Planning for the Nation - England's attempt at a National Planning Policy Framework

The saying goes that if you are receiving criticism from all sides, then you must be doing at least something right.  This phrase came to mind when I was reviewing the initial reactions to the publication of the draft National Planning Policy Framework (found here).  To summarise, some commentators believe the draft NPPF is a pro-development charter that will permit unfettered development across the countryside.  Yet others continue to complain that planning will remain a drag on development and the NPPF does little to overcome the cumbersome and restrictive nature of English planning policy.  The truth, unsurprisingly, lies somewhere in the middle.

I have long been a supporter of a national planning strategy for England (and the wider UK).  At university I studied the experience of a national spatial strategy in the Netherlands and found the approach to be a positive one (see here).  England is geographically small enough to warrant a national strategy that can articulate the key infrastructure requirements and distill the key guiding principles for new development.  From experience, the existing Planning Policy Statements have ballooned in number and breadth, resulting in guidance that is so generic it becomes obsolete. 


Some of the key reactions to the recent draft include:

• Royal Town Planning Institute - concern that economic interests could override other (environmental, social etc) interests and unclear about the relationship between national policy and local policy.
• National Trust - warns that the deletion of the 'brownfield target' will result in urban sprawl similar to Los Angeles!
• British Chamber of Commerce - supportive of the approach as planning policy has historically been an obstacle to growth.
• Home Builders Federation - strongly welcomes the pro-growth emphasis towards house building but still wary that Local Authorities could use the ambiguity to delay development.
• Centre for Cities - dismayed at the lack of reference to cities and believes the NPPF lacks a 'big picture' approach to the economic role of cities.

The future of England if the National Trust are to be believed!

In my view, alot of the reaction to the draft NPPF has been alarmist (though this should not come as a surprise).  The framework is NOT a charter to concrete over the countryside as a number of safeguards are still in place to protect important habitats and avoid inappropriate development.  Groups such as the National Trust and CPRE state that previous planning policy has encouraged growth so why does it need to be drastically altered.  I would argue that previous planning policy may have encouraged economic growth but has not sufficiently supported housing growth. England still has an under-supply of housing stock which is not being sufficiently addressed. This should be the resounding focus of the framework.


Secondly, I agree with the Centre for Cities and RTPI that the draft NPPF lacks a true spatial approach to planning. Where is the recognition that England is a network of urban areas that support economic growth?  Many of the references in the framework are to rural areas and the countryside which shifts the emphasis away from development towards protectionism.  The final NPPF must articulate what kind of cities the country requires and whether growth will be focused in some areas and not others.  Currently the NPPF lacks a spatial dimension which would aid economic and housing growth and give weight to what truly is 'sustainable development'. 
 

Tightening One's Belt: The Future of the Green Belt

Planners.  You can't live with them and you can't live without them.  Rarely does the media present a news story expanding on the benefits of the UK planning system.  Often planning, and by association planners, receives criticism for being overly bureaucratic and frustrating economic development.  Indeed, the Prime Minister went as far as calling the profession an 'Enemy of Enterprise'.  Yet there are times when the detailed oversight and collaborative nature of planning combine to create a positive reaction in the general pubic.  The longstanding Green Belt policy is one such example.

The rolling hills of a cherished Arcadia

Britain has an undoubted historic connection to the rolling green hills of Albion.  The countryside presents a purer version of the nation in contrast to the supposed dirt and grime of the growing cities.  This imagination may have been formed in the Industrial Revolution but still holds sway today and explains the popularity of Green Belt policy. Put simply, this policy safeguards rural land around cities from inappropriate development and contains urban sprawl.

It is no surprise therefore that a proposed relaxation of Green Belt policy has caused outrage among the chattering classes.  Geoffrey Lean, writing in the Daily Telegraph, was one who suddenly shone a light on the unrecognised benefits of planning's supposed 'boring' work in protecting quality of life (see here).  He was frustrated not just by the proposed concreting over of the countryside, but also by the way the Tories have conducted a volte face on the issue of planning.  In opposition the Tories published a Green Paper entitled Open Source Planning which extolled the benefits of Localism.  However, Lean is angered by how the Tories have moved from a policy of Localism in opposition (which he implies would protect the Green Belt) to greater central control since in Government.

This move to greater central control should not come as a surprise.  Firstly, many political parties preach about greater local powers when in opposition and then quickly forget it when in power.  Once in Government the Tories, like many others before them, realise they must keep wayward local governments in line and this requires a degree of central control.  Secondly, economic growth is stalled in Britain.  Despite the efforts of Eric Pickles MP the concept of Localism, like the Big Society, has floundered and has not convinced the Treasury it can deliver the required growth.  This explains why central government is now issuing policy regarding a relaxation of development in the Green Belt to stimulate much needed growth.

Containing the beast

I will be interested to see how the National Planning Policy Framework and presumption in favour of sustainable development progresses and the impact on the much cherished Green Belt protection.  I have always thought that Green Belt policy is too rigid and fails to take account of the dynamic nature of rural areas.  The countryside should be a diverse area that includes small industry and affordable housing.  Unfortunately the Green Belt has a mythical status that local planners and politicians can easily use to prevent required development.  The debate needs to move beyond vague conceptions of the countryside and understand that the country requires more housing.  This doesn't mean that the countryside has to be concreted over.  A more sophisticated debate would look to places such as Copehagen where the Green Belt forms a more wedge-like design (dubbed the 'Finger Plan').  This allows transport corridors to develop out from the city and higher density housing to complement the urban form.  


While it is good to see planning praised for once, let us not fall back on a dated assumption of what the Green Belt is and the purpose it fills.