One of the government's stated aims for CLG has always been to simplify the planning system. Ministers decry the huge volume of planning guidance, which runs to thousands of pages and represents to them so much red tape. This is to be replaced by a single National Planning Policy Framework, which will set out simply how the government wants planning to work. Everything else will be delegated to local and/or neighbourhood level, regions having been abolished. Rationalising reams of guidance on a large number of specific issues (for example, transport, flood risk, and telecommunications) into a single, simple document was never going to be an easy task. This explains why the national framework has been repeatedly delayed.
Now we finally have it, and it runs to a mere fifty-three pages plus glossary. This is certainly much more convenient than all that it replaces, and students of planning law will be delighted to find their reading lists reduced in such a radical manner. The framework provides a neat summary of the issues that 21st century planning has to grapple with. (With the exception of gypsies and travellers, who aren't mentioned at all. Presumably acknowledging them was considered too contentious, and their needs were assumed to be tacitly included in planning for housing requirements.) For the most part, existing guidance is rationalised, for example the flood risk and retail policies. However, there are also some very significant changes. In short, NIMBYs beware, you're in for a scare.
The primary role of the planning system is now explicitly to deliver sustainable development, defined as meeting economic, social, and environmental needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The long-promised 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' is set out, and rather heavy-handedly the following is added, 'significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system'. It could be argued that this turns the role of the planning system from plan-making to getting out of the way.
The government harps on about increasing people's control of planning, but this presumption will do the opposite. Councillors would find it very difficult to refuse planning applications, and even harder to win appeals against refusals. When your local plan is outdated, refusing an application would only be possible if 'the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole'. More significantly, even if an up-to-date plan is in place, the presumption in favour of sustainable development still applies and must be taken into account. Neighbourhood plans will not be able to block development, only to propose more of it. The whole system is being reweighted in favour of planning applicants.
Local plans will also need to be based on objectively assessed needs, requiring 'proportionate' and integrated evidence on housing, economic development, infrastructure, and the environment. It is significant that the last goverment's housing targets were below the assessed housing need. Also, the housing section of the framework flatly states that, 'The Government's key housing objective is to increase significantly the delivery of new homes.' This is reinforced by the further statement that, 'Local Plans should be prepared on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.' Ergo, more housing development, especially in places with poor affordability.
I don't want to give the idea that the new planning world will be a complete free-for-all. Local plans will still be able to specify restrictions on how land is used or whether it is developed, as long as there is evidence to support this. How much of a free-for-all actually ensues will depend on how these two adjacent clauses are balanced in practise:
'The planning system is plan-led. Therefore Local Plans, incorporating neighbourhood plans where relevant, are the starting point for the determination of any planning application.
'In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.'
That is where planning lawyers will be spending many billable hours in years to come.
Meanwhile, allocations of land in Local Plans will need to be viable and deliverable, whereas currently they merely have to be deliverable. I think this terminology change means that local planning authorities will have a harder time getting financial contributions from developers - when those contributions are subject to viability. To get technical for a moment, the Community Infrastructure Levy (when implemented) is like a tax on development and developers cannot negotiate it down if their development seems less profitable. However, the proportion of affordable housing in a housing development is subject to viability, and where the line is drawn depends on case law.
So planners will now have to determine from the outset whether sites 'provide acceptable returns to a willing land owner and willing developer', taking into account contributions to infrastructure and affordable housing. This is incredibly difficult and would I suspect make it easier for developers to argue down levels of affordable housing. Or perhaps not, as plans must also be based on evidenced need, and there is plenty of evidence that affordable housing is needed around the country. (As an aside, case law suggests that 'acceptable returns' for a developer are currently around 20% profit on costs. Supposedly they can only get bank loans if such high returns can be demonstrated.)
