National Planning Policy Framework

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I draw attention to the interests declared on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and highlight two non-pecuniary interests as an honorary fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute and as a director of the Town and Country Planning Association.

I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) about greater clarity in the definition of sustainable development—a point on which I shall pick up—and I agree with a number of the other points she made.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on his new appointment and on his absolutely first-rate contribution to the debate, in which he forensically analysed the Government’s failures and highlighted the key issues that will need to be addressed if we are to get some sense out of the mess we are in. Let there be no mistake about it—we are in a mess on planning, and it is a mess of the Government’s making.

The Government’s actions were based initially on an incorrect analysis of the problem. They were very happy to speak glibly about the previous system having failed to deliver, and they have continued to make those claims with no regard for the facts. I am going to put on the record, for the Minister’s benefit, the facts about net additions to the housing stock during the period of the previous Government leading up to the recession. From a low of 130,000 net additions to the stock in 2001, we saw an absolutely steady, year-on-year increase to 143,000 in 2002-03, to 155,000 in 2003-04, to 169,000 in 2004-05, to 186,000 in 2005-06, to 199,000 in 2006-07 and to 207,000 in 2007-08. That was not a system that was bust. Members on the Government Benches who oppose housing development may not have approved of it, but it was delivering more homes at a time when there was a shift in favour of brownfield development, so more of those homes were on brownfield sites and the countryside was being more effectively protected. That was a success, and it is shameful of the Government to fail to acknowledge that and to try to pretend that their radical new proposals are somehow addressing a problem of failure when they are not.

Having made their proposals on the basis of an incorrect analysis, the Government built up false expectations by promising the earth to neighbourhoods about their having the ability to refuse unwelcome planning applications. In the run-up to the general election we heard again and again that the Conservative policy of neighbourhood planning would enable neighbourhoods to refuse developments. Having built up those expectations, the Conservatives precipitately, when they came into government, acted to cancel regional spatial strategies without bothering to take the trouble to find out whether what they were doing was lawful. As a result, that policy was struck down in the High Court. What a shambles! What a way to go about doing things. In the course of doing that, they inevitably created uncertainty, and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) rightly highlighted what all people interested in development know—that certainty is absolutely crucial if we are to have an effective planning system. I am afraid that the Government’s actions have destroyed any certainty.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raynsford]

No; I have limited time and I have to make some progress.

Having thrown the system into chaos—

[George Hollingbery]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to give way he will give way. The hon. Gentleman should sit down when he will not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raynsford]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. When the system had been thrown into chaos, contributing to a collapse in planning applications, the Government’s friends in the Treasury realised the damage that was being done, so we saw the very significant U-turn in policy that was announced by the Chancellor at the time of the Budget in which the policy was to change. “Yes,” he said, “Of course neighbourhoods must have a say, but the presumption will be in favour of development; the default position will be, ‘yes’.” That was entirely at odds with Ministers’ previous rhetoric, and, not surprisingly, all those who had been led to believe that the new Government were going to have a system that would make it easier for communities to refuse development felt incensed.

That is the explanation for the mess that the Government have got themselves into. They have simultaneously achieved the lowest level of new planning permissions for housing almost in recorded history while having an absolutely incensed body of campaigners who believe that they are opening the door to concreting over the countryside. It is a pretty extraordinary achievement to have done those two things simultaneously, but that is what they have achieved. There has been a disastrous collapse in planning applications for housing. The figures, just in case the Minister is not aware of them, are that just 25,171 residential planning permissions were granted in England in the second quarter of this year. That figure is 24% lower than that for the first quarter and 23% lower than that for the equivalent quarter in 2010. Indeed, it is one of the lowest figures ever recorded—ever recorded! That is the reality. It is fewer than half the number of homes we need to meet needs: 60,000 a quarter would be required to keep pace with requirements. At the same time, they have incensed all the people who care about the countryside, who think they are opening the door to inappropriate development.

[George Hollingbery]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raynsford]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[George Hollingbery]

I am very grateful. I suspect that what we have just heard is long on invective and short on fact. These proposals are about more than housing; they are about planning in general. Does the right hon. Gentleman describe a system in which 50% of local authorities had not adopted local plans and in which large areas of the country had not adopted regional spatial strategies as anything other than confusion and mess?

[Mr Raynsford]

First, I have given a number of facts. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should advise his Front-Bench team to be rather more respectful of the facts. Secondly, when I was the Minister for Housing and Planning in the early years of the Labour Government I inherited a position in which the reforms of the previous Conservative Government had resulted in large numbers of councils not having up-to-date plans in place. The main thrust of my work as Planning Minister was about getting the existing system to work better, rather than about imposing radical changes. I have advised the current Minister and his colleagues that they would do far better to try to work with the existing system than to seek a radical overhaul, which would be likely to create confusion and uncertainty and lead to paralysis in the planning system—which I am afraid is what we have got.

