Planning and Localism - What will it mean?

For the last few weeks I have been trying to come up with a few salient points about the new National Planning Policy framework and what does the localism agenda mean for planning. I am still not sure I have any clear answers. However, it does seem to me that the tone of the NPPF is at odds with the whole premise of localism.


Localism implies that local people and thir political leaders will have a big choice in what development goes forward. The NPPF is much more bullish in expecting virtually all development to proceed - oh yes ... if it is sustainable! Now there is a debate that could go on and on and on.

A supermarket development near my house ...
my view:  clearly it is unsustainable, it will cause a massive increase in car journeys, congestion, extra pressure on water and sewage infrastructure, reduction in the vitality of the town centre;

developers view - clearly sustainable, increase in jobs.

What does it mean if local people believe they have the ability to say no to development and then find they can't.  This will rapidly lead to a loss of trust by the community, delays in planning and a return to planning by appeal. Ultimately uncertainty in the planning system and a reduction in the delivered new development.

We have big infrastructure projects that must be delivered, energy, waste roads, ICT. Uncertainties in planning will have a huge impact on the economy. The pot holes in the road ahead are getting bigger.

Who are these taxpayers to whom you refer?

I am getting a bit cheesed off with the references to taxpayers owning banks etc... What a load of bunkum.
We "Tax-payers" don't own anything. It is the that Government part own the banks. We "voters", whether we pay tax or not, have a small influence at elections.


Tax paying voters have no more rights/ influence than non tax-paying voters.

What do we need from a National Planning Policy Framework?

Where we live and how we choose to build has a profound affect on how we all live. Spatial planning is the canvas that facilitates the delivery all aspects of government policy. Yet planning policy is often an area that is little understood and completely undervalued. The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is currently out for consultation and is leading to a discussion about development and building, but is that discussion deep enough and are we really thinking about the fundamentals?

Planning should support all sustainable development. The new NPPS defines sustainable developmentnas being about growth, but sustainable development is really about advancement, not just growth. It is about making things better.  In order to achieve this we need to understand what we want to achieve, not just in terms of building, but in terms of all policy areas. So we want to ...

• Creating an economy where people are active and rewarded for their activity and business can function efficiently and effectively, so we need the right road, rail, water and IT infrastructure.
• Improve public health by tackling obesity, this means we have to think about how we encourage more walking and cycling
• Reduce crime, this means we have to have well designed spaces that reduce the opportunities for crime, for example by avoiding creating spaces that are not easily visible.
• Creating a low carbon future, with energy efficient buildings and new low carbon energy sources, including wind, as well as reducing the need to travel.

To do all of this we need to integrate all policy goals and spatial planning provides a vehicle to deliver these goals but to do so we must be clear where we want to go and what we want to do. Sustainable development is our signpost to where we want to be, but there are a number of routes that we can take to reach our "destination". The new NPPS is a naive document, setting out broad policy, but ignoring the difficulties of implementation. Implementation is critical and must be aligned with spending across all government departments and direct the private economic investment. 

None of this is easy, if it was we would have done it by now. There are hard choices and a need for a lot of discussiona nd thought. People have to be engaged in a debate about what we want the country to look like in 20, 30 and 50 years from now. What sort of houses do we want? How can we make sure what we build is not simply the slums of the future? The Government need a proper plan, effectively their business plan for delivering our future, costed, reviewed and regularly monitored and the discussion needs to start now. Spatial Planning should not the backwater of Government policy, but rather the powerhouse of policy delivery and implementation.

For more info see my webpage   http://www.helen-chadwick.co.uk/index.html