The Contribution of National Policy in Protecting the Natural Environment
| Author | William Webster |
| Pages | 383-395 |
Chapter 20
The Contribution of National Policy in Protecting the Natural Environment
INTRODUCTION
20.1 National and local policies strive to enhance the natural environment. Dealing with development proposals which cause significant harm to nature conservation and to the character, appearance and intrinsic beauty of unspoilt countryside areas are typical problems encountered in decision-making. Poor quality design, increased flood risk, adverse impact on the setting of a nearby Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) or heritage site, the loss of best and most versatile farmland, and poor access to everyday services and facilities (which conflict with the aims of achieving sustainable development) are all factors which exacerbate these problems and which will, more often than not, either individually or cumulatively, result in a refusal of planning permission even where the site is one without designation or valued status.
20.2 Local planning authorities (LPAs) and inspectors typically encounter proposals where developers claim that there is only minor landscape impact or where the need for homes outweighs any harm to the landscape, particularly where there is an absence of any formal designation of landscape value and/or where it is even accepted by the LPA that local housing needs cannot be met on brownfield land alone. Development is also problematic where local plan policy defines a settlement boundary and restricts development in the open countryside beyond. The risk also exists that to allow development would set a precedent and make it more difficult for similar proposals to be resisted in the future and thus lead to the harmful cumulative erosion of the countryside around the edge of a settlement.
20.3 To mitigate these adverse impacts, developers invariably offer schemes for mitigation, including land remediation, ecological improvements or provision for landscaping, in order that the scheme might not appear incongruous or be perceived to have an urbanising effect on the landscape. That said, however well
384 Planning Law: A Practitioner’s Handbook
designed, new buildings, estate roads, street lighting and domestic paraphernalia will invariably erode the unspoilt open nature of sites in the countryside. In such cases, even where a five-year supply of housing land does not exist, decision-takers, in the exercise of their planning judgment, are more than likely to support National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) objectives of protecting the scenic beauty and character of the countryside (and the distinctiveness of settlements) by refusing planning permission.
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Hopkins Homes revisited
20.4 This introduction would be incomplete without a reference (albeit by way of a reminder) to Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Hopkins Homes Ltd,
20.5 In Hopkins Homes the Supreme Court clarified that the absence of a five-year housing land supply triggered the presumption in paragraph 14 of the NPPF, although it was a matter of planning judgment as to whether or not policies for the supply of housing were in fact out of date under NPPF paragraph 49, which has a narrow meaning. What it now means is that other groups of policies, such as policies for the protection of the countryside, whilst they might affect the operation of housing policies, are not to be treated as if they are policies for the supply of housing within the meaning of paragraph 49. See also Crane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government,
20.6 In short, paragraph 49 of the NPPF acts as a trigger to the operation of the ‘tilted balance’ under paragraph 14. In the absence of relevant or up-to-date development plan policies, the balance would be tilted in favour of granting permission unless the impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or where specific policies in the development plan indicate that development should be restricted. Examples of such policies mentioned in
Protecting the Natural Environment 385
the NPPF include polices relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an AONB, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority); designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.
20.7 The aim of this chapter is to identify some of the material national policies affecting development in rural areas (in relation to guidance on both planning policies and decision-making) and some significant recent case law. The chapter will also touch upon policies within the NPPF which deal with proposals which will increase the supply of renewable and low carbon energy.
NPPF – SECTION 6: ‘DELIVERING A WIDE CHOICE OF HIGH QUALITY HOMES’
New dwellings in the countryside
20.8 Section 6 of NPPF includes the following:
52. The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns that follow the principles of Garden Cities. Working with the support of their communities, local planning authorities should consider whether such opportunities provide the best way of achieving sustainable development. In doing so, they should consider whether it is appropriate to establish Green Belt around or adjoining any such new development.
…
54. In rural areas, exercising the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities, local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate [emphasis added].
386 Planning Law: A Practitioner’s Handbook
55. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are a group of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances [emphasis added]
♦ the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or
♦ where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or
♦ where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or
♦ the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. Such a design should:
– be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas;
– reflect the highest standards in architecture;
–...
To continue reading
Request your trial