Presumption in the media

Since I blogged earlier this week, the National Planning Policy Framework has hit the headlines in quite a big way. The National Trust campaign has created quite a stir (“National Trust warns planning changes could tear up countryside” in the Guardian), with a “bewildered” reaction from business in the shape of the British Property Federation and the British Chambers of Commerce in the Telegraph here and a riposte from minister Bob Neill in the Guardian here, who claims that “preserving the character of our country’s landscape and checking unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas are key priorities” within the NPPF.

A lot of the media debate has been helpfully summarised on the Planning Resource website, including a long list of who said what on the day except, strangely, the RSPB. If you’re not a subscriber, see what our own Martin Harper said in the Telegraph or on the RSPB website, and for another point of view here’s the FT. My colleague Alice Hardiman appeared on the BBC News channel discussing the NPPF with minister Greg Clark, but unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be available on i-player. CPRE, Friends of the Earth and WWF-UK have been in on the action too.

Meanwhile, we’ve been asking our members and supporters to respond to the consultation as part of our Stepping Up for Nature campaign.  

So, are the environmental groups making a fuss about nothing? Is it all "hyperbole and scare tactics"?

As I said before, there are some welcome policies in the text – I helped draft them. To take a few examples, there are new policies on restoring habitats and protecting local ecological networks. There’s a tougher stance on peat extraction – no more planning permissions, even for extended sites. As Bob Neill points out, there’s a new designation to protect local green spaces.

But the big argument isn’t really over the environmental policies. It’s the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ and the strongly pro-growth tone of the policy. Damian Carrington in the Guardian has a good blog on this.

Don’t get me wrong, we need new homes and businesses, and they have to go somewhere. We need renewable energy too, and the approval rates in England are shockingly low.

If this development is going to be truly sustainable, it has to do (at least) two things: protect special places, and deliver environmental benefits too. The ‘presumption’ as currently worded undermines the environmental policies of the NPPF by making it harder for local authorities to refuse damaging development. There's also some unfortunate repetition of the presumption even within the environment chapter, which effectively waters down otherwise good policies.

That’s why those who are concerned about the environment and the future of planning are right to make a fuss.

In the coming weeks we’ll be talking to Government about specific changes we’d like to see to ensure the NPPF really does lives up to its ambition for the natural environment.