sustainable development | Roger Gambba-Jones

There’s an interesting convergence emerging in the amongst all the claims and counter-claims surrounding the NPPF consultation. The coming together is in respect of the comments made by John Howell, self-confessed author of the Tories Open Source Planning document and those made by the likes of Pickles and Clark, about what the term sustainable development actually means and how it came into being.

John Howell claims that the presumption in favour term was never meant to refer to individual planning applications, but only to development plans. The problem is, the NPPF refers to plans and decision making in the same sentence over and over again, lending a lie to John Howell’s claims.

Where the convergence comes, is in the claims being made, the latest in a speech today by Eric Pickles, that the presumption in favour of development has always been in the planning regulations in some form. However, dig down and you find that the presumption that has existed in the regulations, actually referred to land that had already been zoned, or identified as suitable for development. Put another way, it is land that is allocated, as in a local plan site allocations map.

So John Howell is right in that respect, the presumption was supposed to be all about plan making, not about individual applications. The problem seems to be, that those responsible for the NPPF, the so called wide ranging expert group, appear to have bastardised the presumption term into the catchall statement that is now causing us all so much angst.

I was going to have a rant about this myself, but Andrew Lainton says it all in his blog so much than I could: http://wp.me/pNECF-1yv

It beggars belief that the individual who so proudly admits to being the author of the document that spawned the national planning policy framework, would go on record saying the complete opposite of what is in black and white for all to read.

Can it be that he has not actually read the NPPF and is basing his deluded comments on his precious Open Source Planning document? I hope the answer is yes, because otherwise one can only draw the conclusion that he is little better than his fellow MPs, who set out to deceive and defraud the public by submitting false claims for their expenses.

Just so there is no doubt about why I am challenging the veracity of this MP’s statement, here are a couple of extracts from the NPPF.

Greg Clark’s Foreword: ….a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.

Para 14. At the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking.

Para 55. The relationship between development management and plan-making should be seamless and both should recognise the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the positive approach to planning set out in this Framework.

Para 63. In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Another statement in the NPPF that should be of major concern to everybody outside of the development industry because the bit in bold applies to some 95% of councils in England is (again at para 14):

….grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date.

Paras 116 and 118 also so give me cause for concern becuase of their apparent contradictory nature. Para 116 says, ‘…respond to local character and reflect the identity of local surroundings,‘ whilst para 118 says, ‘Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes’.

What is local character and identity, if not an architectural style or particular taste?

Roger Gambba-Jones

Roger's rants and sometimes something useful!

Tag Archives: sustainable development

Lack of truth, or just a lack of understanding?

John Howell MP proves the deceit that is the NPPF