The framework would seem to make it much more difficult for local planning authorities to refuse planning permission on the basis of factors like poor design, impact on traffic, or inappropriateness of siting. However, lest the shires start to panic, 'The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts.' The draft framework assumes that new buildings in the green belt are 'inappropriate' and should not be allowed except under 'very special circumstances'. Interestingly, such circumstances include development approved by micro-referendum under a Community Right to Build Order, which would be permitted as long as it preserved the qualities of the green belt.
Personally, I am very interested in the effect that the new planning context will have on the delivery of renewable energy. Broadly I think the framework could improve the situation, although this is by no means certain as there are several policies that would interact. Firstly:
'When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources.'
Depending on how 'very special' case law deems the global threat of climate change to be, this could be used to prevent renewables on the green belt. Which, lest we forget, covers 13% of England. However, elsewhere in the framework it is stated that:
'local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low-carbon sources,' and
'When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development and:
• not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low-carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and
• approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once opportunity areas for renewable and low-carbon energy have been mapped in plans, local planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying opportunity areas.'
Notably, the government has dampened the pro-renewables language in the earlier independent practitioners draft of the framework (that they comissioned), which stated that:
'When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should [...] not presume against energy development outside mapped areas nor require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low-carbon energy or question the energy justification for why a proposal for renewable and low-carbon energy must be sited in a particular location.'
I think the effective difference is that local planning authorities are being given the chance to plan pro-actively for renewables, but also potentially constrain where they are developed. There is thus the possibility that very limited space could be designated by lots of local planning authorities, adding up to a woefully insufficient national renewable energy supply. That said, until local planning authorities actually set out such pro-active policies, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply. Moreover, it would seem to still be a strong consideration once plans are in place, likely resulting in a high rate of success at appeal.
I do feel sorry for planners. They must be under enormous pressure to get their local plans in place and up to date as soon as possible, to forestall all kinds of unexpected planning applications, whilst also being required to involve as much of the community as possible, even if the community are reluctant and the provisions of the Localism Bill still in flux. As plans must be needs-based, a lot of evidence about housing, economic development, and all kinds of infrastructure is urgently needed. Moreover, there's the Community Infrastructure Levy to implement if the local planning authority has any hope of collecting meaningful contributions to infrastructure from development over the next few years. Also forthcoming zero carbon homes requirements, which will force local planning authorities to decide what to do about allowable solutions (a form of carbon offset). Meanwhile, planning budgets are being slashed and posts lost, planners are branded obstructive bureacrats, and local councillors tend to take the government's localism rhetoric at face value. Tough times for the planning profession.
But how can you as a citizen make the National Planning Framework work for you? If I had money to invest, this is what I would do. First, dig through DECC's renewable energy data to find rural local planning authorities with a lot of wind energy potential. Then I'd check which have out-of-date local plans, likely ending up with quite a substantial list. Within those areas, I'd look for agricultural land suitable for wind farms (taking into account buffer zones and other factors set out in the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure), rent or buy it, then put in planning applications for wind farms. Even if the local planning authority found some pretext on which to refuse the applications, they should be easily won on appeal, thanks to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
This strategy should yield good financial returns, whilst increasing the UK's renewable energy supply, greatly annoying climate change deniers, and highlighting the vast chasm of understanding between national and local Conservative politicians. The attempts of local councillors to describe wind turbines as economically, socially, and environmentally unsustainable would be entertaining to witness, I suspect. (If you'd like a sneak preview, read this recent appeal decision. Hard as it is for me to say, in this rare instance I agree with Eric Pickles.)
Overall, my opinion of the draft Planning Policy Framework is inconclusive. It could allow rampant poor-quality development and general mayhem, but won't necessarily. A lot depends on the interpretation of the word 'sustainable'. Planning guidance did badly need simplification, and although I don't agree with every facet, this framework is a better start than I was expecting. As ever, the devil will be in the detail. A word of advice, though. If you are genuinely averse to new development and would like avoid exposure to it, move deep into the greenbelt because this new vision of the planning system looks not unlike the Thatcher model of the 1980s. Except, hopefully, with more wind farms.
