In the zone #3 - the problem with “Protect” areas
October: leaves falling, scarves, over-coats, hot chocolates and consultations. Our Government wants your views. On all sorts of interesting things. And it wants ‘em now.
In fact, for the changes the current planning system consultation, you’re already too late. But all is not lost for:
The Faulks review into JR - which I talked about here. Deadline: 19th Oct. For some more stellar context on this, some of my colleagues at Landmark Chambers joined up with the good folks at Town Legal this week for a fascinating seminar on the planning court - do have a look.
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee call for evidence on the White Paper proposals. Deadline: 30th Oct.
And, lest we forget, the dear old White Paper itself. Deadline 29th Oct.
You may know now which bits of “Planning for the Future” get your thumbs up. And which don’t. If not, can I offer you some deep cuts from the #Planoraks archive:
My 5 minute introduction to the White Paper.
10 questions with Kitkat QC (who helped produce the White Paper) and Steve Quartermain (who’s ridden the merry-go-round of national planning reform once or twice before).
Deeper dives into the big ideas for growth areas and a national housing plan.
My take on some of the major political challenges the White Paper is up against.
But in all that focussing on growth, 300,000 houses, “build, build, build”, we musn’t miss another of the White Paper’s big ideas. A tricky idea. The idea for where the building stops.
Areas for protection.
Right. What are they? Well, they’re:
“sites and areas which, as a result of their particular environmental and/or cultural characteristics, would justify more stringent development controls to ensure sustainability. This would include areas such as Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), Conservation Areas, Local Wildlife Sites, areas of significant flood risk and important areas of green space. At a smaller scale it can continue to include gardens in line with existing policy in the National Planning Policy Framework. It would also include areas of open countryside outside of land in Growth or Renewal areas. Some areas would be defined nationally, others locally on the basis of national policy, but all would be annotated in Local Plan maps and clearly signpost the relevant development restrictions defined in the National Planning Policy Framework.”
If you’re in one, what happens? Well, same as now really. Any development proposal needs a planning application. And it’s judged against the NPPF. And given the new proposal for a bolstered statutory presumption in favour of the development plan (which will already have decided against new development on your site), we can expect planning applications in areas for protection to be… a bit of an uphill struggle.
Sound good to you? Protecting our green and pleasant land. Well, yes, I mean… any planning system worth its salt needs to designate areas worth preserving. Then work out how preserving them can be sensibly balanced with needs for growth.
So what’s the issue? For me, it’s a risk of muddling up.
Protection’s important. But we need to know what exactly it is that we’re trying to protect. And in the various areas to be lumped into the “protect” zone, the things which are actually being protected are totally different. Take for example:
Green Belt: As I said here, albeit politicians invoke the Green Belt when they’re waxing lyrical about beautiful green spaces, Green Belt has nothing to do with nothing to do with scenic beauty, landscape quality, or wildlife protection (at least so far as England is concerned). Its about openness. The thing we’re “protecting” against is “urban sprawl”.
AONBs: These are about (clue’s in the title) outstanding natural beauty. So completely different ball-game to Green Belt. There’s a statutory purpose to designating them which is “for the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area”.
Conservation Areas: This time what we’re protecting are areas of “special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance”.
Open countryside: Pre-NPPF development plans up and down the land deemed “open countryside” to be everything outside fixed settlement boundaries, and applied a blanket policy of protection to that countryside - for its own sake. That followed the old PPG7 approach. But the old approach is inconsistent with the NPPF’s distinction between:
“Valued” landscapes (meaning of that phrase for a later post!), which are to be protected; and
Other landscapes, which are to be recognised in the planning balance.
As Mrs Justice Lang said in the Telford and Wrekin case, unlike PPG7, the NPPF does not include a blanket protection of the countryside for its own sake. So a “blanket protection”-style countryside policy is inconsistent with the (current) NPPF’s approach.
So what’s going to happen when you bundle all of these different designations up together (along with further designations about wildlife conservation, flood risk and other things)?
My guess… confusion. Muddled thinking. Conflation of the objectives - in policy and in law - of these very important but very different areas of national policy.
What we will see on the swanky new digital streamlined local plan map is a big red zone (or probably a green zone) with a key. Yes the key will refer us to the NPPF which will explain which designations apply. But the message for most users of the planning system will be unmistakeable: “thou shalt not build here”.
This is one of those areas where the White Paper’s generally commendable drive toward simplicity is dangerous. Because these areas of policy - particularly on the Green Belt - are already the policies best known about and least understood by members of the public. Conflating them together with all kinds of other things will propagate the confusion. And that risks stifling more sophisticated debates about when development might be appropriate or justified in these areas. Even if, heaven forfend, the development had not been anticipated by the drafters of the local plan.
A new scheme may (for instance) be harmful to the Green Belt by imposing on openness. But it may cause absolutely no damage to the historic interest of a conservation area. Lumping these designations together risks widespread confusion on why the specific areas are being protected and what exactly we are seeking to protect.
Simplicity’s a noble virtue for any planning system. But not when it risks adding to the confusion.
I hope you’re keeping well, whatever tier you find yourself in. And stay safe out there, #planoraks. Winter is coming. We’ll all have to find something to do to fill the time we used to spend responding to Government consultations.
