Proceeding contribution from Nick Raynsford (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 20 October 2011. It occurred during Debate on National Planning Policy Framework.
National Planning Policy Framework
My hon. Friend makes, as always, a very telling point. This is the problem: the NPPF has been put together in a hurry, and the Government's objective has been brevity rather than clarity, and as a result it is wanting in many areas and will have to be rewritten. The fourth area I want to highlight where the NPPF is defective is in respect of mixed developments to ensure that we have balanced communities with affordable and social housing as well as market housing. The NPPF's statement is very inadequate, as the Minister knows only too well. There is a loose reference to ““larger scale residential developments”” benefiting from mix, but no definition of ““larger scale””. The problem, as the Minister knows perfectly well, is that in the absence of clear definitions and documents such as those that existed under the previous regime—the planning policy guidance statements—individual developers, local authorities and communities will form their own judgments, they will be in dispute with each other and there will be a rise in appeals and litigation. It will be the lawyers who determine the outcome rather than the Government, the local authority or the local community. That is the real risk of the position in which the Government are putting themselves and our planning system. In the absence of transitional arrangements, the need for which the Minister now belatedly accepts, people will reach for the lawyers to try to determine what should happen because plans are not fully prepared and in place in time to be referred to. In summary, we have a planning system that plays an absolutely critical role in mediating between competing interests, which requires carefully considered judgments based on experience built up over decades. Against that background, it was unwise of the Government to proceed in a hubristic way with a year zero approach of trying to rewrite the rules. I am glad they are now beginning to recognise their mistake and to row back. I hope they will now apply rather more intelligence, thoughtfulness and consultation to preparing their revised NPPF, which should be a better document than the current one.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 533 c1103-4
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Construction Brownfield sites Housing Green belt Planning permission Planning Property development Standards Regional planning and development Sustainable development Affordable housing
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 13:25:39 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_775490
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_775490
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_775490