By Richard Burden, Principal Landscape and Planning Officer, Cranborne Chase National Landscape
On 17 August, the government changed the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which we had all become familiar with, into a completely new format with immediate effect. It seems the aim is to clarify, and hence speed up, when development can be approved. Previously the paragraphs were continuously numbered throughout the document but now each chapter has separate letters for each policy and then subordinate numbers and letters; a new system to engage with across some 130 pages! However, each chapter is now consistently structured with ‘plan-making policies’ followed by ‘national decision-making policies’.
Better news is that the Historic Environment chapter appears unchanged, and much of the text in relation to Natural Environment is similar to the previous version but moved around. However, the Protected Landscapes (PLs) no longer have the highest level of protection in relation to the conservation and enhancement of landscape and scenic beauty. Development proposals should still be limited in scale and extent in PLs. Footnote 60 provides for compensation being made if the harm of development in a PL cannot be mitigated. Our chalk streams are recognised as ‘sensitive’ in the pollution chapter, along with maintaining the character of tranquil areas and limiting the impacts of artificial light on ‘intrinsically dark landscapes’. A big concern, yet to be tested within the PLs, is the apparent thumbs-up to any housing development within walking distance of a train station.
A parallel matter, that has not made the media headlines but is probably more concerning, are the changes (brought in separately a few weeks earlier) to the ‘Scheme of Delegation’ which the Local Planning Authorities are having to apply from the end of October. Briefly, that limits the ability of local councillors to refer or call-in planning applications for consideration by planning committees and extends considerably the scope of planning applications that are approved by officers. Understandably there are concerns that political accountability for planning decisions is being significantly weakened and the decision-making role of councillors eroded.