The document discusses the relationship between planning, development, and sustainability in the UK. It explains that the planning system aims to balance development and sustainability by resolving conflicts through regulations. Currently, the government believes localism and community involvement in the planning process can help achieve appropriate development and sustainability outcomes. The key elements of the UK planning system are established in legislation like the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, while policy documents like the National Planning Policy Framework provide further guidance.

1. 1
Planning and Sustainable Development
Development, or growth, is achieved by using resources to build for the future of
the population, while sustainability, in the context of planning requires using
resources wisely and essentially preserving what nature has to give for the
benefit of the future of the population. (Manderson, 2006) Indeed, historically,
growth and development of the cities has been done by natural destruction:
building led to clearing forests, polluted rivers and fouled air. The conflict left
planners sliding from one end of the spectrum to the other, having no natural
home and dealing with questionable legitimacy and fairness of the middle
ground. (Campbell, 1996)
UK planning system aims to reconcile development and sustainability by
balancing the two and resolving conflicts using planning regulations: “Planning
is a balancing act, which requires consideration of the preservation, use and
development of land for this and future generations, within the context of agreed
social, environmental and economic needs. Inevitably, there is often
disagreement among competing interests on the best use of the same land, and
the planning system must resolve such conflicts.” (CLGC Eighth Report, 2011)
The current government believes, the effective planning method is localism;
using “collaborative democracy”, having decision making process at the lowest
part of the chain possible, can help achieve appropriate development output
from the planning process and aid sustainable development. (Farnsworth,
2011) Greg Clark, the Minister for Decentralisation and Cities, explains that, the
current National Planning Policy Framework replaces the elaborative and
forbidding policy with clearly explained and concise framework, which allows
people and communities back into planning. Having for a long time been the
preserve of specialists, planning evolved, to be used by the communities, for
the benefit of these communities. (CLGC Eighth Report, 2011) Or so the
Government hopes.

2. 2
Today, the principle statutory basis for the operation of planning is the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990. It is an enabling act, which sets out the
legislation behind planning system operation and allows amendments of
statutes by subordinate legislation. For example, Localism Act 2011 abolished
the regional planning tier to allow integration of communities into the planning
process. (Para23 DCLG, 2015)
Legislation gives statutory basis for the requirements to produce development
plans and grants powers to permit or refuse planning permission. While policy
sets out the aims planning intends to achieve. Current policy - The National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been issued by the Government in
March 2012 and has been somewhat revolutionary in terms of accessibility to
the general public. It replaced over a thousand pages of national policy with
only 50, which aims to guide both developers and decision-makers on priorities
that should influence effective land use and as a material consideration in
determining planning applications. (CLGC Eighth Report, 2011; Para13 NPPF,
2012)
NPPF thus acts as a central consideration in planning without changing the
statutory framework in respect to individual decision-making. It guides
production of development plans, which are issued by Central Government and
Local Planning Authorities. (Para12 NPPF, 2012)
Development Plans consist of local development documents - a portfolio of
documents constituting Local development framework and neighbourhood
plans – community plans with real legal weight. (DCLG, 2015) These plans
should contain clear development intentions, how they are going to be achieved
and when, and are usually set out for a long periods of time (ten to 15 years).
“Local plans must be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with
national policy. (S20 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004; NPPF,
2012) Both Local and Neighbourhood Plans must contribute to sustainable
development, and the neighbourhood plans should be in general conformity

3. 3
with the Local plan. (NPPF, 2012) Since there can be considerable conflict in
strategic planning covering multiple administrative boundaries, Localism Act
2011 introduced the “Duty to Cooperate”, which sets statutory duty for the
planning authorities, such as city, district and borough councils to cooperate
with each other.
Planning is also influenced by the European Union. Cross-border and
transnational spatial planning is emerging along with the more prominent
examples of EU influence of environmental impact assessment. (Cullingworth
and Nadin, 2006)
The above means of management and control are used to ensure any
proposed development in the UK passes the standards of development and
there are no material considerations to stop the proposed development from
happening. Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 s 38(6) provides: “If
regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any
determination under the planning acts the determination must be in accordance
with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. Although the
material consideration is not defined and the falling of the development within
the broad class, will depend on the circumstances. (Stringer v MHLG [1970] 1
WLR 1281) The system ensures planning permission to be considered on
individual basis, and thus, not defining material consideration too narrowly, lets
the system approve developments, which are sustainable without delay.
(para15 NPPF, 2012).
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S55(1) defines development as ”carrying
out of building, engineering, mining or other operations, in, on, over or under
land, or the making of material change in the use of any building or land” and
requires planning permission for “carrying out of any development of land”.
(S57(1) Town and Country Planning Act, 1990). Although removal of
development rights in land from the landowner and to the state seems

