The draft of the National Planning Policy Framework is out for consultation. UK Regeneration will be responding formally in due course. Meanwhile here are our emerging views which, inevitably, raise some questions.

UKR always focuses on testing whether any new policy or programme will help or hinder regeneration. There is little sign so far that others are dealing with that aspect.

The NPPF is intended to make planning more accessible: if that means having to read fewer words then it probably succeeds. If it means being able to see clear and sharp criteria and outcomes then there is still some way to go.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development is the key theme throughout the whole of the draft NPPF. “Sustainable development” is a notoriously slippery phrase:  how will it relate to local communities and will it enable regeneration to be tailored to individual places as much as it should?

Even though local plans can set out what is deemed unacceptable, the presumption in favour of sustainable development makes it harder for councils to reject proposals and in the event of disputes the default answer to development will be “yes”. Will this lead to unchecked and damaging development? Paragraph 14 states that local planning authorities should:

“plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible”

It then goes on to say:

“those responsible for bringing forward development are expected to play their part by recognising and responding to the needs of communities”.

This is squarely in line with our arguments for  building a better Britain: tailoring regeneration to  the needs of individual communities should be intrinsic to the approach of those responsible for development. However it will be  harder to link this to particular actions in locations of deprivation in order to balance society and ensure regeneration will in fact “narrow the gap” between areas of strong growth and areas of weaker growth or even decline. Experience has been that it is only areas with substantial pressure for development where local authorities can improve outcomes by being prepared to say “no”.

The ambition in the  NPPF  to revive Britain’s house building industry is likely to be achieved by  allowing growth to happen anywhere as long as it is sustainable.  Paragraph 53 states

“the primary objective of development management is to foster the delivery of sustainable development, not to hinder or prevent development”.

Rather makes you wonder what  ‘planning’ is for.  Is it to be limited to tweaking rather than positive refocusing of market pressures. Will that focus become so narrow as to  hinder the creation of more balanced economic growth across the country? For example, the RTPI argues we need to change how we live in order to reduce carbon emissions. This can be done through well thought through regeneration:  mixed-use sustainable urbanism. The NPPF may prevent this such an approach or make it lesseffective as it promotes most development through the default ‘yes’ answer.

The National Trust and others argue that the NPPF is putting profits ahead of people, and that it poses a substantial threat to places valued by communities. Last year however there was the lowest house building since the war. Ministers rightly argue there is a need to deliver housing and more affordable housing to avoid huge social injustice.  Paragraph 107 states

“everyone should have the opportunity to live in a high quality, well designed homes, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live”.

The NPPF shows here its commitment to local communities and rebuilding a better Britain socially, but also economically at least through reviving Britain’s house building industry. The two objectives set out for housing in the NPPF are: to increase significantly  the supply of housing; and to deliver a wide choice of quality homes.  Paragraph 111 states local authorities should seek to

“widen opportunities for home ownership…and plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends”.

This continuing highlighting of home ownership as the tenure of choice may be at odds with  “current and future  trends”. We have made the case already for an increase in renting rather than home ownership? UK Regeneration believes regeneration should engage with people and tailor development to peoples’ wants and needs. It should help people get a life, and not a life of debt.  The framework does however highlight the need to identify the range of housing needed in particular locations which offers some opportunity to respond differently. Regeneration should understand the difference between places and tailor offer to local people, the geography and economics of the place, which may help towards equalising opportunity and building a better Britain.

The narrower protectionist concerns of the  National Trust are partly answered by paragraphs 130 and 131 which give  local communities the option  to identify special protection for green areas, and enabling them to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances. This all seems to favour localism and maybe even NIMBYISM until you read on the find that the Local Green Space Designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space. Does this not disguise the fact that there is still not a lot of control from communities despite the move from a top-down system to localism?

All of which raises the following questions which we see as central to understanding the implications for regeneration:

• How will slimmed down centralist policies really interact with local choice?
• Does the NPPF help create a balance of economic growth across the country?

We will be attempting to answer those over the next few days.

Print PDF