RSPB comes out against NPPF as ‘greenwash’, ‘We will be rolling up our sleeves to fight this’ – One of the Practitioners breaks ranks

There are interesting comments from the RSPB fromSimon Marsh – its acting Head of Sustainability and one of the practitioners group, and Martin Harper their Conservation Director.  The RSPB also seem to be shifting their position and coming out against it.

Martin Harper said on his blog that New Planning Policy is a Step Backwards for Nature

just two short months ago, a small group of expert practitioners, tasked by ministers at the department for Communities and Local Government (CLG), with my colleague Simon Marsh amongst them, published their draft of the NPPF.

The critical difference is that today’s publication is the Government’s own draft. Whilst this bears more than a passing resemblance to that produced by the practitioners’ group, there have been a number of significant changes…

Firstly, it formally marks the government’s desired shift in the emphasis on planning decisions, placing one factor – economic growth – higher than others in decision-making. …

It is understandable why some are clamering for economic growth, but we must have the right checks and balances in place to ensure this does not come at the expense of nature. It is already clear that the draft NPPF fails to put in place the measures necessary to ensure that the purpose of planning really is ‘to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development’. It is therefore unfit for its own, self-defined, purpose.

Secondly, it also marks a lost opportunity to use the NPPF to support the Government’s ambitions to restore the natural environment as outlined in the Natural Environment White Paper. The RSPB has long argued that the NPPF should be ‘spatial’ – to help decide how to maximise the value that our natural resources offers us. This would help us guide development to the most appropriate locations, thus avoiding conflict, as well as identifying areas which would be suitable for restoring wildlife to England….

For now, despite the strong, and welcome, references to restoring the natural environment in Greg Clark’s foreword, the draft NPPF is effectively green-wash. During the consultattion phase, the balance of truly sustainable development – which helps us to live within environmental limits – needs to be restored.

Whilst Simon Marsh on his blog states

Our first, and overriding, concern, relates to a profound shift in emphasis for the planning system, centred around the so-called ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. A tricky concept to bring to life, in principle this sounds good, but in practice? Well, let’s just say it has raised many eyebrows!

Ideally the presumption in favour of sustainable development would be just that – a presumption that unless development can prove it is sustainable, against a robust series of tests, it should not go ahead. This version, however, reads more like a presumption in favour of development, with the ‘sustainable’ tacked on to please the greenies.

This profoundly misses the point. Unless our much-needed economic growth is truly sustainable, we will be setting up problems for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren.

The draft establishes a reasonable (if not fantastic) definition of sustainable development at the outset, but then the presumption clearly places one ‘pillar’ of sustainability – economic growth – higher than the others as an objective for the planning system. This inconsistency is carried through the entire draft, and is a shift away from the current approach of the planning system which seeks to give equal weight to environmental, social and economic needs in decision-making.

What would this mean in practice? Basically, it could make it much harder for a local authority to refuse permission for a proposal that would damage the natural environment, unless someone is able to show that the ‘adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’. And that doesn’t sound straightforward.

Our second concern relates specifically to the measures outlined in the NPPF to support and encourage the restoration and enhancement of the natural environment. Whilst there are some welcome policies on this in the draft text, they do not go far enough to achieve the ambitions set out either in the government’s Natural Environment White Paper, or in Greg Clark’s own foreword.

Martin Harper comments back

As my colleague, Simon Marsh, points out in his blog, unless economic growth is sustainable, we will be storing up problems for our children. The reality is that the NPPF has gone too far by clearly places one ‘pillar’ of sustainability – economic growth – higher than the others as an objective for the planning system. This inconsistency is carried through the entire draft, and is a departure from the current approach of the planning system which seeks to give equal weight to environmental, social and economic needs in decision-making.

This is such a fundamental shift in emphasis, that we will be rolling up our sleeves to fight this.

I really cant see the shift they are talking about. It seems like an embarrassed admission they were fooled into greenwashing the draft to me.

For example there was never any concept of environmental limits and the word for word definition of the sustainability is the same as before. But that is by the by. What is clear now is that the NPPF is solely endorsed by pro-development interests