British Property Federation Welcomes National Trust Contribution To Planning Framework Debate

The British Property Federation has today welcomed calls from the National Trust, made as part of a 10-point list of demands, that the draft National Planning Policy Framework should adopt a more explicit requirement to develop brownfield land before greenfield sites.

However, the industry body is concerned that the National Trust does not seem to regard local businesses as having a legitimate voice in neighbourhood planning. The BPF also believes that neighbourhoods should not be allowed to completely disregard the local need for new homes.

Commenting on the National Trust’s “10 asks of the NPPF”, published today, BPF chief executive Liz Peace said: “It is welcome that the National Trust has made some positive suggestions for ways in which the draft NPPF can be improved, and there are certainly ideas here that the property industry can support.

“We strongly agree that the new planning system should promote sustainable development that balances the needs of people, environment and businesses; we agree that town centres should be supported and we agree that it is right, where practical, to develop brownfield land first.

“However, the Trusts’ insistence that businesses cannot be considered part of their communities is both inequitable and economically naive. Businesses should be just as entitled as residents to have a say in how their areas are developed and communities need jobs if they are not to wither and die – or become just dormitory settlements.

“We are also concerned at the suggestion that neighbourhoods should be able to thwart evidence based plans, developed by elected local authorities, to provide much-needed homes. This would exacerbate our housing shortage and deprive families and young people of somewhere to live, something that should be a basic human right.”

BPF comment: We agree. Indeed, the draft NPPF says that the planning system must pursue economic, environmental and social factors “in an integrated way, looking for solutions which deliver multiple goals”, and we would have no problem if this were to be rephrased to make the document clearer.

BPF comment: We agree that sustainable development should be robustly defined. This is what the draft NPPF, when taken as a whole, seeks to do and we would have no problem were the document to be rephrased to make this clearer. However, insisting that development must always have positive outcomes for the environment is likely to be impossible, since in some circumstances economic and housing need may have to take precedence. Homes and jobs must go somewhere, and there is not enough brownfield land on which to build everything we need.

3) Clause 130 of the Localism Bill, (Applications for planning permission: local finance considerations) should be removed. Financial payments should not be a material consideration in planning decisions.

4) The NPPF should see no diminution of protection for designated countryside and heritage; and planning should continue to protect the wider countryside ‘for its own sake’.

BPF comment: We entirely agree that there should be no diminution of the protection of designated countryside and heritage, and that development of the best agricultural land should be strongly resisted. The NPPF already states this in strong terms, but we would have no problem if these policies were to be re-phrased so as to make the document clearer.

BPF comment: In seeking to prioritise the use, where practical, of “land with the least environmental or amenity value” we believe that the NPPF has an implicit ‘brownfield first’ approach. However we believe that it would be helpful if this were made more explicit. We believe the National Trust is right not to have sought to reintroduce artificial targets for the use of brownfield land.

BPF comment: We believe the National Trust’s position comes from a mis-reading of the NPPF. On our interpretation, the draft seeks an additional 20 per cent simply to provide a buffer in achieving the five-year supply which may not always be able to utilise all of the sites that have been identified. This seems like prudent planning, not an increase in housing numbers by the back door.

7) The default ‘YES’, and requirement to grant permission where a local plan is out-of-date, indeterminate or silent, is irresponsible and must be removed.

BPF comment: This misreads the draft NPPF, which states that where there is no local plan an application must meet the test of “sustainable development” as defined in the NPPF. It could not therefore in normal circumstances be badly designed, be built in an inaccessible location, be built in the Green Belt or on other protected land, be built in an area of high flood risk, increase the risk of coastal damage, fail to minimise greenhouse gas emissions, fail to maximise the use of renewable energy, threaten valued landscapes, fail to minimise impacts on biodiversity, pose unacceptable risks from pollution, generate noise that would impact on health or quality of life, threaten areas of tranquillity, create unacceptable light pollution or threaten treasured heritage assets.

BPF comment: We welcome neighbourhood planning and believe it will, combined with the strong plan-led system at local authority level, give communities greater power than ever to shape their areas. However, allowing neighbourhoods to accept less development than has been agreed in the local plan is wrong. The local plan identifies real-life needs and so to disregard it would deprive people, particularly the young, of jobs and homes.

9) It is fundamentally wrong that neighbourhood plans should be led and funded by business. It should be a core principle of the reforms that any plans, whether at neighbourhood or local authority level, should be genuinely community led.

BPF comment: Businesses are an integral part of the communities in which they trade and it absolutely right that they get a fair say. The Localism Bill allows for the creation of business-led neighbourhood forums in predominately commercial areas, such as business parks or high streets. Any proposals put forward by business neighbourhoods will be voted on by residents and businesses in spate referendums. Where disagreements occur democratically-elected councillors will decide.

10) There should be a limited third party right of appeal, in circumstances where consent is granted for development that is inconsistent with the local plan. This should be guaranteed by the Localism Bill.