Planning appeals set to rise under government reforms, London councils warn
A lack of clarity in the government’s draft National Planning Policy Framework could lead to an increase in the number of planning decisions being subject to “costly and time-wasting” appeals, London Councils has warned.
In evidence to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee, the group also said having to pay for planning appeals “may threaten the ability of local authorities to properly resource other important planning functions”.
London Councils insisted that it shared the government’s aims to simplify the planning process, promote growth and increase new housing supply.
However, in addition to predicting a rise in appeals, it expressed concern that the proposals could see an increase in poor or inappropriate developments. The group also argued that the NPPF failed “to acknowledge the unique nature of planning in London”.
London Councils pointed to the absence of a lot of national planning guidance from the NPPF and suggested that this would lead to a planning policy vacuum at the local level.
“This is of concern because the presumption contained within the NPPF is to say ‘yes’ to planning applications, so there is a risk that inappropriate developments could be waved through until councils have been able to ensure their local plans are in place,” it warned.
London Councils Executive Member for Planning Cllr Chris Roberts said: “We all want to see a simpler planning system that helps deliver both the homes and economic growth London needs. But this must not come at the expense of our commitment to ensuring good-quality and appropriate developments.
“We are very concerned that the rush to the new NPPF could lead to poor and inappropriate developments and increase the risk of costly appeals – something that councils simply can’t afford and that will cause even greater delays to the planning process.”
Last week Leeds City Council criticised the government’s planning reforms, warning that they could lead to increased development on green field sites and the green belt “regardless of the wishes of local people”.
In a report the local authority also expressed concern at:
- A potential reduction in the ability of local planning authorities to control development
- A failure to recognise the regeneration challenges faced by major cities like Leeds
- A lack of clarity in how the presumption in favour of sustainable development is defined, “making it difficult to demonstrate that planning applications are unacceptable”
- A lack of clarity and consistency throughout the draft framework
- A risk that developers will prioritise more profitable green field sites over previously developed and brown field sites
Philip Hoult
