An all-party committee of MPs has demanded substantial changes to the proposed National Planning Policy Framework, but ministers evidently convinced them they intend to reinstate brownfield policy, despite clear indications to the contrary.
The Commons Communities and Local Government Committee’s long-awaited report is strongly critical of the Draft NPPF’s emphasis on economic development and its confused message over local plans.
It says the Draft continually conflates “sustainable development” with “sustainable economic growth” and needs to reflect the supremacy of local plans.
“As currently drafted the ‘default yes’ to development also carries the risk of the planning system being used to implement unsustainable development,” said committee chair Clive Betts.
“The Framework would introduce several ambiguities that are more likely to slow down the planning process. Gaps or contradictions in the document are likely to fuel a system of ‘planning decision by appeal’ instead of the local decision making that ministers advocate.”
But the MPs seem to have been mollified by ministers’ reassurances on areas like brownfield policy, the viability test, the balance between the three legs of sustainability and the definition of sustainable development.
“We welcome the Government’s openness to reinstating the familiar and well-understood term ‘brownfield’ in the NPPF, whilst recognising that more sophistication is needed in its definition to avoid unintended consequences,” says the report.
“There is a danger, nevertheless, that the removal of the brownfield target and the ‘brownfield-first’ policy—in conjunction with the introduction of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and changes to requirements for allocating land for housing will result over time in less importance being attached to the use of previously developed land first where possible. This principle should be strongly stated in the NPPF, and reiterated by requiring local authorities to set their own targets for the use of brownfield land.”
Their confidence may be premature, however. BB understands that DCLG has been continuing to use the largely meaningless phrase “land of lesser amenity value” as its preferred alternative to “previously developed land”.
It has also been taking the view there will be no second round of consultation on the NPPF despite changes and will begin implementing it on 1 April.
The MPs, however, did make fundamental criticisms of the Draft NPPF and cited substantial evidence to back their case.
They said:-
· the Draft’s brevity fails to secure clarity and is often inconsistent;
· its ambiguity could slow rather than accelerate planning;
· the “default yes” and injunction to approve development unless adverse effects “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh benefits should be removed;
· the viability test could allow developments to proceed without conditions requiring sustainability;
· the definition of “sustainable development” needs improvement;
· the NPPF should clearly reflect the supremacy of local plans but the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” is presently put on a par with them;
· local plans should be up-to-date and form planning’s “golden thread”;
· a transition period is needed.
