In the run up to Christmas, we can expect quite a few announcements and reports published.  Today, MPs on the Communities and Local Government Select Committee released their report on the Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework.

It’s a good report, which makes some positive recommendations to strengthen the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  Many of you will remember that the NPPF had a very difficult birth (see here for example) but has now been in operation for two and a half years, and the Committee took evidence from a wide range of people – from developers to local communities and groups such as the RSPB – before reaching its conclusions.

MPs heard a lot from local people concerned about speculative housing development on their doorstep, and concluded that “Communities need greater protection against unsustainable development”. They recommend a number of steps to make sure that the planning system delivers the what was promised in the NPPF, ensuring that the same weight is given to the environmental and social as to the economic dimension; that permission is only given to development if accompanied by the infrastructure necessary to support it; and that the planning system places due emphasis on the natural environment.

This sounds like sensible stuff and it's refreshing to see a select committee standing up for sustainable development and the natural environment.

It’s particularly pertinent in the case of Lodge Hill, where a housing development threatens to destroy much of a Site of Special Scientific Interest.  It's pretty clear that allowing development there would seriously undermine the NPPF’s protection of the natural environment. We are still waiting to hear if the minister will call-in the application for a public inquiry. We don’t believe that Medway Council has applied the NPPF and we hope that DCLG’s recent letter to Medway Council to request their views will help explain how they came to their decision despite objections from Natural England and RSPB among others. My only feeling is that rather than a challenge to the NPPF, calling in Lodge Hill would an opportunity to respect and uphold this important policy.

Although much of the Committee’s report focuses on housing, it’s worth quoting paragraph 26 on biodiversity and the natural environment in full. The text in bold is the Committee’s recommendation:

“The NPPF includes a section focused on conserving and enhancing the natural environment, which sets out how the planning system should “contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment” .This was another area on which questions were raised that the policy in the NPPF was not being met in practice. Simon Marsh, Head of Planning Policy at the RSPB, told us that the policies within the NPPF were “actually very positive towards the environment”. He expressed concern, however, that the policies were not necessarily being applied by all local authorities in their local plans. The RSPB had conducted an analysis of a small sample of local plans and had found that overall they did “not set out coherent, strategic and spatial visions for biodiversity”. Mr Marsh considered that a number of councils were “missing that opportunity to set out a more positive vision of what they might be doing for the environment in their area”. The RSPB suggested that a lack of ecological expertise within local authorities might be part of the problem.

 

The NPPF provisions on the natural environment have an important role to play in ensuring sustainable development is delivered. Local authorities are missing an opportunity if they do not set out a clear vision for the biodiversity of their area. Moreover, if they do not set out clear policies in respect of the environmental aspects of sustainable development, it may be harder to resist the economic aspects taking a more dominant role. We strongly encourage all local authorities to make the natural environment an important theme in their local plans. To do so, smaller authorities may need to tap into ecological skills available elsewhere, be it in other local authorities or the Planning Advisory Service.

 

We have, through Simon's team, fact just commissioned some further research to build on that small sample of local plans, and I hope we will be able to share the results next spring.  We need good evidence based on practical experience to check whether the NPPF continues to operate well.  Of course, in an ideal world, this would be a routine part of government business as this would enable policy to be adapted based on evidence.

 

So, a good report, well delivered by the MPs and I hope that ministers now act on it.

 

Sinclair Meadows - a carbon negative community - image courtesy of Four Housing.

  • Good to hear that there are some sensible MPs around and let's hope that there are a few in Government that can respond to this Report on the workings of the NPPF and the changes/amendments it recommends. I think you are quite right Martin when you say that it can be the Local Authorities and their often total lack of environmental/wildlife knowledge and expertise, which is a big concern.

    Considerering this overall, one can perhaps see how some of the recomendations that the RSPB are proposing in the Nature and Wellbeing Act and which the RSPB is asking all political parties to enact in the next Parliament, might dove tail with this Report. (Assuming the Government acts upon it.) Additionally one might also see how an Office of Environmental Responsibilty might have an extended remit to monitor Local Authorities which lack of any environmental skills

  • Correct - public land of high environmental value should not be traded away so easily. MoD have not listened to our concerns.

  • Martin - what has struck me all along with Lodge Hill is that surely this is an ex MOD site ? And surely that means it is the Government who is selling it for development ? Which surely means it is the SoS for Defence who is more directly responsible for the fate of the Nightingales, not just the planning system - and the PM could simply say 'stop' at any time ?  Worth thinking about as this will conclude close to an election which will be held at the time of year hunting migrant birds in the Med could well be in the news - not perhaps the sort of link the Conservatives will want to advertise their conservation credentials.