What can be so bad about Sustainable Development?
October 7th, 2011Sustainable development – who could possibly be against it? Motherhood, apple pie, sustainable development. So when the Government says it wants to replace all the current town & country planning legislation with a simple framework based on a presumption in favour of sustainable development, who could possibly object?
Well, how about Friends of the Earth, The National Trust, The Wildlife Trusts, The Woodland Trust … the list is huge. So what on earth is Britains’ “Greenest Government Ever” doing wrong?
I’m on the Planning Committee for Kendal Town Council, and on their behalf I’ve been working my way through the document which has caused all the fuss – the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). And, indeed, the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ is all over the document. But the more I read, the more uneasy I became. And now I think I have discovered the reason.
The draft starts off impeccably by citing the definition of sustainable development in The Report of the Brundtland Commission, “Our Common Future”, published in 1987:
Sustainable development means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
What this means in practice within the UK was agreed jointly in Five Principles published in March 2005, under the auspices of the Sustainable Development Commission (abolished by the new Government … hmm, maybe a warning there).
It in instructive to compare these Five Principles with the definitions in Paragraph 10 of the NPPF (“For the planning system delivering sustainable development means:”)
| Five Principles | Draft NPPF |
|---|---|
| Living Within Environmental Limits Respecting the limits of the planet’s environment, resources and biodiversity – to improve our environment and ensure that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations | Planning for Places (an environmental role) – use the planning system to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment, to use natural resources prudently and to mitigate and adapt to climate change, including moving to a low-carbon economy |
| Ensuring a Strong, Healthy and Just Society Meeting the diverse needs of all people in existing and future communities, promoting personal well-being, social cohesion and inclusion, and creating equal opportunity for all | Planning for People (a social role) – use the planning system to promote strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing an increased supply of housing to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a good quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and supports its health and well-being |
| Achieving a Sustainable Economy Building a strong, stable and sustainable economy which provides prosperity and opportunities for all, and in which environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them (Polluter Pays), and efficient resource use is incentivised. | Planning for Prosperity (an economic role) – use the planning system to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type, and in the right places, is available to allow growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure |
| Promoting Good Governance Actively promoting effective, participative systems of governance in all levels of society – engaging people’s creativity, energy, and diversity. | |
| Using Sound Science Responsibly Ensuring policy is developed and implemented on the basis of strong scientific evidence, whilst taking into account scientific uncertainty (through the Precautionary Principle) as well as public attitudes and values. |
I have used italics to highlight what I think are significant differences between the Five Principles, and the draft NPPF’s take on sustainable development. I think these go a long way to explain why the draft has got it wrong:
- it requires an increasing supply of land for housing and for economic growth (for ever? at least 15 years – Para.24) – is that sustainable? and how will people on low incomes have an equal opportunity to live in one of these homes?
- it completely ignores the principle of Polluter Pays – indeed, the whole tone of the document is to try and prevent any such considerations preventing building going ahead (e.g. Para 64, 70, 73, …)
- governance: although communities who want to prepare their own Neighbourhood Plans are required to hold a local referendum, these plans are not allowed to set lower targets than the higher level Local Plans. In our part of the world the Local Plan attracted furious opposition and would never pass a local referendum
- the draft NPPF explicitly sets out to tear up “sound science” – the learnings of the post-war years, embodied in current planning policies
I could go on, but if the Framework is built on a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and it has redefined sustainable development to meet its own preconceptions, then it’s not surprising it’s been the focus of so much opposition.
One final thought – the draft NPPF (para 53) says the purpose of development management is:
The primary objective of development management is to foster the delivery of sustainable development, not to hinder or prevent development
If it was serious about sustainable development, I believe this should be:
The primary objective of development management is to foster the delivery of sustainable development and prevent unsustainable development
A small change, but it creates a balance which is conspicuously lacking throughout the draft.