4. 4
dictatorial, the system aims to promote the future of current and following
generations. Whether it is successful in so doing is another question.
NPPF provides, that there are three dimensions of sustainable development;
the economic dimension, ensures sufficient land of the right type is available in
the right places and the right time to support growth and innovation, thus
contributing to building stronger, more responsive and more competitive
economy. The social dimension ensures the supply of housing required to meet
the needs of present and future generations to promote strong, vibrant and
healthy communities. The environmental dimension ensures development
contributes to protecting and enhancing the natural built and historic
environment. (Para7 NPPF, 2012). The three dimensions are not to be sough in
isolation, as they are mutually dependent, the NPPF therefore provides for the
dimensions to be sought jointly – through the planning system. (Para8 NPPF,
2012)
In order to achieve the three dimensions, the UK Sustainable Development
Strategy Securing the Future set out five guiding principles: Living within the
planet’s environmental limits, ensuring a strong, healthy and just society,
achieving a sustainable economy, promoting good governance and using sound
science responsibly. (NPPF, 2012) For the purpose of this coursework, analysis
of the extent, the current planning system achieves sustainable development,
will be analysed through these five guiding principles.
In order to achieve sustainable development within the planet’s environmental
limits, the system must ensure biodiversity is improved, resources are used
prudently, waste and pollution are minimised and development moves to low
carbon economy to adapt or mitigate climate change. (Para7 NPPF, 2012)
Indeed, where a development entails any “environmental procedures”, the
statutory position to grant permission unless there are substantial grounds for
refusal, somewhat shifts to developer having to prove their proposal is
demonstrably acceptable. Environmental factors can be decisive in planning

5. 5
decision, and it prompts local authorities to exercise powers they have in
relation to issues relating to pollution, waste and noise. (Cullingworth and
Nadin, 2006) Since local authorities are not environmental planning authorities,
but still have to take environmental considerations into account, the result is a
blurred line between specific pollution control regimes and the local authority
deciding on the same issues. Essentially, the complementarity of the existing
controls leads to duplication. Instead, the role planning system must ensure the
development itself is acceptable in terms of use and impact of this use and
assume the relevant environmental control regime will be properly applied and
enforced - Para10 PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control. (Gov.co.uk, 2004) It
seems the influence of environmental issues within the concept of sustainable
development is not properly dealt with by planning controls. The current
system’s attempt to tighten the control and ensure developments adhere to
standards creates confusion between the responsibilities of the relevant control
bodies. There is no purpose in duplication of the same responsibility, and
currently, the integration of environmental issues into the scope of
responsibilities of local authorities is somewhat questionable in success.
Ensuring healthy, strong and just society falls within the scope of the social role
of sustainable development and entails planning to meet housing needs of this
and future generations, as well as creating good quality built environment with
accessible local services to support health, social and cultural well being.
(Para7 NPPF, 2012) This area has been covered comprehensively by the
NPPF 2012 and provides specific requirements for meeting social needs in
comparison with other, more general provisions. For instance, S 47 requires
annual identification and updating of sites sufficient to provide five years worth
of housing with an additional buffer of 5 % against the housing requirement, in
order to promote choice and competition in the market for land. Moreover, local
planning authorities are required to increase the buffer to 20% in the areas of
recorded persistent under-delivery of housing. Design regulations require
functionality of development to be long term oriented and optimize site potential,

