Front Page From its refusal to back down on local design panels to concessions on change-of-use homes, Richard Waite

uncovers the impact of the NPPF PLANNING Design has been stamped into the heart of the new National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF) - the biggest shake-up of the planning system in two generations. Revealing the framework on Tuesday, planning minister Greg Clark said the streamlined document would set out the 'most exacting requirements for design that the English planning system has ever contained,' while condensing more than a thousand pages of 'impenetrable [planning jargon]' into around 50 pages. The pro-growth NPPF includes an entire section on design, stating that good architecture is a 'key aspect of sustainable development [and is] indivisible from good planning'. The framework goes on to say that all local planning authorities should have local design review panels in place - referring major projects to Design Council CABE - and that planning committees should 'have regard to the recommendations' from those panels. Clark added: 'Too much development in recent years has been mediocre, insensitive and has detracted from the character of the areas in which we live and work. The effect has been that much of the public have come to assume that any change to our built environment will be negative. 'What a disastrous state of affairs in a country that is home to some of the most talented architects, designers and craftsmen in the world.' Local government minister Bob Neill told the AJ that the NPPF would give the architectural profession a greater influence in the planning process. He said: 'At one level, it puts some more challenges on [architects], but it certainly will make their job more rewarding within the planning system because they are playing a more central role.' Explicit references to design have been widely welcomed. Planning expert Brian Waters of the Boisot Waters Cohen Partnership said 'Design was not mentioned in planning documents 10 years ago. Design has bubbled to the top and we shouldn't underestimate the weight that policy has. 'Local authorities will now need to get themselves design review panels. A nice answer would be to bring back the borough architect.' Andrew Matthews of Proctor and Matthews said: 'We're pleased the NPPF contains a dedicated section on design and it is reassuring that design is now a primary issue for decision makers. 'But given that many more key decisions will be made by local people we are worried there is a lack of support to help them make decisions about design. "The NPPF is correct that design panels can help, where they exist, but more needs to be done to fill the design skills gap at the local level.' Ruth Reed, former RIBA president and chair of the RIBA Planning Group, agreed: 'Enshrining good design as a core planning principle and ensuring that the advice of design review panels has greater weight

within the planning system will send a clear message to developers, planning officers and committees that poor quality development will no longer be accepted. 'However, we hope that the government will ensure local communities and local authorities have the support and resources to make the new system work.' As expected, the much-debated phrase, the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' headlined the NPPF document and was described as 'a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking'. Clark went onto explain that 'sustainable development' would embrace 'social and environmental as well as economic objectives in a balanced way'. In response to fears raised last year by the likes of the National Trust and the Campaign for Rural England that the policy would effectively open the floodgates to uncontrolled growth in the countryside, Clark insisted the greenbelt would remain protected. He added that the NPPF would encourage growth on brownfield sites and in town centres, while protecting back gardens and playing fields. He said: 'The NPPF makes explicit what was always implicit: that councils' policies must encourage brownfield sites to be brought back into use. 'It also underlines the importance of town centres while recognising that businesses in rural communities should be free to expand.' Clark also reiterated that local plans, produced by local people, remained the keystone of the policy. The NPPF states that all sections of the community should be involved with the development of local and neighbourhood plans with the help of the council. According to Mark Leeson, a director of property consultants McBains Cooper, that could actually curb growth. He said: 'The planning system has now changed in a significant way, but the people involved in it will find the changes difficult to adapt to as a result of the need for greater interpretation because the policy is now far more general, relying on detail to be developed at a local level, by local people. 'The emphasis is on local people coming up with local plans, I suppose the Big Society in action. But who is going to lead this? 'Without top-down guidance, planning officers act in a reactive, not proactive way and respond to proposals made by others. Then there is the issue of how local interest groups will be supported and funded. Where does strategic policy fit in, if driven by individuals? It could be like herding sheep with no sheepdog if everybody is doing their own thing.' There was also dismay that the NPPF had not brought changes to Permitted Development Rights [Use Classes] for office-to-home conversion without planning permission. Instead, the NPPF includes a paragraph stating that authorities should approve applications for changes from commercial use only 'where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area [and] provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate'. Waters described the phrasing as 'a complete wobble'. He said: 'They have chickened out in changing the law. You will still need to get planning permission. The value of this sentence is purely on appeal. It is useful, but it is only policy.'

