The NPPF places very great weight on the goal of 'sustainable development'. [see section 7]
The NPPF's definition of 'sustainable development' is imprecise. [see section 8.1]
A more precise definition of 'sustainable development' is needed for sound planning decisions to be made. [see section 8.1]
Local Planning Authorities can use novel interpretations of the current imprecise NPPF definition of 'sustainable development' in order to deliver arbitrary planning determinations.
[see section 11]

Proposed actions:

An enhanced definition of 'sustainable development' should be created from the existing NPPF text i.e. without requiring any changes to the NPPF or other planning policies.
[see sections 9 & 12.2]
The enhanced definition for 'sustainable development' should be made mandatory for all parties those involved in planning applications. [see section 12.3]
A brief, standardised 'sustainable development' check-list, in plain English, should be created for use by Local Planning Authorities. This brief check-list would be required to:
a: confirm that any proposed development would satisfy each of the five Key Principles
b: contain a brief questionnaire which would allow the creation of a score for each of the three attributes, Economic, Social & Environmental. [see section 12.4]
Local Planning Authorities should be required to complete the brief 'sustainable development' check-list for every planning decision, not just for larger projects. [see sections 10 & 12.4]
Local Planning Authorities should no longer be allowed to use arbitrary 'single point' sustainability arguments in order to refuse planning applications. [see section 12.5]

2. Author's background

The author, Mr Richard Hathway, is providing this submission as a private individual.

The author is not a planning professional, but does have a strong interest in the planning system, the NPPF and in sustainability.

The author and his wife run a small sustainable farm in Worcestershire.

They have submitted several planning applications in order to support their farm, and so have obtained experience of the planning system from an applicant's viewpoint.

The author and his wife have been interviewed about their approach to sustainable farming by the Sunday Telegraph and also by BBC Radio 4's PM program.

In addition to the small farm, the author is a Chartered Engineer who runs a medical device business and also develops software, primarily for low-power devices such as mobile phones.

The author has also provided various contributions on planning issues to Lord Taylor's review of NPPF Guidance, to the DCLG and to the SWDP (South Worcestershire Development Plan) process.

3. Author's motivation

During his planning research, the author has observed the apparent disregard that some Local Planning Authorities have for the NPPF.

In particular, the lack of a clear definition of 'sustainable development' in the NPPF is allowing LPAs to adjust their in-house definition of 'sustainable development' on a case-by-case basis.

This technique allows an LPA to engineer arbitrary rejections or acceptances of planning applications.

The author has also noted that the general public is become very concerned about the apparently arbitrary, uncaring and non-transparent way that LPAs are handling planning decisions.

Accordingly, the author has been driven to provide this contribution to the Select Committee, in the hope that the sustainability aims and policies of the NPPF are fully embraced by Local Planning Authorities, without suffering arbitrary hindrances, omissions, additions or modifications.

4. Important Note

The author was tempted not to bother with this submission.

After all, 'sustainability' as a concept has been around for many decades.

Many hugely comprehensive reports, conventions, initiatives etc have come and gone. Yet, have we seen step changes in the way we live and consume over the decades?

Sadly the answer has to be 'No' : British homes are still poorly insulated. Our roads and motorways are still choked with vehicles.

In view of this apparent institutional incapability of converting concepts and plans into real-world actions, the author nearly decided not to bother with this submission.

However the author noticed a rather alarming letter this week in his local newspaper. Note: The author is not acquainted with the writer of the letter.

An extract follows:

(...)

I would advise the Planning Department and committee members to recall the consequences of the Ceausescu regime in Romania and the fate of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu

(...)

That rather disturbing letter is just the tip of the iceberg: many people are very unhappy with the way planning decisions are currently being made.

In the author's experience most people blame the Local Planning Authorities rather than central government for the current problems.

It is worrying that arbitrary and high-handed behaviour from Local Planning Authorities could lead to a general distrust of democracy and the political process.

If the author's contribution can help improve Local Planning Authorities' handling of planning issues even slightly, then the effort would have been worth it.

5. Introduction

There is currently a Parliamentary Select Committee considering the progress/status of the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) two years following its introduction in 2012.

A Select Committee session is scheduled for Wednesday 12th September 2014, entitled:

“Impact of NPPF on sustainable development”

The author feels that any discussion of 'sustainable development' cannot proceed without a firm definition of the term.

The author also believes that the NPPF's definition of 'sustainable development' is less than clear.

Accordingly this document covers the following points:

What is 'sustainable development'?
How much importance is attached to 'sustainable development' by the NPPF?
How is 'sustainable development' currently defined in the NPPF?
Can we devise or present a clearer definition of 'sustainable development' using the existing NPPF text?
How can 'sustainability' be measured or scored by Local Planning Authorities and others.
How is 'sustainable development' being interpreted by Local Planning Authorities?
How can the handling and interpretation of 'sustainable development' issues can be improved?

