Readers of this blog may recall that last year I was part of a small group of planning practitioners that drafted a version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Government’s draft version of the NPPF proved extremely controversial, although I’m glad to say the eventual outcome was much more positive.
Over the last few months I’ve been taking part in a similar group, although hopefully with a less contentious result. The NPPF streamlined all (well, almost all) national planning policy into a single document of around 50 pages. Behind the policy, however, lies an even greater mountain of assorted ‘guidance’ published by the Department of Communities and Local Government over the years. The new planning minister Nick Boles commissioned Lord Matthew Taylor of Goss Moor to undertake a review of all this planning practice guidance, with the aim of undertaking similar streamlining and making it much more useable and accessible.
Contrary to today's Daily Telegraph, we haven't 'torn up' the 'planning rule book'. In fact the rules (which is a mixture of law, regulation, and policy in the NPPF) were strictly off-limits.
Our report is published today for consultation. Comments are due by 15 February 2013.
The review group included myself, Trudi Elliott from the Royal Town Planning Institute, Andrew Whitaker from the Home Builders’ Federation and Councillor Mike Jones from the Local Government Association, ably assisted by Keith Holland from the Planning Inspectorate and a small team of officials from DCLG.
It felt at times like clearing out the cupboards, uncovering documents published decades ago but never withdrawn. Even more modern material has been rendered out-of-date by recent changes to the planning system. More than 200 documents and 7,000 pages later, we have presented a report to the minister which recommends what he can get rid of now, what he needs to update and what he needs to write new guidance for.
The key recommendation, though, is that there should be a new ‘guidance’ website where all official government planning practice guidance is gathered in one place, and kept up to date. The Government is reluctant to endorse guidance by others, but we recommend that the website should signpost other organisations (which could be other parts of government, like Natural England) where further advice is available, rather than endorsing specific documents.
All the members of the review group were there in a personal capacity, but I was there with the full backing of the RSPB to be a voice for nature. We are very pleased with the final report, particularly as it highlights a number of environmental areas as priority for review. These include guidance on biodiversity, climate change, renewable energy, flooding and environmental impact assessment (although see my earlier post on this!). Remember, this is not about changing policy on these issues, but updating the technical guidance that lies behind the policy and making sure it supports effective implementation.
In a sense, this has been the easy part. The real challenge will be to agree the content of the new and revised material – but that’s for 2013.