The new report, 'Inexpensive Progress?' explores the extent to which the planning system is inhibiting growth. Why do you feel this report is so necessary?
The title of the report,
Inexpensive Progress, is borrowed from a John Betjeman poem, in which Betjeman reflects on an 'age without a soul' where beauty is sacrificed in the name of progress.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England understands that the government is facing the difficult challenge of having to steer the country out of this period of economic difficulty, but we feel strongly that it's picked the wrong target in asserting that the planning system is holding back growth.
As we already know from government statistics over the last decade, at least 82 per cent of planning applications have been granted planning permission by their district planning authorities. This doesn't suggest there is much of a barrier to growth and that's why CPRE, the RSPB and the National Trust came together to commission this new study.
Have there been many studies analysing the costs of the planning system carried out in the past? Why have these been inadequate?
Advertising Revenue helps fund our journalism.
Please consider disabling your ad blocker.
Yes, there have been one or two studies carried out in this area but they've had a very limited scope and we feel a flawed evidence base – the broad claim that the planning system is a barrier to economic growth.
What existing studies haven't attempted to show are the benefits that a good planning system can deliver. It is really vital that the government understands these in conducting its planning reforms. Whilst there is evidence that there are costs in some sectors, our report shows that there is no evidence that planning has large, economy-wide effects on productivity or unemployment.
Do you feel that too often the planning system is seen to provoke a choice between economic growth and the environment?
Yes, absolutely and that's a false choice. It's the wrong way to look at the planning system really. We are concerned that in some parts of government, particularly perhaps in the Treasury, the benefits that the planning system brings to society are not properly understood and, as our report shows, effective planning is not about putting the environment and growth at loggerheads.
Instead, effective planning enables the needs and views of the whole community to be considered whilst ensuring that we have the necessary development that protects and enhances the countryside.
Could you outline the key findings of this report?
The report argues that the aim of the planning system should be to ensure long-term wellbeing. The CPRE feels it should make all those who really care about the countryside, and the role that the planning system plays in improving our quality of life through shaping the places that we live in, pause for thought.
It also finds that the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) is unlikely to have any positive effect on growth or employment in the short term, and it recommends that the impact of the NPPF is closely monitored, because of the importance of the planning system.
It finds that the value and the benefits of the planning system are much less well understood, and there's a need for much more research in that area.
Do you feel the government's drive for economic recovery has been detrimental to the environment?
We all appreciate that this is a really serious time for the economy, and of course it's crucial to us all that the government focuses on economic recovery, but the planning system is not to blame for the situation we find ourselves in.
The planning system is the wrong target and the planning reforms won't deliver more growth, as our new report shows.
What we fear is that the NPPF, and the planning reforms, will make it much easier for developers to get planning consent for speculative applications in the countryside and therefore lead to the wrong sort of development in the wrong sort of places. This is because land is a scarce resource in this country and we need to use it wisely.
We don't need growth at any cost, what we need is smarter growth.
What sort of reforms would you like to see to the draft National Planning Policy Framework?
We want to see the default 'yes' to development removed from the NPPF and a focus put instead on plan-led development.
The NPPF must recognise that all countryside is valuable for its own sake, because that's an existing planning policy, and we feel it's absolutely crucial that that is retained.
The NPPF must also have an unambiguous 'brownfield first' approach, which will ensure we get the regeneration we need in our towns and cities, and a clear definition as well of sustainable development.
And I think finally the government, when it introduces the NPPF, needs to give councils enough time to adapt to the new framework and system, so they can ensure there are local plans in place.
What are you seeking to achieve with the publication of this report?
CPRE and all of our organisations want to debunk the myth that the planning system stands in the way of economic growth.
I think this groundbreaking new report shows that the NPPF is likely to have little or no effect on growth and may actually undermine public wellbeing.
What we really want the government to have is the full picture on the economic case for planning reform as they are finalising their planning framework.