uestiontime
Thismonth’s question:DoesthenewdraftNational PlanningPolicyF
prioritiesratherthanpresentingalong-termvision?
Conceived by amember of local government, a house builder, an RSPB representative and a planning consultant - the draftNational Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is unashamedly pro-growth. At the heart of the proposed process is a local authority's own strategic plan,which the government is saying should take account of housing and employment demand, alongside the need to protect the environment. If subsequent development proposals fitwithin this local plan, then they deserve to be passed quickly and easilywithout all the bureaucracywe have come to associatewith the British planning system. It’s clearly positive for
architects and developers that the framework captures an encouraging attitude to development, but has the right balance been struck between growth and sustainable development? Does its pro-growth tone respond to today’s economic priorities rather than presenting a long-term vision for planning? This debate has filled the
specialist andmainstream press for the last few months.Whilst green groups fear a presumption in favour of development willmark the beginning of the end for Britain’s countryside, others say the proposalswill simplymake our archaic planning system more efficient. Here our panel of experts share their views.
STEVEN BARKER CHAIRMAN, ROBINSON LOWFRANCIS (RLF)
The NPPF might well be described as ‘unashamedly pro- growth’, but it has to be to make any real impact in what has traditionally been one of the most heavily controlled and restrictive planning systems in the western world. On the face of it, the draft framework does look encouraging for development. But as with all consultations, because of the scrutiny from lobby groups, individualMPs and other advisory bodies, we will no doubt see a watered down product at the end of the day; less bold and therefore more open to question and attack when implemented. While the economic downturn
and focus on sustainability will inevitably lead to a push on fit- out and refurbishment of existing building stock over the next few years,major infrastructure projects are vital to the security of our future economy. Aside fromthe Olympic Games construction programme, we’ve seen little in the way of government led schemes since the recession hit. It is encouraging to see the coalition’s commitment to a £50billion boost in funding for future infrastructure programmes. However, this funding will need to bemet with amore robust planning framework that will enable vital transport links and other road building projects to move frompure speculation and debate, to action on the ground. It’s fair to say that the Localism
bill itself, introduced to Parliament in December last year and given Royal Assent on November 15 this year, has only tinkeredwith
existing planning law. The issue of NIMBYismstill hasn’t been tackled to any great degree and while its aim; ‘to shift power from central government back into the hands of individuals, communities and councils’ is of course somethingwe should welcome in a democracy, there’s a danger local objections to our national interestswill inhibit economic growth. Worryingly, cracks are already
beginning to show at a government level with the Liberal Democrats leading a growing rebellion against the coalition’s NPPF framework proposal, hoping to block the scheme that they are concerned will create a rural building boom. It remains to be seen if Nick Clegg will shift from his position, but it will be disappointing if the framework isn’t accepted in its current format. Of course, a balance of local needs and national strategic importance is necessary but so far, it seems to me that the government has been engaging and is open to flexibility on plans already in place. High Speed 2 is a good example here, with the coalition looking once again at plans to develop a lengthy tunnel under the Chilterns to alleviate fears among environmental campaigners and other local interest groups. Sadly, this country has a poor
record in producing a long-term vision for planning and development. Though there are pockets of excellence, such as the work of the London City Planning Officer Peter Rees, renowned for handling applications in a manner which is economically beneficial for the capital, many local authorities deliberate for too long and don’t
look at the wider picture, which ultimately leads to stagnation. Regional engagement through
the Localismbill should be encouraged, but the NPPF is vital to knit together the grassroots involvement that the government is intent on stimulating.
JOHN NORDON HEAD OF DESIGN INTELLIGENCE, WOODS BAGOT
The proposed framework aims to stimulate residential, commercial and infrastructure development in the UK and has been under consideration for some time, with debate rife on the extent to which it will conflict with the Conservative Party’s localism agenda. The reality is that consideration of both must be made in equal measure. Doing so will not only help to create economic growth outside of the capital, but by empowering local communities alongside a simplified planning process, it might create a forum in which everyone can engage. That said, with all
development on a macro and micro scale, there will always be winners and losers. Unfortunately, it is usually the loss, or impact, that gains the most exposure in the media, with particular focus on the planning procedures involved. Certainly when it comes to the larger, planned infrastructure projects, it is sometimes hard to see all the future benefits they will bring from the outset. A good example of this is the
construction of the Channel Tunnel linking London, Paris and Brussels via sea tunnel railway. During the 1980s, there were many objectors to the Euro
rameworkrespondtotoday’seconomic
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52