The Conservative Party Conference this week has provided an ideal forum for the debate over the draft National Planning Policy Framework to ratchet up a few notches. Ahead of the closing date for consultation on 17th October the protagonists in the debate all took the opportunity to flex their muscles.
The National Trust and CPRE continue to urge caution and call for a balanced planning system that does not push development for economic purposes regardless of the consequences. The NFU has urged the government to "stick to its guns" and the CLA has pressed the government "not to waiver" warning that the countryside will "grind to a halt for another 20 years" if it "succumbs to populist pressure".
The Daily Telegraph has carried on being hysterical. Is it just me or have they behaved more like a campaigning tabloid than a serious newspaper or commentator over this issue?
It is tempting to characterise this debate as being between the preservationists in one corner and the developers in the other. That is certainly what much of the media seems to have done, and inevitably, it has not helped to create the right conditions for the necessary considered debate.
I confess that I have been hugely irritated by the National Trust's campaign - I am not sure that I pay my membership fees to them to be a campaigning organisation. In my view they overstepped their mandate by seeking to leverage the potential political power of their membership in this way. I for one would rather see them concentrating on the hugely effective work that they do in sensitively developing affordable homes, workspace and visitor facilities which allow people to enjoy the majesty of our countryside, and make it a vibrant place for those that live and work within it.
That being said I think that my irritation is probably due more to the childish nature of the Telegraph's coverage rather than the carefully considered views expressed by the Trust in their manifesto.
Its the Telegraph's approach that influences the sound bite listening majority however. Would the Councillor from North Shropshire quoted in Alistair Driver's article who claimed at the Conference Fringe that 'lack of protection for ‘open countryside’, under the plans, would result in farmers across the country selling off vast tracts of ‘prime agricultural land for housing development’ really have said that if he had a), read the NPPF or b) the National Trust's manifesto?
Because for all my frustration at the way that the powerful voice of the Trust has been seized on by those wanting to position the argument in terms of "concreting over the countryside", there is much in the "Planning for People" manifesto that I find myself agreeing with.
The job of planning should be to create great places for people to live and work, both today and tomorrow. It should guide valuable and necessary development to the "right" places (although we might not always agree just where these are). It should protect things that matter, such as open spaces, productive agricultural land and historic towns and village centres. It should also deliver new homes, shops and services that community's need.
I was interested, and a little saddened to note that the Manifesto doesn't mention jobs and businesses at this point, but I am sure the Trust wouldn't seek to prevent rural communities from being places of work as well as places to live or visit.
Planning should provide certainty about the ground rules by which decisions are made but must ensure that individuals, companies and communities can exercise choice for the long-term in a balanced way.
All this I agree with, I am pretty sure that you will too.
The Manifesto goes on to set out 10 practical suggestions that the National Trust want to see from the new planning framework. There is much to agree with here also, but not everything. I do have real concerns with some of the suggestions because of the unintended consequences that they might create in small rural settlements, often the places that need some development most.
So what is it that worries me? Here's what:
Suggestion No. 5; the NPPF should adopt an explicit 'brownfield first' approach. No it shouldn't, please, it mustn't. Yes where a brownfield site is available which in all other respects is more suitable than a green field site it should be the preferred location for development.
But; in small rural settlements there may be no brownfield site - so does this mean no development, despite evidenced need for new homes, shops, services or workspace? That would indeed see such communities grinding to a halt and perpetuate the "sustainability trap" so eloquently described by Matthew Taylor.
What might be the impacts of forcing development onto limited brownfield sites in villages? Where these are in farming use, there is likely to be a need for replacement outside the village - on green fields. Where they are in employment use, there is a risk that the increased value of land for housing development forces the employment use out of the village, so impacting on its functionality and reducing vibrancy during the day. Where there are limited sites, scarcity will drive up values for housing land even more, adding to the affordability crisis.
So please no hard and fast rules that it must always be brownfield sites that are developed first. This makes no sense. A general principle that this is the preferred position where it does not generate other prejudicial impacts yes, but we must retain the ability for flexibility and local decisions about which are the best sites, regardless of their colour or previously developed status.
Suggestion No. 8, it should be clear that neighbourhoods can opt for less development as well as more than in the local plan. Please God No. The unintended consequences of this could be disastrous.
Consider please the situation where a local plan identifies a series of settlements which, applying the principles of good planning espoused in the manifesto, are identified as the "right" place for good development. Imagine if the communities in these settlements all produced Neighbourhood Plans which said "no thanks, take your development somewhere else, we like it here as it is".
Where would that leave those people in those communities that did need and support development? Remember that it only takes 51% of those voting in a local referendum to make this stick, and they can only vote on the plan that gets produced!
Where would it leave the local planning authority? More importantly perhaps, where would it leave other communities that had not previously been identified as the "right" place?
Imagine that all bar one of the communities identified for development produced plans which said "no", but one couldn't get organised and so produced no plan at all. Is that community to bear all the development previously identified for the group of settlements?
There has to be a strategic plan, and it needs to be respected in the statutory planning process. Neighbourhood Plans are all about giving people the opportunity and "rights" to shape development in a way that ensures that it delivers the best possible outcomes for the community. They should not be used as a means to undermine the strategic and evidence based plan produced by the democratically elected and statutorily empowered local planning authority.
Suggestion No 10, there should be a limited right of appeal for communities in circumstances where consent is granted for development that is inconsistent with the plan. What plan? Surely consent won't get granted for development which is inconsistent with the local development plan - that is the point of the plan. And it shouldn't happen with statutory Neighbourhood Plans either - once they are in place. And who, in this instance is the community, the Parish Council, a majority of householders, a Neighbourhood Protest group? More clarification is required as to your intentions here please if we are not to create a charter for appeals to block "good" development because people don't like it.
So please National Trust. Have a good think about your suggestions and ensure that they won't cause any unintended consequences that you, and we in rural communities might regret. And please, get the Daily Telegraph to grow up a bit!
You have grabbed a powerful position through your campaign (using mine and other's membership fees), please use it well. What we need is a living working countryside, not a museum.
Rob Hindle, 7th October 2011