6. What is 'sustainable development'?

We all live on a planet with finite resources, so we should aim to “leave the planet as we found it”.

If we fail to limit our impact on the environment, our children and their children will find themselves in a highly populated world lacking key resources and having insufficient energy supplies.

Additionally the natural world may become severely damaged, and our environment may become even more degraded and polluted than it is today.

Accordingly it has become generally accepted that we need to encourage a new way of thinking and working which will allow us to “leave the planet as we found it”.

The generally accepted term for policies and actions which lead to this goal is 'sustainable development'.

There are many definitions of 'sustainability' and 'sustainable development' in existence.

However we need to come up with a definition which is appropriate for use with the NPPF.

This topic is discussed in section 8.

7. Does the NPPF regard 'sustainable development' as being important?

Clearly it would not be worthwhile to spend too much time reviewing the NPPF's attitude to 'sustainable development' unless the topic was of significance.

However a quick review of the NPPF immediately clarifies the situation.

The very first line of the 'Ministerial Forward' states:

“The purpose of planning is to help
achieve sustainable development.”

In fact the words 'sustainable' or 'sustainability' are mentioned eight times in that single page of 'Ministerial Forward'.

In the body of the NPP itself there is one single main heading.

This is entitled:

Achieving sustainable development

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF then states:

“At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.”

Furthermore, a word frequency analysis of a text version of the 20,000 word NPPF document shows the following:

Word	Occurrences
planning	446
development	362
authorities	150
plan	121
policies	120
areas	110
sustainable	105
policy	97
area	95
land	93
sites	93
plans	89
national	85
housing	84
framework	83
heritage	66
green	64
environment	58
town	53
community	49

(Trivial words have been omitted for clarity)

This data shows very clearly that 'sustainable' is one of the most important words in the NPPF text.

To summarise: It can be seen that 'sustainable development' is the primary driver or goal of the NPPF.

Accordingly it is vital to ensure that all aspects of the planning process are designed to focus on this primary goal of the NPPF.

8. The NPPF definition of 'sustainable development'

8.1 The need for a definition of 'sustainable development'

As noted earlier, we all now need to think more about living sustainably if we want our children to live in a clean, healthy and pleasant world.

However we do need to have a workable definition of 'sustainable development' which can aid us in our planning decisions.

There are many definitions to choose from - but sadly the current main planning policy document the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) does not provide an explicit definition of 'sustainable development'.

Luckily the NPPF does refer to two key source documents as being the key to its view on 'sustainable development'.

This is discussed further below.

8.2 Key source documents

The NPPF suggests what key documents we should refer to for our definition of 'sustainable development'.

NPPF: Achieving sustainable development

International and national bodies have set out broad principles of sustainable development.

Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly ... defined sustainable development as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs

The UK Sustainable Development Strategy Securing the Future ... set out five ‘guiding principles’ of sustainable development: living within the planet’s environmental limits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; promoting good governance; and using sound science responsibly.

The NPPF therefore can be seen to refer to two key supporting documents:

Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly (1987)
(also known as 'The Brundtland Report' or 'Our Common Future')
The UK Sustainable Development Strategy 'Securing the Future' (2005)

Both of these documents are very large, very complex and cover a wide range of topics and issues.

8.3 “The Brundtland Report”

The Brundtland Report is an excellent analysis of the environmental and sustainability challenges which face us all.

It gives us the brief but effective and widely used definition of 'sustainable development' shown below:

Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

8.4 “Securing the Future”

Securing the Future contains much useful information, and promotes dozens of new strategies, schemes, policies, websites etc (not all related to sustainability) ... but sadly very few of these schemes, policies or websites seem to have survived the test of time.

That said, Securing the Future does give us five Key Principles which are still widely recognised today:

8.5 The Three Pillars of Sustainable Development

The NPPF also states: 'There are three dimensions to sustainable development: Economic, Social and Environmental.'

The relationship between these three components is shown below:

The diagram shows that a truly sustainable project will perform well where all three Environmental, Social and Economic attributes make a signification contribution.

(This three-factor concept was introduced in Agenda 21 at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and is introduced to the NPPF by Securing the Future. The NPPF however does not suggest that Agenda 21 or the Rio Summit are inputs into its policies)

The NPPF's viewpoint on these three attributes Economic, Social and Environmental, is as follows:

7. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.

These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles:

an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;

a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and

an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

8. These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent.

Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well-designed buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities.

Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.

The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.

9. The NPPF definition of 'sustainable development' presented in an improved format

The previous section suggests that an enhanced definition of 'sustainable development', as understood by the NPPF can be framed.

In order to avoid any rework of the NPPF text, an enhanced definition should simply re-use and re-package existing text from the NPPF.

