Encouraging Growth
New Government Planning Policies
by Anthony Coon, Chair of County Committee
The recent publication of Draft National Planning Policy Framework provoked a storm of objection, particularly from the National Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Their comments were described by the Minister as ‘a carefully choreographed smear campaign …’. The Framework is one twentieth of the length of the planning guidance which it would replace, and it is generally of admirable clarity. Also to be welcomed are several statements on design and the historic environment, such as -‘Our standards of design can be so much higher’. Planning policies should ‘… add to the overall quality of the area … respond to local character and reflect identity of local surroundings … be visually attractive’. - ‘Our historic environment – buildings, landscapes … can be better conserved if their spirit of place thrives rather than withers’.
On the protection of the natural environment, the Framework appears to stand firm against development in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and green belts (all of which are present in Northumberland). Furthermore, outside these nationally-designated areas the Framework appears to reverse current policy by allowing the re-introduction of locally designated landscape areas. The main criticism by the conservation movement is that the Framework puts an over-riding emphasis on the need for growth. The Framework claims that economic growth has been restricted by planning policies, and proposes that these restrictions should be eased. The Framework calls repeatedly for ‘a presumption in favour of sustainable development’. Several attempts are made to define sustainable development, but no test for determining the sustainability of a particular proposal is given. Local authorities should approve all individual proposals wherever possible; the default answer to development proposals should be ‘yes’. Hence, the Framework seems to discard the traditional balancing of economic, social and environmental factors in favour of a very woolly presumption – no less woolly for being repeated 20 times.
This is related to a second major concern: the proposed role of the development plan. At present, decisions should normally be ‘in accord with the plan’. In contrast, the Framework proposes that the plan should be merely the ‘starting point’ for decisions. More worryingly, where the plan is not ‘up to date’ (defined as being consistent with the Framework) applications should be decided in relation to the Framework, ‘including its presumption in favour of sustainable development’.The Framework also proposes that where the plan is ‘absent … or out of date’ permission should be granted. Everywhere has a plan, but in our area the only places with up to date plans (i.e., local development frameworks) are the National Park and the Walker and Benwell areas in Newcastle. Plans for the rest of Northumberland and Newcastle may take another 4 years. Hence, on the face of it, development will be waved through even if environmentally or socially harmful. Additional freedoms are to be given to developers, including the scrapping of some policies introduced by previous governments, including - restrictions on development in the countryside (apart from ‘isolated houses’), the requirement that offices should be located where possible in town centers and upper limits on car parking provision. Ironically, these policies were all originally introduced to foster sustainability. We can all agree that sustainability is a good thing, but when national policy is expressed in terms of sustainability, strange things can happen, especially when the object is to stimulate development.
City and County
November 2011
.jpg)
.jpg)