PPS1 is just not good enough

As the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Bill limps to the finishing line, the consultation exercise on draft planning policy statement PPS1, Creating Sustainable Communities, which runs to 21 May, provides a timely chance to take stock of the key policies and principles that will underpin the reformed planning system.

The bill was trumpeted as the most fundamental since the 1947 Town & Country Planning Act. This never had a grain of truth in it but the changes, particularly to the development plan system, are still more wide-ranging than most interest groups advocated. Most remain anxious about the practicalities and think fine-tuning of the present system would have been more effective than constructing things anew.

Does the draft PPS1, which is intended as the general planning policy template for a complete set of documents to replace the existing 25 planning policy guidance notes, provide the inspiration for the much-heralded culture change and a demonstrably better planning system for the future?

Perhaps I have set my sights too high, because it clearly does not. What it does do though – rather well – is succinctly set out the existing paradigm for planning centred on the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.

Recycled content
Much of the content is recycled or synthesised from documents that were already published.

This is especially true of the appendices, which include a definition of the term "sustainable community" and much of the existing planning policy guidance note PPG1 concerning such matters as other material considerations, prematurity and propriety. This is all very sensible and pragmatic but means there are whole sections that contain nothing new.

Paragraph 1.19 will be especially welcome to those interested in affordable housing. Under the heading "Social Inclusion", it sets out that planning policy should promote "socially inclusive communities" and "address accessibility for all to … housing".

Nothing wrong in that – but it is again pertinent to point out that the current PPG12 (December 1999) refers to addressing "issues of social exclusion" and that the previous PPG12 (December 1992) included similar references, albeit in the language of that day.

The reality is that "social inclusion" is listed as one of the four aims of sustainable development. Paragraph 1.24 acknowledges that a planning authority "may consider that, in its circumstances, extra weight should be given in its policy to an economic, social or environmental objective, as against others".

Draft PPS1 exhorts planning authorities to move towards enabling development but there is very little substance to back this up

The principles laid out in the subsequent paragraph on evaluating the weight to be placed on any particular sustainable development objective indicate that this is all a matter of political judgment. Again, there's nothing new here – planning remains a highly political process.

This leads on to another concern. Will the proposed statements of community involvement now required as part of the development plan and planning process be a charter for nimbys? Or will they enable better-informed judgments of where the political weight lies on a particular matter?

An accompanying document to draft PPS1, published simultaneously, Community Involvement in Planning: the Government's Objectives, provides some grounds for reassurance on this.

It does at least seem to recognise that there are realistic barriers and limitations to be overcome – encapsulated in the comment that "community involvement is not about giving a free hand to unrepresentative local groups to block development irrespective of the case for it, nor is it about talking to a few favoured organisations". The well-articulated statement of policy and good practice principles for community involvement may actually prove to be of real added value.

What's missing
But there are two remaining fundamental concerns about these new documents.

First, draft PPS1 exhorts planning authorities to move away from regulation and control towards enabling and coordinating development in a positive manner. Laudable stuff, but there is very little substance in either the new legislation or the draft planning policy statement to back it up.

Second, the government has not come to grips with the apparent contradiction between its wish to see planning embedded in the community and its commitment to promoting economic prosperity and social inclusion. Nothing in draft PPS1 comes near to challenging the popular assumption that most development is potentially harmful.

If housing delivery is really to be improved as recommended by the Barker review, PPS1 must be unequivocal in emphasising the social and economic benefits that well-planned development can bring.