Other surprises include the retention of the PPS7 country house clause, which allowed one-off homes to be built in greenbelt land if deemed architecturally significant, however the word 'contemporary' has been dropped. Robert Adam of ADAM Architecture hailed this as the end of 'New Labour covert Modernist gobbledegook'. He said: 'Sensible wording at last.' 30 Number of times 'design' is used in the NPPF's 59 pages Budget redux: what architects need to know This 'mindmap' of last week's budget (above) was drawn by former Foster + Partners architect Giuseppe Boscherini, now of CB Richard Ellis. Chancellor George Osborne unveiled a raft of changes including an increase stamp duty on homes worth over 2 million to 7 per cent, levying a 15 per cent charge on similar properties bought by companies. Osborne also opened the door to a U-turn on its stance against a third runway at Heathrow. He said the government would 'look more closely' at aviation capacity in the south east. See page 1.3 and more coverage on TheAJ.co.uk/budget2012 THE NPPF: THE INDUSTRY REACTS Bill Dunster, principal of ZED factory 'The shake-up looks very sensible and will require a step-change improvement in the quality of local authority planning responses to sustainable development. This should help us deliver low-carbon communities without first having to win over the assembled cordons of climate change sceptics, misinformed by disinterested and unmotivated case officers. Let's hope the policy definition of sustainable development isn't too radioactive.' Roger Tustain, director of Broadway Malyan 'It is encouraging that government has not been swayed by the misguided environmental and historic protection rhetoric reported during last year's consultation. The NPPF's 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' correctly asserts that local plans should be prepared on the basis that objectively-assessed development needs should be met in full unless the impacts of doing so outweigh the benefits.' Heinz Richardson, director at Jestico + Whiles 'Any initiative to simplify and speed up the planning process is to be welcomed, particularly if the shortfall of well-designed available homes of all tenures can be addressed. However the definition of what constitutes 'sustainable development' is extremely unclear and open to interpretation. Confusion will abound until it is clear how the passing of power in to the hands of local communities will actually translate in to action that avoids vested self-interest.' Anthony Hoete, of WHAT_architecture 'The NPPF provides a timely wake-up call to the conservative conservationism that has a stranglehold on the development of our inner city boroughs. Yet conservation does not have to be a retrospective activity that cryogenically freezes architecture. Conservation can mean projective thinking; conservation can be design! WHAT_developments is currently engaged on a project within a conservation

area with its attendant 'no to development default'. Yet the setting of the conservation areas appears haphazard at best; the site is an 'urban pissoir crack-den'. The NPPF will provide an opportunity to challenge the inert thinking that prevents economic stimulus in recessionary times. It could improve London overnight by doubling its density and halving its footprint: a form of 'calzone Urbanism'. NPPF ON RURAL HOMES The country house clause permitting new build architectural masterpieces in rural areas has been retained and streamlined. However, the reference to 'contemporary' has been dropped. The NPPF requires schemes to be 'truly outstanding or innovative' whereas the 2004 policy required them to be 'truly outstanding and ground-breaking' NPPF ON DESIGN REVIEW Design review has been given a strong endorsement with planning authorities told to use review panels to ensure high standards. Major projects should be referred to a national design review provided by Design Council CABE NPPF ON SUSTAINABILITY The central 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' has been tweaked from the draft (published last June) giving greater emphasis to councils' local plans. Local plans should be flexible and meet objective development needs unless meeting those needs would adversely outweigh the benefits when assessed against NPPF principles NPPF ON GREENBELT Planners are urged to encourage the effective re-use of brownfield land but there will be no national targets. Instead, planning authorities are tree to set their own. Greenbelts have been safeguarded and gardens and playing fields protected