One possible enhanced definition of 'sustainable development' is shown below:

The NPPF's Overall Definition of
'Sustainable Development'

'Sustainable development' meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Any 'sustainable development' project should adhere to the following five key principles:

living within the planet’s environmental limits;
ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
achieving a sustainable economy;
promoting good governance;
using sound science responsibly.

Any 'sustainable development' project should include:

an economic role
a social role
an environmental role

Economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.

These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent.

10. Scoring 'sustainable development'

Although not spelled out in the NPPF, it is clear from the previous section that the 'sustainability' of any specific proposed development can be 'scored' in at least a semi-quantitative manner.

Such 'scoring' would be based on an aggregate score built from individual scores for each of the three sustainability attributes: Economic, Social, Environmental.

The ability to 'score' planning proposals would allow:

Absolute quantitative checks: where any specific proposal would have to achieve a certain overall score in order to be found 'sustainable'.

Comparative quantitative checks: where the overall scores of competing proposals could be compared in order to determine which project delivered the highest level of 'sustainability'.

In fact, many techniques and methods for scoring 'sustainability' already exist.

These methods can be based on paper forms, computer spreadsheets or on-line programs.

The formats of the assessments can be any of the following:

Free format text reviews
Basic yes/no tick-box check-lists
Check-lists with items 'scored' on say a 1-9 scale, with a single final 'goodness' value derived from a weighted review of all the scores
Complex hybrid systems which include various check-lists and calculations

The following are examples of relatively advanced and comprehensive computer-based assessment systems:

The UK Code for Sustainable Homes methodology as operated by BRE
The LEED program as used in the USA and other counties
The CASBEE system as used in Japan

These systems can provide valid qualitative and quantitative insights into the 'sustainability' of a proposal.

However these system can be somewhat arcane and can be expensive in time and/or money.

It is certainly doubtful that such systems would be appropriate for use by novice planning applicants.

As a more manageable alternative, various Local Planning Authorities have produced their own 'sustainability check-lists'.

These vary from very basic non-mandatory questionnaires to more comprehensible but more opaque spreadsheets.

It is probable that a standardised, relatively simple, 'NPPF friendly' check-list could be devised in order to 'score' the 'sustainability' of small and medium sized proposals.

Note: Local Planning Authorities already have to deal with:

SAs (Sustainability Assessments) when devising planning policy documents
EIAs (Environmental Impact Assessments) when dealing with very large planning proposals

Both of these processes require very advanced scoring techniques covering 'sustainability' issues.

Obviously these advanced techniques would be overkill for NPPF use - but their use does show that most LPAs already have the appropriate 'sustainability scoring' skills available in-house.

11. Local Planning Authorities and 'sustainable development'

It is clear from the author's review of many planning applications and planning appeals that not all Local Planning Authorities are happy to adopt the new NPPF over their old Local Plans.

Some Local Authorities seem prepared to use any uncertainty or imprecision in the NPPF to their own advantage.

This reluctance to embrace the NPPF's aims extends to LPA's handling of 'sustainable development'.

The imprecise definition of 'sustainable development' in the NPPF allows Local Planning Authorities to modify their interpretation of 'sustainability' on a case-by-case basis.

This can even extend to a Planning Officer using different sustainability assessment techniques in different planning determinations, in order to achieve in each case a planning result favourable to the Local Authority.

The NPPF, as noted earlier, has 'sustainable development' as its primary focus.

This focus is intended to improve the lives of our children and their children.

Sadly the author is not convinced that Local Planning Authorities understand the importance of these issues.

It can seem that planning decisions are often treated more as a 'political game' rather than an opportunity to improve the lot of the English citizen and his/her descendants.

In view of these possible issues, it seems that some aspects of the NPPF need clarifying and reinforcing so that Local Planning Authorities follow the route towards 'sustainable development' that was anticipated by the authors of the NPPF.

It is clear that measures urgently need to be put in place in order to ensure consistent and transparent handling of 'sustainable development' issues by Local Planning Authorities.

12. Suggestions

12.1 Discussion

It is clear to the author that a few basic changes to the way 'sustainable development' is handled by users of the NPPF would benefit the planning system greatly.

Such improvements need no changes to the core NPPF text.

A few key improvement suggestions follow:

12.2 Suggestion #1 : An improved definition of 'sustainable development' should be released

It is very clear that the definition of 'sustainable development' in the NPPF is somewhat imprecise.

This lack of precision is leading to unpredictable planning decisions.

Accordingly we need an improved and clearer definition of 'sustainable development'.

It is clearly very difficult procedurally to modify the NPPF in order to change its wording.

However it should be possible to use the existing wording of the NPPF in order to construct a clear and more usable definition of 'sustainable development'.

This will avoid any need for Local Planning Authorities to devise their own DIY definitions of 'sustainable development'

The wording in section 9 above is an example of one possible definition based on text found in the NPPF.

