In the frame

The government has been working towards a new national planning policy framework. Stephen Ashworth analyses its potential impact and warns that other measures of potential benefit could be left behind.

Ministers have been making trite comparisons between the volume of planning guidance and circulars, and the length of the works of William Shakespeare. Seemingly planning guidance, if not the works of the Bard, needs to be shortened.

So, the first steps have been taken to prepare a new national planning policy framework (NPPF). Consultation ended on 28 February on an exercise asking everyone to set out what they think is important. The goal is that the NPPF will be a single, concise clear document that sets out the main objective of the planning system. The government says that it will not fall into the hole of opaque and tedious detail and prescriptive advice into which existing planning guidance had descended.

This note explores some concerns that a change at the heart of the planning necessarily provokes. It asks what it is that planning should do, and then asks how the NPPF will be given the strength to deliver that. It considers how the present guidance will be distilled into the new document, and explores what will happen to what is left behind. Finally it questions whether the emphasis on the NPPF disguises a lack of movement on issues that might be of more benefit in securing a modern, fair, effective and efficient planning process.

The prospect of new super-guidance necessarily raises a question about the core purpose of the planning system. Section 39 of the 2004 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act already requires planning decisions to be made with the "objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development" (which is a bit of a mouthful). Open Source Planning made it clear there would be a "legislative" presumption in favour of sustainable development.

This all rather begs the question about what does sustainable development mean? The plan is that this will be fleshed out in the NPPF. Many people have suggested that, in fact, it would be better to define sustainable development in the Localism Bill instead. There is a fear at ministerial level that this would become a strait jacket as understanding of sustainable development evolves over coming years.

This is a false worry. For planning purposes, at least, sustainable development is relatively easily defined. It is development that meets the economic and social needs of today, without prejudicing environmental resources or the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This will always be a balancing exercise and the weight on either side of the balance will change from time to time, and from location to location. However, the core principle that today's needs should be met if tomorrow's demands are not prejudiced could easily appear on the face of the Bill. That would then set a good context for new style development plans in the localist world since it will be clear that they would have to meet local housing, commercial and other economic needs unless environmental or other considerations dictate otherwise.

Some of the amendments to the Localism Bill have tried to push the definition further – noting that outside the planning context sustainable development carries with it notions of good governance, relying on science and social equity issues. There are all important issues but do not need to be part of the planning regime which should, principally, be aimed at controlling the development and use of land. However, given the importance of the definition and the potential divergence of views, it would be better for this to be debated fully in Parliament as part of the Localism Bill than to be the subject of a consultation exercise in the new form NPPF.

A second question relates to the future status of the NPPF. Will it simply be planning guidance of the same weight as PPSs in the past? Or, as amendments to the Localism Bill have suggested, should it have a statutory status?

It is interesting to note the model used in the Planning Act 2008 for guidance on the Community Infrastructure Levy. CIL charging authorities are required to have regard to guidance issue by the Secretary of State in developing their CIL proposals. In a localist world, it would probably be best to have a statutory requirement to take account of the NPPF. Part of the power of PPSs and Circulars in the past has been the threat of Inspectors and appeal. A planning authority which failed, without good reason, to adhere to national policy guidance could expect to be overturned at a local plan inquiry or on appeal. In a localist world, Inspectors have no power of direction and those proposing in development will, probably, be less willing to face the risk of appeal. A statutory foundation for the NPPF would, therefore, be preferable.

Thirdly there is a question about how we get from a multi-volume set of prescriptions down to the short user-friendly NPPF. If there is an editing process then there will, clearly, be existing policy and guidance that will not make it. What will happen to this?

In some cases, few tears should be shed. There has always been an excess of guidance on flooding, pollution control and caravans. There is a risk, however, that local planning authorities will start to include the "lost" policy, some of which is the refinement of years of experience and which is a real comfort blanket, within their development plans. It would be a tragedy if cutting national guidance led to the proliferation of varying policy in multiple plans. Where there is real utility and commonsense in guidance then there needs to be a mechanism for its preservation. However, the NPPF should make it clear that the presumption is that there should be little need for development plans to re-invent discarded policy.

The NPPF consultation process has made it clear there will be far less central diktat about so called "best practice" and that much of this will be jettisoned. There will be less future prescription about, for example, housing assessments. It seems unlikely that the national SHMAA and SHLAA documents will be reviewed. The Ministerial intent is that professional bodies and other interested parties should publish guidance.

There is some merit in letting a thousand flowers bloom, not least because some centralised methodologies have been painfully poor. However, the siren voices of self-interest will probably lead future guidance, and there will be a far greater need for the distribution and benchmarking of future best practice. The Department for Communities and Local Government should take an active role in this process. It will also mean that, on appeal, inspectors will have to examine methodologies far more closely than they have in the past. We cannot allow, for example, what recently happened in the Vannes case where a developer and a Council argued at inquiry about viability issues. The inspector decided that it was too difficult to decide who was right, and therefore largely ignored viability as a material consideration.

The beginning of the NPPF process highlights the relative lack of movement on other issues; probably issues of more importance to the delivery of an efficient planning system. Little of substance has followed from the Killian Pretty and Penfold Reviews. There is a need to bring forward the recommended measures to simplify the planning system. What about dealing with some of the regulatory burdens and costs inherent in the present system that are, largely, without value? The idea of application checklists was always wrong, and produced unnecessary levels of information to support planning applications. Design and access statements are, rarely, fit for purpose. Removing some of these regulatory burdens is, probably, just as important as changing the policy structure.

This all emphasises one point. Planning policy is towards the top of the hierarchy. The NPPF will be the icing on the planning cake, particularly if it is the home of sustainable development. Unfortunately, too much of the present cake is culturally soggy. Planning should be about decision-making; about balancing competing interests to achieve sustainable development. Going through an NPPF consultation and redesign process, lasting until at least the summer of 2012 (more than two years into the Parliament) is hardly a good example of swift decision making in planning.

Clearly we should not decry the benefits of an edited and condensed policy framework. It does, however, divert from other structural problems in the planning system. It also runs a risk that instead of the Complete Works of Shakespeare, we will have Shakespeare in an Hour. While temporarily funny, the shortened version loses most of the charm, and all of the purpose, of the original text.

Stephen Ashworth is a consultant at SNR Denton (www.snrdenton.com). He can be contacted on 020 7320 6134 or by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..