A Short Debate on Planning

With yesterday marking the 80th anniversary of the Kinder Scout Trespass, it seems appropriate that MPs spent the evening discussing the planning system that so greatly affects the relationship we all have with our own local places.

But though yesterday’s debate had a distinctly localist focus, it was somewhat of a whistle-stop – with just a half-hour time-slot remaining for discussion, there was little time for any detailed examination of the document.

That’s not to say that important points weren’t raised – they were, notably the issue of the relationship between the Planning Inspectorate and local communities. Responding to Chris Heaton-Harris’ question, Planning Minster Greg Clark argued that the removal of contradictory regulation and Regional Spatial Strategies would allow the tension and antagonism in the planning system to dissipate. Besides this, he stated he had made it clear to the Planning Inspectorate that planning reforms place authority securely in the hands of local people. He is expecting to see a sample of the decisions that are being taken, including after the examination of plans, to ensure that this is happening.

The notion that the NPPF will bring more power to communities was broadly welcomed by all MPs, and Conservatives in particular. Caroline Lucas, however, touched on an issue that may undermine the promise of localism: local authority resources. Although Ms Lucas asked her question in relation to carbon reductions, there is a clear need for the resources, guidance and assistance she referred to in the production of good local and neighbourhood plans.

The response from the Minister was not particularly encouraging on this front – while he admitted that the government will support local authorities in their production of local plans, he did little to explain by what means they will be supported.

Clive Betts, the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, was another voice of caution. He said that the real test of the NPPF is whether it is better than the former system, and success on this count would come from its delivery of more houses, more green energy projects and more development in general.

Mr. Betts’ view is one shared by many: the proof of planning reforms will be in the decisions made in coming months and years, and its delivery of development local people want, in a way that does not compromise our environment.

A continuation of this debate on another day has been promised by Mr. Clark – time allowing, this should enable MPs to ask important questions of the Minister on the detail and implementation of the NPPF.

Anything to add? Please feel free to comment and share your concerns below and you can join the conversation with us about planning on Twitter (@nationaltrust) using the #planning4ppl hashtag.

Blog by Ellen Reaich, Government and Parliament Campaign Assistant.



One thought on “A Short Debate on Planning

  1. Post NPPF there was inevitably going to be a repose, despite the ambiguity of the text. But without criticising the NTs’ decision to campaign hard the serious lack of a strong ‘social’ element is highlighted even further by the now strengthened environmental element that a combination of voices from the NGOs fought for and won. Does the NTs’ ‘Planning for People’ have further distance to run? Will we see progression for people in their place, the development of a tool to help local communities actually have a voice in planning in their communities, championed by the NT? Will the NT fully endorse the RTPIs’ map4England – which is a brilliant idea and which could, if done properly (and with collaboration) allow for an easy platform for site specifics? When will anyone take notice of the European Landscape Convention, which is ratified in the UK and applies in all planning issues, is this assumed or is there a specific reason it has been largely ignored? More questions than answers – which is the general statement from all who watched the NPPF in its progress (?), but not just to the policy makers but to the campaigners also.

    Does the NT now accept a responsibility to see this through to a conclusion where we actually see a route cleared through the minefield left behind by the installation of the NPPF towards full sustainable development?

    Pip Howard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s