Letter: Critiquing the National Planning Policy Framework

So said a Labour MP on Thursday, July 16, in the House of Commons, in a debate brought by Lib Dem Somerset MP Tessa Munt from Wells [and Mendip Hills], about Planning Policy.

He said: “After decades of deregulation, the genius of Labour’s post-war democratic settlement has been degraded and reduced to a system of fiendishly complex processes.”

This debate was interesting because MPs from all three main parties - Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative - from all kinds of constituencies - urban, suburban, shire and rural - were all apparently in agreement that the planning policy was not working for the benefit of their communities.

Clearly, there were different concerns from different constituencies - but a recurring theme was concern over flooding.

This was highlighted by Ms Munt in her speech, where she quoted a High Court judge in a recent notorious case in her area, where he reportedly said: “Homeowners threatened by flooding had sufficient time to vacate their houses before the floodwater reached them.”

The judgment allegedly follows the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) exactly, as the judge had to, and prioritised building homes over protection from flooding.

Our own MP Gideon Amos [Taunton and Wellington] - like nearly all MPs of all parties who spoke - acknowledged the need for more houses - but emphasised that that should not be where they were vulnerable to flooding.

The planning control should be taken back to the local area - not increasingly centralised in Westminster as it has under both colours of government over the years since the inception of planning after the Second World War.

The new NPPF makes it easier to build on floodplains, as the High Court case shows.

How many relatively newly built houses have we seen sadly flooded on TV?

I have sat above modern houses cowering below flood banks way above their roofs from major rivers/estuaries.

In my experience, planners need to be more educated in the practicalities and less law-savvy.

Examination of the policy which causes nearly all councils to have to build more houses is based on the ratio of the average house price divided by the local median salary - the higher the ratio, the more houses that council is supposed to build, and the reverse for higher median salary areas.

The worst in England - it only applies to England - is Redcar in the North East, which has to build 1338 per cent more than previously, whereas Tower Hamlets (Inner London) is allowed to build 58 per cent of the previous number.

Somerset has to build 42 per cent more houses per year like most shire counties - which means 3,784 to 3,891 per year - depending on which detailed tracking formula is used.

The penalty for not doing so is that major developers can decide to build pretty well anywhere - subject to some increasingly loose controls - whereas individuals are often subject to pernickety controls on house expansion.

What a crazy policy!

It seems in Taunton especially developers cannot sell the homes they have built - or at least stick to their original programme - but some want to build 3.5 times more!

Why would that be, I wonder?

Steve Smith