That leads me to the national planning policy framework. The problem with that document is that the Government have confused brevity with clarity. They have assumed that by reducing the volume of existing guidance they are producing a clearer and simpler statement, but that simply is not the case. The reality is that in many areas, some of which we have discussed today, sufficient care has not been taken with the definitions in the NPPF to give certainty and clarity. Sustainable development is one such area, and I endorse the views that have been expressed about the need for greater clarity.

Secondly, there is the “brownfield first” issue, another area where the Government have blundered and will need to change. Thirdly, there is not a single reference to new settlements and urban developments. There is no mention whatever of the principles that should apply to those. It is extraordinary that that should be entirely overlooked.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I apologise in advance if, having had to truncate my remarks, they sound a little staccato and disjointed. I also draw attention to my declaration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I want to make a few short points to Ministers and other Members. I sat on the Select Committee and heard a lot of evidence from developers and from all sorts of interested parties in planning. We face a situation in which sustainable development is being somewhat perverted by the document before us. Paragraphs 13 and 54, among many others, clearly shorten one of the three legs of sustainability—namely, that of economic growth. The table is clearly tipping in that direction, and we need to shove some pieces of paper under that leg to even it up and make it the same length as the other two. If we are to have truly sustainable development, it must take equal account of all three legs of sustainability.

Unlike many Members, I do not think that we need to do a great deal more on the definition of sustainable development. As long as local authorities are allowed to take equal note of all three corners, we will be in a good place. However, little evidence was presented to the Select Committee that planning has ever really stood in the way of economic development. That is another good reason to re-examine those provisions in the NPPF. It is equally true to say that, while planning might not have impeded economic development, it has not encouraged it much either. There is not much evidence on either side of that argument. There is certainly evidence that it is process, rather than policy, in the planning system that has caused delay, and we need to look as carefully at how we manage the planning process as at the policy that drives it.

Moving on quickly to definitions, we have two different problems at two different levels. At the general level of definition—I mention the comments of the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) about “significantly and demonstrably”—there are any number of wide-meaning phrases in the NPPF that could do with some substantial testing. Perhaps we should employ some aggressive planning lawyers; there may be one or two in here who would like the work. [Interruption.] There is none present at the moment. We need to be absolutely confident that there can be a generally accepted definition of these terms; otherwise we will end up in severe trouble and face many delays over the next few years.

We have also heard a lot of evidence to show that we need to define more clearly things that are important to local authorities. Let me quote Winchester city council here:

“The brevity of the draft NPPF is refreshing but there are many matters that have been removed in their entirety. For example, guidance which explains how noise issues, specialised rural housing, enforcement, and historical assets and landscapes…should be dealt with”.

This issue is going to come back again and again. I have a short suggestion for Ministers. I have not thought this through terribly carefully but there are a lot of existing policies on these issues. Could we make these available to local authorities to adopt in whole or in part, or could they be modified in a way we find acceptable and then be made available for adoption if authorities thought they were sensible, particularly at a time of strained assets and strained capabilities in local government?

I have another little idea—re-inspection of local plans. It seems to me that a lot of the tension we have at the moment happens because plans can go out of date. The NPPF says very particularly that where a plan is out of date and demonstrably so, the presumption is in favour of development. Why can we not have a light-touch re-inspection on a regular basis? Each local authority is currently mandated to produce an annual report, so why could it not entail a very short re-adoption of the local plan with minimal consultation to see if the major tenets of the plan have changed? If we did that, we would not only have robustness against challenge from developers, but we might even be able to lose the 20% over-allocation, because that would have been regularly monitored throughout the period of the plan. That might satisfy many different constituencies.

On the interregnum, I believe, as others have said, that two years is a good number in which to adopt a new plan, which will then come into force. It is essential, however, that that is an absolute limit. One of the great attractions of the NPPF is that it forces local authorities to put plans in place. There must not be any budging on that. We are left, are we not, with two alternatives? Do we allow the current local plan derived from the regional spatial strategy to continue for two years, or do we give increasing weight to the emerging new local plan? I favour the latter course, but we need to make a decision on that front.

There are many other important issues—the balance of process, brownfield sites, “city centre first”, the balance of spatial planning, the “larger than local” planning—but far too little time to cover them. The broad thrust of the changes is right. If we put power back in the hands of local people and make the plan robust to challenge, we will all be in a much better place.