1 / 14

Brave New World  The NPPF

Brave New World  The NPPF. A Private Sector Perspective Tony Aspbury BA MRTPI Director, Antony Aspbury Associates Limited. Great Expectations.

kiayada-rios
Download Presentation

Brave New World  The NPPF

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Brave New World The NPPF A Private Sector PerspectiveTony Aspbury BA MRTPIDirector, Antony Aspbury Associates Limited

  2. Great Expectations But does it do what it says on the tin? Has the NPPF has promised more than it has actually delivered? Simplification and rationalisation of guidance is welcome, but... • Is there too much ambiguity? • Has the pruning gone too far? • How easy will be to reconcile the NPPF with the localism agenda? • How easy will it be to relate the NPPF to National Policy Statements? • Will local government be able to rise to the challenge of producing up-to-date development plans, especially in the current difficult economic climate? • Is the NPPF the panacea to all our past ills?

  3. Ambiguity – a Lawyers’ Paradise? • Ambiguity driven out of previous documents by practice, case law and experience has effectively been reintroduced. • Making things simpler is not simple. • Have we got brevity for brevity’s sake? • Much of the language is vague. Simplicity is often at the cost of precision. • Does it really help the man in the street? We have professionals for a reason.Simply shortening guidance does not make it easier, less ambiguous or simpler for communities or non-specialists to understand.

  4. Three Examples of Ambiguity: • The keynote presumption (‘The Golden Thread’) in favour of sustainable development • How and by whom is sustainable development to be defined in practice in a local context? • The inclusion of the five principles of the 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy do help withclarity, but sustainability is a very elastic concept. This will come down to subjective judgementsby decision-makers and eventually by the Courts. • The sustainable development section does not sit well with other parts of the Framework, e.g. viability. How are these tensions to be resolved? • Housing delivery • How and by whom is it going to be judged whether a council has a track record of “persistent underdelivery on housing” and if, therefore the 5-year supply + 20% rather than the 5-year supply plus 5% is engaged? Are councils really going to acknowledge that? • Transitional Provisions • What is a “limited degree of conflict with the Framework” (Annex 1, paragraph 214) and who is going to decide that?

  5. Brevity and Simplicityfor the Sake of it? • Condensing spatial planning guidance down to 12 Core Principles that “underpin bothplan-making and decision-taking” sounds attractive, but what do those principles meanin practice? The old ‘motherhood and apple pie’ problem. • Who resolves the obvious conflicts between those principles – the issue of weight? • If you can’t resolve will we be faced with cherry-picking by LPAs and by Developers? • The time issue: Different principles may attract different weight at different times • The overall issue of credibility and trust in the system • Will the outcome of this exercise in brevity in fact be more appeals and more JRs (of Plans and of development management decisions)?

  6. Policy/Guidance Deficit –Has the pruning gone too far? (1) Useful guidance material has disappeared e.g. Supplement to PPS1 – ‘Planning and Climate Change’, Annex B-D in PPS4 and Annex A to PPS7 • Are we to get further material form CLG (e.g. the Technical Guidancerelating to Flood Risk and Minerals) to compensate for this? • If so, when? ... OR

  7. Policy/Guidance Deficit –Has the pruning gone too far? (2) • Are LPAs expected to make good this national guidance deficit in Local Plans bearing in mind that up to now they have been told not to duplicate national policy in those plans? • If so: • What are the implications in terms of time and resources required to prepare plans? • Are we going to face the same old problem of consistency of policies between different plans/councils with each council ‘reinventing the wheel’? A distinctive local character to policies is all very well, but... • Are we going to generate more representations and discussions at examinations on these matters? • Are we going to see more legal challenges to plans as a result?

  8. Reconciling the NPPFwith the Localism Agenda • Can the NPPF achieve a more pro-active/pro-growth planning system without undermining local democratic control of development? • By applying national rather than local criteria to deciding planning applications in areas where no Local Plan has been adopted it should in theory incentivise plan-making, but…

  9. Reconciling the NPPF withNational Policy Statements • Large infrastructure projects (e.g. power stations, ports,airports) will not be covered by the NPPF but by NPS. • Local authorities and their communities cannot therefore interpret the NPPF as over-ruling or overcoming NPS. • Nor does the NPPF contain waste polices. The Waste Planning Policy Statement will remain in place until the National Waste management Plan is published.

  10. Rising to the Challenge –Up-to-date Development Plans (1) • Up-to-date Local Plans are going to be essential. This will put huge pressure on councils: • Massive reductions on staff levels in local government; • Budgetary restrictions • A very tight timescale: • The 12-month window provided in the NPPF won’t help authorities who aren’t already well on the way to producing new plans. • For those still wrestling with the complexities of establishing their own evidence base and setting their own housing requirements the application of the presumption in decision-taking may be the only game in town. • How do you fit in consultation into the short transitional period? • What about the duty to co-operate? • At same time there will be pressure for neighbourhood plans from some communities.

  11. Rising to the Challenge –Up-to-date Development Plans (2) • This pressure will require complex and potentially difficult development management decisions by LPAs if they are to avoid a blizzard of appeals in some areas - ironically, this may draw further resources away from plan-making. • Are we just going to see a scramble to adopt a Local Plan, ANY plan, to head off future appeals?

  12. Is it a panacea for all our past ills? • In seeking to strike a balance, will it end up pleasing nobody? Very Likely • Is it enough, or do we need other policy measures to address issues like housing need? Definitely • Is there a policy deficit that will need to be made up somewhere? Yes • Will it make decision-making easier and better? No – this is no magic bullet. The hard issues will remain the hard issues. • Will it really speed things up? No – because there are other reasons for delay • Will we back here again soon with further revisions or additions? Yes

  13. And finally… • We’re all in this together! • See you in Court

  14. Brave New World The NPPF Private Sector Perspective Tony Aspbury BA MRTPIDirector, Antony Aspbury Associates Limited

More Related