'Better to have a large local plan than a large national plan'

Yesterday the department for communities and local government held a select committee hearing on the NPPF. Our consultant David Scane was in attendance, and found proceedings to pose more questions than were answered:

‘Why should the planning system be easy for developers?’ So asked Councillor Gary Porter at the DCLG select committee hearing into the NPPF yesterday afternoon. Councillor Porter is the leader of South Holland District Council, the vice chair of the Local Government Leadership Board and, most importantly, co-author of the draft NPPF. What has been branded in some quarters as a ‘developers’ charter’ was being given a rather different face by one of the document’s key authors.

Responding to a question from Conservative MP George Hollingbery, who asked whether it was not the case that developers would find it hard to cope with lots of different local authorities producing different forms of local plans, Councillor Porter said that, yes they would, and this was something to be welcomed.

Councillor Porter is a strong advocate of localism, and an ardent critic of top-down regulations. The message that he gave to the committee yesterday was that if local authorities have sufficiently comprehensive local plans, then the NPPF is all that’s required for planning guidance. While under further questioning later he did concede that a robust local plan could end up having to be much longer than the 52 page NPPF, the message was loud and clear: it’s ‘better to have a large local plan than a large national plan’.

So where does this leave the house building industry? John Slaughter of the Home Builders Federation greatly welcomes the draft NPPF, saying that it would produce positive local plans, with more development based upon local wishes. He bemoaned the brownfield-first policies of the previous Government, saying that there was simply not enough to build the houses required. While he lent his wholehearted support to the document, he did acknowledge that there had been some serious issues with how the document has been presented. He also added that there will be a need for members of the HBF to engage further with local communities to make the system work properly.

Such positive opinions were not being held by all those invited to speak. Simon Jenkins, eminent political commentator and chairman of the National Trust, was under no illusion about the plans, describing them as being ‘a gift to lawyers’; arguing that most applications would be decided on appeal. His line of reasoning was that the document does indeed reflect a ‘developers’ charter’, and that there is plenty of derelict brownfield land available to provide the required housing numbers.

Once again it seems that the NPPF means different things depending on who you talk to. Ultimately, however, the message that came out of yesterday’s session was simple; regardless of what’s in the NPPF, it is vital that local authorities have thorough, evidence based plans, on which to base their housing numbers. It remains to be seen whether this message is heard by local authorities.

David Scane -- Labour Consultant, Curtin&Co

The draft NPPF will have its third Parliamentary reading on October 24^th and fourth and final reading on October 31^st. Curtin&Co will be in attendance at all readings.