12.3 Suggestion #2 : The new definition of 'sustainable development' should be made mandatory

As noted above, it is very clear that the definition of 'sustainable development' in the NPPF is somewhat imprecise.

This imprecision allows some Local Planning Authorities to modify their interpretation of 'sustainability' on a case-by-case basis.

This obviously can lead to suspicions that this technique is used to deliver a planning decision preferred by the Local Planning Department.

Accordingly, once a more precise definition of 'sustainable development' has been proposed, that definition should be made mandatory.

The creation of a standard definition for 'sustainable development' will avoid any need for Local Planning Authorities to use multiple DIY definitions.

12.4 Suggestion #3 : Every planning decision should be accompanied by a basic check-list 'scoring' the application's 'sustainable development' credentials

Currently there is very little transparency relating to how 'sustainable development' has been considered in any specific planning application.

Indeed, it is quite possible for little or no consideration of 'sustainable development' to have been made in some planning applications.

In order to obtain a level playing field, every planning decision needs to be accompanied by by a check-list 'scoring' the application's 'sustainable development' credentials.

This check-list needs to be provided with every planning decision - not just 'major' decisions. This total coverage is required to avoid Local Planning Authorities using a different set of rules when determining smaller planning projects.

Ideally these check-lists should be very detailed - but in reality, in order to avoid excessive preparation workload and cost, very basic check-lists would suffice.

(These check-lists could be augmented by detailed analysis in the case of large or complex proposals)

The brief check-list would be required to:

confirm that any proposed development would satisfy each of the five Key Principles
contain a brief questionnaire which would allow the creation of a score for each of the three attributes, Economic, Social and Environmental

These check-lists should be in plain English, so that non-technical planning applicants can follow the reasoning.

Note: Some LPAs do indeed provide Sustainable Development Check-Lists. These documents can however range from very basic guidelines to over-complex spreadsheets. A standardised and brief check-list might prove more useful in most cases.

12.5 Suggestion #4 : Local Planning Authorities should be prevented from issuing 'single point' reasons to justify planning refusals based on lack of 'sustainability'.

It is clear to the author that Local Planning Authorities are fully aware of how 'sustainable development' can be scored.

Local Planning Authorities already have to deal with:

SAs (Sustainability Assessments) when devising planning policy documents
EIAs (Environmental Impact Assessments) when dealing with very large planning proposals

Both of these processes require very advanced scoring techniques covering 'sustainability' issues.

Despite the clear ability of Local Planning Authorities and their Planning Officers to handle 'scoring' of 'sustainable development', these techniques are rarely used with medium sized or small planning proposals.

Instead, Local Planning Authorities can - and do- issue arbitrary planning refusals based on DIY single-point arguments such as:

“Private motor car usage will increase, and so the proposal is unsustainable”
“The proposed site is outside a planning boundary and so is unsustainable”
“There is no bus service and so the proposal is unsustainable”

Appeal Inspectors very often set aside these claims by Local Authorities - but clearly an application should not have to go to Appeal in order for a fair and equitable assessment of 'sustainable development' to be made.

Local Planning Authorities should therefore be required to base any planning determinations on the standardised basic 'sustainability'
check-list discussed above.

13. Conclusions

The Conclusions are presented in the 'Executive Summary' in section 1 of this document.

14. Afterword

It is clear that the NPPF was created by a highly skilled and motivated team of people who fully understand the concept of 'sustainable development'.

The general tenor of the NPPF is very positive and reflects the obvious belief of the NPPF's creators that our planning system can be changed for the better.

The NPPF's focus on 'sustainable development' also shows that the NPPF's creators fully understand the urgent need for a change in how we all use and manage the world's resources.

The NPPF's refers to the Brundland Report and its definition of 'sustainable development':

Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

This shows that a key aim of the NPPF is to guarantee the well-being of our children and our children's children.

In other words the NPPF is not just a bureaucratic document designed to modify the day-to-day working of the planning process : it is much more than that.

Sadly Local Planning Authorities and others often fail to embrace the spirit of the NPPF. They can simply regard it as yet another piece of central government paperwork to be be ignored or worked around.

The Select Committee now has a chance to improve the take up of the 'sustainability' aspects of the NPPF through the encouragement of a few simple procedural changes.

Without these procedural changes, some Local Planning Authorities will continue to ignore the NPPF whenever possible and will quietly wait for new governments and new Housing Ministers to come and go.

In the meantime arbitrary planning decisions will continue to be made by unelected officials at the local level.

Unfortunately these arbitrary and non-transparent planning decisions are increasing public distrust of local government and the political process.

Real action is required now to ensure the success of the 'sustainable development' aspects of the NPPF.

It is also clear than these actions would help improve the quality of planning decisions. This would help restore the public's faith in the democratic process.

The Select Committee can help ensure that the required actions are taken.

September 2014