Groups vow to fight the planning shake-up, which they fear could lead to 鈥檜nchecked鈥� expansion

Conservation groups have signalled their intent to fight government plans, outlined by the government this week, to make the planning system more pro-development.

The National Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England were among many environmental groups to signal strong opposition to the proposals for the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), described as the biggest planning shake-up in 50 years, which says planning applications should be approved unless there are very good reasons not to.

Developers welcomed the draft framework, but outlined concerns about how effective a number of the measures will be in unlocking progress. As expected, the draft included a presumption in favour of development, and said councils had to set aside 20% more land for new housing.

It proposes that any local plans should ensure that planning obligations allow sites to provide an 鈥渁cceptable return鈥� to landowners offering land for development.

The National Trust said it had 鈥済rave concerns鈥� this will lead to 鈥渦nchecked and damaging development鈥�. The CPRE has already threatened to take the government to court over its proposal, contained in the Localism Bill, to explicitly allow councils to take account of financial considerations when making planning decisions.

Rachel Fisher, head of policy at Design Council Cabe, said the body supported the principle of the changes but the 鈥減roblematic鈥� wording of the presumption in favour 鈥渄oesn鈥檛 really live up to鈥� the government鈥檚 commitment to sustainability.

Decentralisation minister Greg Clark declined to say if he will fight the conservationists, but maintained that the presumption in favour was 鈥渟orely needed鈥�.

He said: 鈥淒evelopment must be sustainable: environmentally, socially and economically. I don鈥檛 see any necessary tension between economic growth and the environment.鈥�

Clark also denied the NPPF would lead to more planning applications being decided in the courts.

锘縉PPF recommendations:

Presumption in favour: Permission should be granted if proposals accord with statutory plans or, otherwise, unless 鈥渢he adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly outweigh the benefits鈥�.

Viability: 鈥淟ocal planning authorities鈥� should assess the likely cumulative impacts on development in their area of all existing and proposed local standards鈥� providing an 鈥渁cceptable鈥� return for landowners.

Housing: The five-year supply of land should include 鈥渁n additional allowance of at least 20% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land鈥�.

Topics