responded to many over the years, usually through my membership of the Law Society’s Planning and Environmental Law Committee. We have noticed a tendency to issue consultations just when people go on holiday. If that was deliberate on this occasion it seems to have backfired spectacularly; newspapers, ever short of news in the “silly season” have been handed an issue on a plate, and notwithstanding riots and the Euro crisis have easily found plenty of space for it.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>