NPPF - Two Tribes

In a recent Clubhouse discussion hosted by Simon Ricketts , Partner at Town Legal, and addressed by planning barrister Zack Simons , it struck me that it reflected the dichotomy that sits at the heart of the proposed revision of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).?

As with so many aspects of 21st century life, people divide into two tribes. One tribe sees a pressing need for more housing, improved infrastructure and environmental betterment, and believes in the ability of the planning system to look ahead and make rational decisions. This tribe is dismayed by what appears as a grubby attempt by the Government to further emasculate the planning system and smother change. The other tribe is broadly content with the status quo, and would like to avoid things happening which might disrupt the places with which they are familiar and comfortable; it would rather see the planning system as a restraining mechanism, and it rather approves of the changes that have been tabled.?

To my mind, the best contribution came from a participant who effectively said we need to keep the pressure on local planning authorities to deliver, but we equally need to improve the quality and sustainability of what is delivered, and the shame is that this is not the focus of the proposed alterations to the NPPF.

As my colleague at hgh Consulting, Matthew Robinson points out in his blogpost, a national planning framework - particularly in difficult times such as these - should be a bold and visionary document that sets ambitious plans for the country's future. From reviewing the proposed revisions, this is far from the case.

Roger Hepher is Executive Director of hgh Consulting