"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings-- And why the sea is boiling hot-- And whether pigs have wings..and why the National Planning Policy Framework..’
(With acknowledgements and apologies to Lewis Carroll.)
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/planningpolicy/planningpolicyframework/ became material to planning applications from 27th March 2012, and immediately replaces all previous Ministerial Circulars and guidance documents, excepting PPS 10.
Let us be very clear, this document is extremely powerful and far reaching into all our lives, and when coupled with the Localism Act, and especially that part concerned with Neighbourhood and Community Plans and public referendums, is, and will change, if not all, most, of our thoughts and aspirations for our communities for years to come. If this sounds far fetched - read it.
The basic premise behind the NPPF is the the presumption in favour of ‘Sustainable Development’ (para 14), and ‘Sustainable Development’ is defined at para 5.
Para 4 is interesting in that it states in the first sentence that..’ This Framework should be read in conjunction with the Government’s planning policy for traveller sites...’ http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpolicytravellers which came into effect on 23rd March 2012.
Para 5 is again interesting as it deals with waste policies.
Core Strategies or Local Development Plans are renamed Local Plans. At Para 2 it states at line 2..‘The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of the local or neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.’ I mention this because there seems to be a few myths circulating that the NPPF is only material once a Local Planning Authority (LPA) has a Local Plan. Not so if you read this sentence - it seems quite clear that any Local Plan, and Neighbourhood Plan must be NPPF compliant as the starting point. It therefore follows, that unless a LPA has either put their Local Plan forward for consideration by the DCLG, or has had it approved, NPPF Para 14 overrides any other consideration. The exception to this, it could be argued, are Paras 114, 115, 116 and 117 - which deal variously with the physical and biodiversity environments, National Parks, and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Para 126 - bullet point one recognises the value to communities of ‘enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation.’
Further commentary on Heritage Assets has been issued by English Heritage on 27th March 2012 . http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/a-e/eh-commentary-nppf.pdf
Of further interest are:-
Paras 150 - 177 dealing with the Local Plans,
Paras 178- 181 dealing with Planning Strategically across local boundaries,
Paras 186 - 187 decision-taking.
Para 187 in particular is worth flagging up stating in sentence 1 ..‘Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible..’
And finally Para 47 which deals with the delivering a wide choice of high quality homes. Attention needs to be paid to the second bullet point which I reproduce in full but it needs to be read in conjunction with its foot notes...
‘ identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land;’
Enough said on this I think.....
No comments:
Post a Comment