The Environmental Audit Committee has heard evidence and recommendations regarding the Government’s proposed planning reforms and the environment
Evidence was given on the NPPF environmental issues by Professor Alister Scott, Northumbria University Professor of environmental geography and planning.
Evidence was presented in Westminster to examine how the proposed reforms will promote housing growth and their effects on the surrounding natural environment.
With more homes needed, NPPF environmental issues need to be addressed
Professor Scott discussed the primary concerns with the policy’s impact on the natural environment through his own research regarding planning and green infrastructure.
He said that there was a need to move away from siloed thinking and disintegrated policy in government departments, unifying policy areas and working on spatial planning in a strategic way.
As an example, Professor Scott highlighted the Departments of Health, Culture, Media and Sport, Transport, Science and Innovation, and HM Treasury as needing to be more engaged, and making land use planning not an issue for Defra and the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government alone. He also stressed that these departments should be heavily involved in the re-development of brownfield sites, rather than the simple blanket default of granting planning permission.
He also emphasised that the way policies are worded are not strong-worded enough, making it too easy for the natural environment to be ‘outranked’ in importance by economic factors. The NPPF has had major changes published in the housing and green belt sections, but the section on the natural environment was virtually unchanged.
Professor Scott supports a shift in how nature is valued, stating that nature requires valuation in several different ways and that these need to be addressed and a re-think is needed in how prosperity is valued. In this, the planning system needs re-balancing to make sure that the economy is equal to both nature and the community around sites.
Professor Scott draws on experience from being the special advisor to the House of Lords Select Committee inquiry into responding to the increasing demands on land in England, and has been awarded a Fellowship by the Academy of Social Sciences for his work in improving policy and decision-making in built and natural environments.
“It is important to focus on placemaking and placekeeping”
Professor Scott said: “The current priority in planning is stated as economic development and most of the consultation is taken up with issues of housing and economic development. While I agree this is a priority, having separate governance regimes for urban and rural space puts the emphasis on first establishing the number of houses or jobs before bolting on other considerations afterwards. The economic imperative alone does not make the most effective use of land.
“In the question of a default ‘yes’ for brownfield development, for example, the default answer should instead always be evidence based. Brownfield sites can have significant biodiversity interest and can also be very costly to develop. Before assuming these are preferred development sites, I believe there should be an accurate assessment of their multifunctional potential, and a decision made from there based on the evidence obtained.
Targets should focus on placemaking rather than meeting quotas
“Primacy is given to economic growth with nature, community and equity issues lagging. The planning system has a key role in alleviating poverty and social exclusion as well as providing decent housing. I have called strongly for the policy to explicitly incorporate the UN Sustainable Development Goals to ensure that environmental and equity considerations are not simply bolted on but are incorporated from the start.
“If we fundamentally reshape how planning is done it would lead to better spaces where economic, environmental and social limits and opportunities work together. I believe it is important to focus on placemaking and placekeeping, rather than setting targets for having a certain number of houses or trees. These quantity metrics can distort planning practices and lead to outcomes we might not have chosen had we planned more strategically.”
The Environment Audit Committee’s hearing can be viewed online here, with transcripts available here.
