The National Trust and Council for British Archaeology have responded to the UK government's "National Planning Policy Framework" - a small document that sweeps away a series of specific planning policies. The NT, in particular, campaigned vigorously against the original proposals, but have cautiously welcomed the amended "Framework". The following is the text of the National Trust "Wordpress" statement , the CBA's Britarch statement and the IfA's response. I suspect they think this is the best formulation that can be obtained from the present government, not that it represents a solid framework for future planning.
The Council for British Archaeology's Director, Dr Mike Heyworth said
Government has listened to public concerns on planning
Well, the day has finally come. The Government has published its National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and we welcome improvements which have been made to the draft.
Here’s our Direct0r-General Dame Fiona Reynolds’ take on it in her own words:
“There are a number of important changes that have been made to the draft, responding to concerns that we and others raised.
These include:
- the primacy of the plan is confirmed, ensuring that development must be consistent with the plan
- a better definition of sustainable development, based on the 2005 sustainable development strategy
- the insertion of references to the use of brownfield land and theneed to promote town centres
- removal of the incendiary default ‘yes’ to development where there is no plan
- reference to the ‘intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside’, recognising the importance of countryside outside designated areas
- confirmation that existing plans will remain in force while the new NPPF is introduced, and that there will be a one-year transition for the preparation of new plans
“All these changes improve the document and give it a better tone and balance.
“Now the serious business of planning begins. The country needs huge effort at a local level to get plans in place that properly reflect the integration of social, economic and environmental goals, and protect places people value.
“The National Trust, along with many other organisations and people, will play our part and watch to see how it works in practice.
“Over 230,000 people signed our petition against the draft NPPF – a sign of the huge public concern it generated. Now we owe it to them and future generations to get good plans in place to deliver the improved ambitions set out in the new document.”
Download the final National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF – PDF; 1.29 MB) to read in more detail for yourself.
Anything to add? Please feel free to comment and share your concerns below and you can join the conversation with us about planning on Twitter (@nationaltrust) using the #planning4ppl hashtag.
Blog by Kate Joynes-Burgess, Social Media & Communities Manager
The Council for British Archaeology's Director, Dr Mike Heyworth said
We welcome the strengthening of the NPPF to reflect a more balanced approach to sustainable development and the importance of the Local Plan as the strategic envelope for neighbourhood planning. It remains to be seen, however, whether 12 months will be sufficient for local planning authorities to put their Plans in place and whether they will be sufficently robust. It is a measure of how far we have come in the last 25 years that there is a chapter for the historic environment in the highest level of national policy-making and that the natural and historic environment appear alongside each other in integrated policies.
We are also pleased that Historic Environment Records (HERs) retain a central place in the information base for planning. This is particularly critical in view of the way that some local heritage services, like those on Merseyside, in Sandwell, Middlesbrough, and Redcar & Cleveland, have recently declined to maintain the Historic Environment Records for their areas. The new policy makes it clear that this is a requirement of national policy as part of the evidence base for planning. The CBA will be pressing these authorities to justify how they can meet the NPPF’s requirements without an HER.
We greatly regret, however, the loss of the Government’s policy objective for planning in PPS5 and the draft NPPF to contribute to knowledge and understanding of our past by capturing evidence from the historic environment. While the new policies are designed to ensure that arcahaeological evidence is secured in a manner proportionate to the importance of heritage assets and the impact on them, it is nevertheless deeply disappointing to see this important principle is no longer explicit in the NPPF. The Government’s aim may be to secure the fabric of our history but knowledge and understanding of their heritage is equally important to local communities.
The CBA is optimistic about new opportunities to work with neighbourhood planning groups to provide advice, information and encouragement for creative local planning that respects and celebrates the heritage. We will be pressing CLG to support the Practitioner Guidance that is essential to underpin the high-level policies in the NPPF, including the importance of the knowledge-gain from archaeological investigation where heritage assets will be lost. Clear guidance to local authorities on the provision of Historic Environment Records will also be needed. Draft Guidance has been in existence for several months and the priority now must be to see this is issued formally with endorsement from the Government.
The Institute for Archaeology says IfA responds to the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The Institute for Archaeology says IfA responds to the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) is pleased to see that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for England published today addresses a number of the concerns about the treatment of the historic environment raised by it with Government before, during and after the consultation process. They include
- recognition that the historic environment makes a positive contribution to society, the economy, our culture and our environment
- removal of the provision that the default answer to development should be ‘yes’
- support for Historic Environment Records (and, tacitly, for the dedicated expertise required to support them)
- clarity that policies in the Framework relating to decision-taking (including those requiring proper consideration of the impact of proposals on the historic environment) apply to Neighbourhood Development Orders as well as other decisions affecting the historic environment
- clear recognition that the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a heritage asset is a material consideration in determining the application
- rebalancing the NPPF so that it unambiguously reflects the supremacy of local plans and clearly acknowledges the environmental and social aspects of sustainable development
- transitional arrangements in Annex 1 to ensure that there is adequate local plan coverage
However, concerns remain, in particular
- the continued emphasis on economic growth without explicit recognition of the equal importance of environmental and social aspects of sustainable development
- the continued presence in paragraph 14 of the phrase ‘significantly and demonstrably’ in the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless the adverse effects of development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Nonetheless, IfA welcomes the additional rider in paragraph 14 rebutting the presumption where ‘specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted’ and the implicit recognition that proposals which contravene such policies protecting the historic environment are unsustainable.
The Institute’s Chief Executive, Peter Hinton, said
‘It was essential that the NPPF carried forward the principles of PPS5 to achieve Government’s twin objectives of conserving the historic environment in a sustainable manner and of ensuring wide public benefit from expert investigations of those elements affected by development. While the NPPF may not contain all the provisions we consider necessary to achieve that end, it provides timely support for the historic environment at a time when local authority archaeology and heritage services continue to be under severe pressure. IfA has campaigned hard to ensure that the NPPF has not brought the end of developer-funded archaeology. What we need now is a firm response from Government to those local authorities that mistakenly believe that they can comply with the framework without securing the services of professional historic environment advisors.’
Tim Howard, IfA Policy Advisor, said
‘To support the historic environment chapter of the Framework, a Practice Guide must strongly reinforce the importance of archaeological standards and accredited expertise. It must ensure appropriate protection in practice of both designated and undesignated heritage assets proportionate to their significance. Our draft Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services fulfils a similar aim and sets out what is required for the management of archaeology under the Framework.’
IfA will continue to lobby for improvements to the Framework including Government endorsement of supporting guidance.
No comments:
Post a Comment