1. The Society’s charitable objects include the promotion of high standards of planning and architecture in its area, and the preservation, protection etc. of its heritage in the widest sense – historic, architectural, scenic and natural. It monitors planning applications, makes representations to the Local Planning Authority on them, and has participated in discussions on local plans etc. Its committee includes persons who have served as Councillors on the Planning Committees of Local Planning Authorities, or who are architects or other professionals with practical experience in the planning field.
2. We have seen drafts of the response to this consultation made by CIVIC VOICE, which we fully support. We would like to add to them the following additional comments.
3. We appreciate that the term-of-art “sustainable development” is defined in para 12 of the Draft Framework, as amplified by the previous paras 9 – 11. We have no argument with the use of such a definition, but it is clear that the wording selected for the term-of-art itself, “sustainable development”, is controversial and has caused much anxiety (e.g. the comments from Simon Jenkins of the National Trust). We suggest this wording could be changed to “acceptable development” or “appropriate development”. This suggestion is entirely cosmetic, but might make it easier to convince people of the Framework’s merits: the word “sustainable” is widely mistrusted or rejected as meaningless.
4. However we will conform to the usage of “sustainable development” in this paper, and examine some of the detailed policies set out in the Framework. Like CIVIC VOICE, we accept that much in the draft NPPF is admirable. We welcome in particular the emphasis on drawing up Local Plans and neighbourhood planning (paras 62 and 20-26) supported by a strong emphasis on consultation. The Framework does not explicitly mention the Localism Bill but it is a sine qua non that the Bill is enacted first and its provisions are enforced.
5. Our area is part of “everyday England” – that is, urban and rural places which are not granted specific protection as Green Belt, National Parks, AONBs, Heritage Coast etc. Leominster is a market town with an unusually high proportion of listed buildings. The surrounding countryside is scenic (though not of National Park quality), and the whole has potential for attracting tourism. This is all vulnerable to bad planning policies, including unrestrained development, urban sprawl etc.
6. Our LPA, Herefordshire Council, is currently revising its Local Plan, and has started a form of consultation, with a timetable that appears to be intended to be completed before the Framework is formally introduced. It seems doubtful whether this Plan will conform fully with the provisions set out in the Framework. Will it be the case that all Plans in place before the Framework takes effect will have to be subject to the same examination of an independent examiner as set out in para 48 for Plans drawn up thereafter? We think this should be the case.
7. Considerable emphasis is placed throughout the Framework on the presumption in favour of sustainable development (e.g. paras 14, 15, 20, 26, 53, 55, 63, 74 and 110). The full force of this is unbalanced and excessive, and could prove disastrous to areas of “everyday England” like ours. We consider the presumption should be removed.
8. In particular, we are concerned that there is an apparent ambiguity in the juxtaposition of paras 62 and 63 under the sub-heading “Determining applications”. Para 62 says that the planning system “is plan-led”: excellent. Para 63 says that the presumption should apply in determining applications: it is not clear whether this applies to all applications or only those where there is no Local Plan in place.
→ If there is no Local Plan in place, it is clear that the Government intends the presumption to apply (paras 26 and 63).
→ If there is a Local Plan in place and the application conforms to it, then no one can expect the LPA to refuse it.
→ But what is the position if there is a Local Plan in place, and the application is contrary to it? Does the presumption still apply, or does it not? Para 74 would appear to impose a strong obligation on the LPA to apply the presumption.
There is an implication hinted at in supporting documents that the presumption will not apply – that the LPA can refuse permission on the ground that it does not conform with the Local Plan. That would be excellent. But, so far as we can see, nowhere is that set out in the Framework. It must be: clarity on this point is vital.
→ If properly drawn-up Local Plans can be overthrown widely to accommodate unplanned development, then the protection for “everyday England” would be almost worthless.
9. We can see no reference in the Framework to the current appeal process which applies after an application has been refused. Since, so we understand, about 30% of appeals are allowed, this is a matter of some importance. Presumably, the process of appeals remains in force because it is set up under legislation etc. which is not cancelled by the Framework. If that is the case, we would like to see an express provision that the inspectorate will apply the general policies set out in the Framework, unless there are special reasons for them to do otherwise.
10. We are concerned about delays which could arise before Local Plans have been drawn up and approved under para 48, during which the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply (see our paragraphs 6 and 8 above, and this comment applies also where no Local Plans are in place before the Framework comes into force). Such delays could last for a long time, perhaps a matter of years. During this time the full rigour of the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply. Indeed, there may well be a tendency for developers to rush in with applications during that period in order to get permission for less desirable projects before Local Plans are approved. Has the Government any plans to mitigate the ill effects of this situation?
11. The Society would like to see the retention of the important principle in favour of a preference towards granting planning permission first on brownfield land and strongly recommends an amendment along these lines.
12. Paras 176-191 deal with the Historic environment, and seem excellent so far they go. But they do not seem to cover the principles set out in the old PPG 16, whereby the developer pays for archaeological investigation of significant sites where development is otherwise desirable. Stimulated by this provision, there has been a considerable increase in archaeological activity since 1990, contributing significantly to knowledge of our past. It would be a great loss if this principle is not retained, and incidentally throw out of work a large number of expert archaeologists.
13. Conclusion: while there is much in the Framework which is admirable, our support for it must be conditional on the clarification and incorporation of the points raised in our paragraphs 6, 8, 10 and 11 above.
15.10.2011