6. 6
as well as incorporating elements of mix of use (i.e. green and public spaces as
part of developments). (Para58 NPPF, 2012). There has also been a positive
development in promoting better communities, by introducing Neighbourhood
plans, which allows local planning to be more specific and better reflect the
needs of all sections in the community. (Para69 NPPF, 2012) Since the
abolition of Regional Planning and removal of the regional tier of the planning
hierarchy, the local authorities now produce the strategic plans. On the one
hand, this structure benefits the community by servicing needs of all
communities and allows tailoring plans to the specific needs of communities.
However, there is a view, that the gap between local and national planning is
too large to produce strategic plans in the interest of community as a whole and
can lead to an intense conflict of interest, and an end of strategic planning.
(Boddy and Hickman, 2013) Indeed, developers sometimes see the implications
of abolition of Regional Planning and the new framework as a charter for
“NYMBYism” (Not In My Back Yard). Where elected members, representing
local community are anti development, absence of a broader strategic
framework doesn’t promote sustainable development and the system goes back
on itself. Moreover, the duty to cooperate doesn’t adequately deal with the
problem of localism leading to servicing the needs of current generation better,
but severely overseeing what needs to be done in the long run, to also take into
account future generations. This problem was demonstrated by a place-based
assessment of the abolition of Regional Planning by Boddy and Hickman
(2013). Their study of the West of England showed worrying figures of housing
supply decrease since the introduction of localism. For instance, Bath and North
East Somerset had an almost 50% reduction in the core strategy housing figure
since 2008, with over twenty one thousand units to supply planned in 2008, the
region’s current plan decreased to just eleven thousand. The sharp reduction
was also evident in Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire, with
strategic plans deemed “sound” despite reservations on adequacy of housing
provision levels. (Boddy and Hickman, 2013) The pro growth system in the UK
evidently chose the wrong community segments to implement strategic
planning. It appears, local views lack the element of sustainability and the duty

7. 7
to cooperate doesn’t help the basic truth that locals are simply anti
development, despite the financial incentives, which are in place to encourage
local communities to embrace development. (Boddy and Hickman, 2013)
The issue of “NIMBYism” also leads to questionable prospects of achieving
sustainable economy, the fourth guiding principle of sustainable development.
Resistance to development in the absence of overarching strategic framework
or top down requirements creates capacity for localism to inhibit investment and
economic growth. (Boddy and Hickman, 2013) This issue is particularly
worrying for regions already pressurised in terms of housing prices and housing
affordability. Where a region is able to attract investment, skilled labour and
accommodate expansion of businesses in the area, opposing development will
lead to economic stagnation. There is a capacity across many regions in
England to secure investments and aid economic growth, but the Coalition
Government has shown little sign of challenging the local will. (Boddy &
Hickman, 2013) Sustainable development has a specific economic role of
ensuring land is available at the right place and time to support growth and the
local authorities are required to identify and coordinate development
requirements to promote economic interest of the wider community. (Para7
NPPF, 2012) The “property conflict” created by the conflict of economic growth
and equity cannot be solved by the planning power of local authorities. The
fundamental conflict defines the boundary of private interest and the public
good; the government intervention into private commodity is unfortunately,
essential to ensure beneficial social aspects of the same property. (Campbell,
1996) The problem is worsened by the fact that social capital will always be
stronger in the better-off places, when neighbourhoods with poor health,
inadequate housing and transport depend on interrelationships with the state at
the local and national level. (Westwood, 2011) Achieving sustainable economy,
when difficult strategic decision are done on a level so low, the responsible are
simply not equipped to make this decisions, the question is: when will the state
wake up? The election stunt of giving the power to the locals shouldn’t cost
British worse-off communities its’ chance to develop economically.

8. 8
Governance for sustainable development is concerned with socio-political
context of achieving sustainable development. Good governance is associated
with effectiveness, efficiency, and the rule of law, participation and
transparency. In planning, good governance is supposed to identify and
manage critical threats to sustainability, integrate sustainability into the general
practice of governance and organise collective reflection of decisions in respect
to reconciling social priorities. (Meadowcroft, 2007) NPPF provided a massive
step forward in creating opportunity for planning to become a political
“marketplace”, where involvement is equally open to all stakeholders. Declaring
the previous system of power to be a failure, the new government promised to
go beyond community involvement and make “collaborative democracy”
contiguous with plan production. The idea was, planning process to be in the
hands of local communities, but it could only work if the community involvement
was effective. The step up to understanding the accepted planning
methodology and using it, however proved way more difficult than accepting
ideological values of “what is best”. (Farnsworth, 2011) Not only is the new
system opposing development, the intellectual job of planning policy is still
separated from the practical job of development management. Many local
authorities see no difference in having a legal duty as a planning authority and
their interest as landowners and developers. Moreover, lack of using cost-
benefit analysis, dubious and unintelligible Sustainability appraisals have
prompted some to deem local authority a poor profession in providing informed
choice through localism. (Farnsworth, 2011)
Although the presumption in favour of sustainable development runs like a
golden thread through both plan making and decision taking, the local
authorities are ill equipped to identify threats to sustainability and their planning
generally reflects the needs of this generation only. (Para14 NPPF, 2012)
The role of planning in facilitating use of sound science responsibly is allowing
future progress; this entails encouraging technological development. Much
concern has been expresses over Localism Bill to have a potential constraining

