Cabinet Office Confusion on Planning Law #NPPF

Helen Stephenson planning law lecturer sent this and it is very worrying:

I saw Oliver Letwin as one of his constituents on 9th September. THis is what happened:

1. I began by saying “Wales” and then went on to explain that they have a suitable definition of “sustainable development”. OL has no idea what’s going on in Wales. No budging on concept of sustainable development – said no definition; you need to read the whole Framework to know what it is. But also, development means growth.
2. I commented on impression that there appeared to be no-one in the group of four authors of first draft NPPF who had an objective holistic view of planning and certainly no-one from the RTPI / TCPA. OL seemed to think there was no such person with that objective view but that the group did include a professional planner. He’s actually referring to JOHN RHODES – QUOD….

3. Believes planning inhibits growth.

4. Explained reasoning behind absence of a proper explanation of how the planning system works at the beginning of the Framework – such an explanation would be in a separate document.

5. Could not accede to request for introduction of right to be heard at the examination into a neighbourhood plan / order as this not the time for the merits of the plan / order to be considered. Deliberately different from previous procedure. Community will get their opportunity to vote in the referendum.

When I referred to the existing right to be heard (actually in s.20 (6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) and suggested that if the right was given for examinations into development plan documents it should also be available for neighbourhood development plans and orders OL did not seem to accept that the right under s.20 exists.

6. I raised matter of inconsistency between language of policy and that of the legislation with particular reference to the use of the term “local plan” which I claimed isn’t used in the legislation but OL says is and he will supply me with chapter and verse. [He’s wrong; he subsequently referred me to clauses 98 and 100 Localism Bill which, of course, refer to development plan documents] I’m happy to be shown the error of my ways but there will be confusion if the term for the statutory development plan that local planning authorities are under a duty to prepare is described differently in policy and law.

6. Mr Letwin promised (and reiterated the promise) that the duty imposed on any person exercising functions relating to local development plans – to exercise that function with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development – is being extended to those who make other planning decisions such as development decisions (whether to grant planning permission for example). [Think this only applies re the duty to co-operate?]

Great if we have a meaningful definition / concept of “sustainable development”; not good if it stays as it is.

7. When I put the following question to him he said it was unlikely to happen and that 99% of local planning authorities would have a “local plan” in situ so that the default position wouldn’t arise. He stated that a lot of local planning authorities had been sitting back doing nothing.

Question – If a planning application is submitted and there is no plan / it’s silent or out of date and the default position is “yes” what happens to the publicity / consultation procedure? Does it become meaningless, with result that the public lose their right to make representations?

Helen Stephenson (former local planning authority solicitor and lecturer in environmental and planning law)

Helen is of course right that the section 20.6 law exists and it applies to neighbourhood plans as these are development plan.

Letwin is wrong about a sustainability duty relating to development control decisions. It only applies to making of development plans.

It is rather worrying that there can be so many misunderstanding about the law and process.