Futureproofing: theNational Planning PolicyFramework – one year onCPRE Sussex, March 2013  Neil Sinden, Policy and  Campai...
Futureproofing: the National Planning PolicyFramework – one year on• land use planning system is key tool for ‘futureproof...
The Localism Act 2011• Infrastructure Planning Commission  abolished• new procedures for National Policy  Statements• Regi...
The Localism Act 2011• Neighbourhood Plans and  Community Right to Build• Community Infrastructure Levy• new Homes Bonus• ...
The National Planning Policy Framework:CPRE’s key asks• recognise the value of the  wider countryside• retain the ‘brownfi...
National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
The NPPF campaign• feeding the media with stories• cooperating with National Trust• reaching out to unusual partners• lead...
The final NPPF:significant improvements• better definition of sustainable development• core principles recognise: - intrin...
Sustainable Development:the golden thread or missing link?• the wrong starting point• seek integration not balance• benefi...
Sustainable Development:improvements in the NPPF• reference to UK Sustainable Development  Strategy and environmental limi...
Protecting the countryside and green spaces:what difference will the NPPF make?• local green space designation untested• w...
Brownfield regeneration:‘smart growth’or Garden Cities?• reuse of previously developed land has  been a big success• will ...
Countryside Promises,Planning Realities• transitional period of 12 months  insufficient• plan-led system is being  undermi...
National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
Recommendations• More Government support for  getting local plans in place• Planning guidance to address  areas of confusi...
Save our Countryside:how you can help• briefing materials for branches/local groups• use evidence to resist inappropriate ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Sussex cpre march 2013

297 views
215 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
297
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Imp not to forget amid the furore which surrounded the NPPF over the last year that the Localism Act introduces some fundamental changes to planning legislation This slide identifies some of the key changes – but there are others including removing Inspectors powers to rewrite local plans Many of these changes CPRE supported but one key element we pushed for – CRA - was not finally adopted despite pre-election Manifesto commitments by both coalition parties Also Local Enterprise Partnerships – introduced in 2011 following abolition of RSS and problematic: democratic deficit and influence on planning
  • But of course most controversy surrounded the accompanying NPPF. Substantial input before draft NPPF published in July last year. CPRE had a wide range of concerns about the draft NPPF - Boiled these down into 5 key asks – most of which as we shall see were addressed in the final version published in March As well as a detailed, 60 page submission, we called for the final NPPF to: recognise the intrinsic value of the wider countryside and give better protection to designated areas retain the ‘brownfield first’ policy to ensure previously developed land is used before greenfield sites define sustainable development so that environmental limits are respected and economic considerations are not given primacy reinforce the plan-led system , including through effective transitional arrangements, and promote the delivery of affordable housing in appropriate locations to meet identified needs. Mention media campaign??? Local lobbying/SC inquiries etc
  • In particular, we saw these improvements:
  • Sustainable development – a key issue Research found that, in summary: ‘ proposed reforms are likely to have little or no effect on growth and could even undermine public wellbeing’
  • Research found that: ‘ 55 per cent of England’s countryside could be at increased risk from development’
  • Research found that: ‘ More brownfield land is available and suitable for residential development – Enough for nearly 1.5 million new dwellings – than in 2001’
  • So, to summarise, what are the key challenges moving forward? Up to date plans – 50% LPAs don’t have them and NT survery found 75% LAs had lost staff from planning department Will duty to cooperate work? Vision for places is key Countryside not just important for its own sake but also to make towns and cities work Above all, public confidence in planning key – opp to participate, local determination etc
  • Sussex cpre march 2013

    1. 1. Futureproofing: theNational Planning PolicyFramework – one year onCPRE Sussex, March 2013 Neil Sinden, Policy and Campaigns Director, CPRE
    2. 2. Futureproofing: the National Planning PolicyFramework – one year on• land use planning system is key tool for ‘futureproofing’• recent changes to planning law on policy• CPRE’s campaign to influence these• identify some of the improvements we helped secure• focus on some key issues• outline the findings and recommendations of a recent CPRE report• introduce a new campaign we will be launching next week National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    3. 3. The Localism Act 2011• Infrastructure Planning Commission abolished• new procedures for National Policy Statements• Regional Spatial Strategies abolished• new duty to cooperate• non-binding Inspectors’ reports National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    4. 4. The Localism Act 2011• Neighbourhood Plans and Community Right to Build• Community Infrastructure Levy• new Homes Bonus• planning Enforcement Orders• new powers to deal with unauthorised advertisements(no community right of appeal) National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    5. 5. The National Planning Policy Framework:CPRE’s key asks• recognise the value of the wider countryside• retain the ‘brownfield first’ policy• take a better approach to sustainable development• reinforce the plan-led system; and• promote affordable housing delivery National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    6. 6. National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    7. 7. National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    8. 8. National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    9. 9. National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    10. 10. The NPPF campaign• feeding the media with stories• cooperating with National Trust• reaching out to unusual partners• leading Wildlife and Countryside Link’s work on the issue• surveying local authority views• researching brownfield and wider countryside issues• specific projects with RSPB and NT• working with MPs and Peers National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    11. 11. The final NPPF:significant improvements• better definition of sustainable development• core principles recognise: - intrinsic character and beauty of countryside; - need to use brownfield land; and - transport and land use integration• stronger policies on town centre vitality• Green Belt policy largely intact National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    12. 12. Sustainable Development:the golden thread or missing link?• the wrong starting point• seek integration not balance• benefits of planning undervalued• non-market values of land National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    13. 13. Sustainable Development:improvements in the NPPF• reference to UK Sustainable Development Strategy and environmental limits• greater emphasis on integrating social, economic and environmental objectives• reframed presumption in favour of sustainable development• good approach to plan-making: avoid, minimise, mitigate, compensate(para.152) National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    14. 14. Protecting the countryside and green spaces:what difference will the NPPF make?• local green space designation untested• wider countryside, not just designated areas• housing land supply requirements – deliverability and viability• pressure on the Green Belt• sporadic rural development National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    15. 15. Brownfield regeneration:‘smart growth’or Garden Cities?• reuse of previously developed land has been a big success• will local brownfield/density targets be enough?• design and density should go together• low density, dispersed development is unsustainable• more to be done – will Garden Cities help? National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    16. 16. Countryside Promises,Planning Realities• transitional period of 12 months insufficient• plan-led system is being undermined• valuable areas of countryside being lost to development• five year ‘deliverable’ land supply requirement leading to more greenfield development• role of neighbourhood plans less important than anticipated National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    17. 17. National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    18. 18. Recommendations• More Government support for getting local plans in place• Planning guidance to address areas of confusion and weakness• Longer term, improve policy by: • a new approach to sustainable development • new measures to promote urban regeneration • stronger protections for the countryside National Planning Policy Framework – one year on
    19. 19. Save our Countryside:how you can help• briefing materials for branches/local groups• use evidence to resist inappropriate devpt• write to local MPs and ask them to raise concerns with the Planning Minister• provide evidence of damaging decisions• write to local newspapers• encourage local authorities to get plans inplace National Planning Policy Framework – one year on

    ×