“Relax key national and local policy requirements” in Investment Zones, How it might work, Which Parts of the NPPF will Go

In another post ill do adetailed drill downs on process, and developers contributions – but first policy

Saterdays Investment Zomes Guidance

For developments in the early stages of planning, and to encourage new development to come forward, there will be a new faster and more streamlined consent to grant planning permission. This consent will reduce many of the burdensome requirements which has made the planning of large sites slower and more complex than it should be, to enable developers to bring forward good quality development which responds to the market. In particular, we will:

• remove burdensome EU requirements which create paperwork and stall development but do not necessarily protect the environment;
• focus developer contributions on essential infrastructure requirements;
• reduce lengthy consultation with statutory bodies; and
• relax key national and local policy requirements.

Key planning policies to ensure developments are well designed, maintain national policy on the Green Belt, protect our heritage, and address flood risk, highway and other public safety matters – along with building regulations – will continue to apply.

All Investment Zones will have a mandate to boost growth; in Zones, the planning system will not stand in the way of investment and development.

This is a familiar list compare footnote 7 of the NPPF, I bolden where there is a crossover

The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 181) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 68); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.

Some ommissions (such as areas at risk of coastal change) may have just been missed in the rush as well as areas having equivalent status (such as MOL and LGS) as Green Belt, but leaving out natural sites seem deliberate.

The addition of ‘other public safety matters’ seems an acknowledgement of a flaw in the NPPF, as some areas such as public safety ziones at airports, nuclear and major hazard zones have a presumption against in circulars not controlled by the department. Similarly if safety is supposed to be everyone stop priority, why not fire evacuation safety and highway safety? So expect some changes in the revised NPPF.

Also with the LURB Bill Design had to be in the top tier, though this risks every tilted balence case being refused on drummed up fake design grounds (‘not in keeping with the area’ etc.).

Well we know the attempt to dissplay and water down nature controls, probably a petrobillionair driven intervention and a allergic reaction of Brexiters to anything originating from Europe, and catching SSSIs (which dont) in the wake – I have heard rumors fro the civil service of one senior minister saying SSSIs that arnt national network (Habitat directive) sites should only get protection as they are the only ones which are properly British (how dumb can you get). Though the strength of the NFU lobbby against any natural controls (contrast with CLBA policy) is also a major factor.

Surely National Parks and AONBS were ommitted by mistake? Seems not as large areas of national parks and AONB appear in the offical Freeports Maps, and the climate destroying 55 Tufton Street funding billionair petrodollars billionaires who run this lot lomng want to shot down thse controls top open up areas for fracking, just like they campaigned to open up national parks and federal lands in the states. Its all in the plan. The Tuton Street mafia have long viewed National Parks as a collectivist socialist stalinist Atlle Government intervention with its nonsense of rights to access other peoples land.

So lets look at every other paragraph in the NPPF, not relating to these contraints which would now be dissplied

Though as the government admits this would require primary legislation not just changes to the NPPF or new NPPG.

Part 3 Local Plans

Paras 55-58 Planning Conditions and Obligations – where they dont apply to the new top tier of controls

Part 5 Housing and Affordable Housing

Part 8 Community Facilities (no such thing as communities) and Open Space

Para 87 Sequential Test for Main Centre uses (now impossible to define with Class E)

Part 9 Sustainable Transport (s106 for cycling and buses how woke) – Para 111 on severe traffic congestion seemingly notimportant.

Part 11 Making Effective Use of Land, Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change (climate Change not a priority issue), except flood risk

Part 15 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Part 17 Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals (apart from new renewables, and Oil, gas and coal exploration and extraction)

Of course Ministers will deny any and all of these, whilst proposing Henry IIX clauses to allow them to diapply any and aall of tehse (same tactic with Habiat regs.

A good question journas can ask is ‘Mintser is a copy of the NPPF and a blue maarker – please strike out those parts that will no longer apply in investment ones.

A final though will this work like HDT ‘presumption’ ie. planning balence tips fulling in favour of approval even on unallocated sites – with other material consideration tipping other way

Of like an SPZ or zonuing, where other material considerarions dont apply and you might not even get prior approval – unless possibly for design review (which is notthe Japenese stle zoning that Truss like so much)?

We will see.