March 2016
Less than four years after the Government adopted the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – the central set of rules for how the planning system works in England – Ministers are proposing to make changes to it.
At the same time, a set of major reforms to the planning system are being made through the Housing and Planning Bill – which is currently undergoing amendment proposals in the House of Lords, and a consultation setting out the detail that sits under the Bill was launched on 18 February.
If that wasn’t enough, a Government review of rural planning rules has also been launched, which closes in April. This blog explores what the proposals could mean for the places we care for, for places of natural beauty and historic interest, and for the wider countryside. We are requesting that Government make a small change to their reforms to free up urban regeneration, which could – perhaps unintentionally – undermine National Trust conservation covenants.
We’re worried that this latest round of planning reforms could promote further destabilising and unnecessary change, and weaken rather than strengthen the capacity of local authorities to achieve plan-led, sustainable development. This is regrettable. We’ve made it clear to the Government that we think it would be sensible, after the major reform of the NPPF and Localism Bill, to let changes bed down.
We support the Government’s aim of delivering more houses – and early signs are that the planning system is doing its bit to achieve this. Since the adoption of the NPPF the number of planning permissions granted has increased significantly, from 129,000 in 2010/11 to 212,000 in 2014/15.
The proposals to change the NPPF that most concern us are: changes to encourage small site development; placing a new housing ‘delivery test’ on local authorities; and freeing up development on brownfield sites and small sites in the Green Belt to deliver starter homes.
Some of the measures in the Housing and Planning Bill also concern us. We are asking Ministers for assurances on several aspects of the Bill, including that proposals to introduce a planning ‘permission in principle’ will not undermine protections for heritage and the environment, and the plan-led system more widely.
Changes made in the House of Commons mean the Bill will now also allow for planning applications to be processed by alternative providers to local authority planning officers. Allowing private sector planning consultants to process planning applications could compromise the neutrality of the local planning process. We are concerned it could undermine the principle enshrined in the NPPF that planning judgements should seek economic, social and environmental gains ‘jointly and simultaneously’, risks losing the expertise and understanding of the community built up by local planning officers, and could further weaken the financial sustainability and ability of planning authorities to develop local plans if the income from fees is lost.
Adam Royle
Member of the Land Use Planning Group
Senior External Affairs Adviser
National Trust
Find the National Trust team on Twitter at @NTExtAffairs
Aspects of this blog were originally published on The National Trust's website
The opinions expressed in this blog are the author’s and not necessarily those of the wider Link membership
Latest Blog Posts