9. 9
or encapsulating sustainable development in facilitating new technological
developments. (Parliament, 2011) Liberal Democrats promise, the current
planning system lays foundation to new technologies, new industries and
sustainable sources. (Planning Resource, 2013) Whether in fact the change in
the system facilitates technological development better, remains to be seen.
Although sustainable development is deeply embedded into the NPPF 2012,
simplification of the system may actually have an adverse effect on delivery of
sustainable development. Interpretation and implementation by local authorities,
especially where local plans are ad hoc, non-existent, incomplete pose a great
challenge to developers. (Planning Resource, 2013) Primary reason for
dismantling the regional planning tier, which coordinated the system on
strategic level, was the dictatorial aspect of the top down approach. There was
no element of anti-development to regional planning, it was however anti-
democratic. We expect planning to be the control and restriction, but at the
same time it must promote sustainable development and growth. These
conflicting demands on the system lead planning to bounce from the three
points of the triangle of social, economic and environmental benefit. (Campbell,
1996) The system is meant to resolve conflicts when it is itself in the very centre
of the conflict. At the moment, achieving sustainable development through the
planning system only burdens the system further into the conflict. Especially,
when the very concept of “sustainable development lacks operational definition
and objective measurement criteria. (Beckerman, 1994) The purpose of
planning is facilitating positive growth, it is not meant to deliver sustainable
development, only contribute to its’ achievement (Para6 NPPF, 2012). This
understanding is central to the fundamental problem of planning not being able
to please every stakeholder, no matter what changes are in place. It would be
fair to say the system has become more accessible and democratic, however
the UK Planning regulations are still too general, and facilitating interpretation of
this general system by local authorities on ad hoc basis is not the right path to
positive growth.

10. 10
Reference List
Beckerman, W. (1994). 'Sustainable Development': Is it a Useful Concept?.
Environmental Values, 3(3), pp.191-209.
Boddy, M. and Hickman, H. (2013). The demise of strategic planning? The
impact of the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategy in a growth region. Town
Planning Review, 84(6), pp.743-768.
Campbell, S. (1996). Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities?: Urban Planning
and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 62(3), pp.296-312.
CLGC, (2011). The National Planning Policy Framework: Eighth Report.
London: House of Commons, pp.3, 10.
Cullingworth, B., Nadin, V., Hart, T., Davoudi, S., Pendlebury, J., Vigar, G.,
Webb, D. and Townshend, T. (2014). Town and Country Planning in the UK,
15e. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. pp. 35, 249
Gov.co.uk, (2004). [ARCHIVED CONTENT] Planning Policy Statement 23:
Planning and Pollution Control - Planning, building and the environment -
Communities and Local Government. [online] Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.communities.gov.uk/plan
ningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/planningpolicystatements/pla
nningpolicystatements/pps23/ [Accessed 16 Jan. 2015].
DCLG, (2015). Plain English Guide to Planning System. London: Department
for Communities and Local Government, p.9.

11. 11
Farnsworth, D. (2011) What is town planning for? Town and Country Planning,
80 (9). pp. 394-398.
Localism Act 2011
Manderson, A. (2006). A Systems Based Framework to Examine The Multi-
contextural Application of the Sustainability Concept. Environ Dev Sustain, 8(1),
pp.85-97.
Meadowcroft, J. (2007). Who is in Charge here? Governance for Sustainable
Development in a Complex World*. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,
9(3-4), pp.299-314.
NPPF, (2012) National Planning Policy Framework. Department for
Communities and Local Government. London.
Parliament, (2011). Sustainability of Planning Reforms. [online] Available at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenvaud/799/79
904.htm [Accessed 23 Jan. 2015].
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004
Planning Resource, (2013). NPPF Review. [online] Available at:
http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1211888/liberal-democrats-vote-nppf-
review [Accessed 26 Jan. 2015].
Stringer v MHLG [1970] 1 WLR 1281 [1970]
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Westwood, A. (2011). Localism, social capital and the 'Big Society'. Local
Economy, 26(8), pp.690-701.

12. 12