The number of groups on our map confirms that inappropriate development in our communities is rising and that growth is not meeting the Community Planning Alliance (CPA) definition of sustainable development.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has told us that monitoring remains an essential part of the planning system and that local planning authorities (LPAs) monitor and report compliance with local, regional and national planning policy through their annual Authority Monitoring Reports (AMRs), including policy related to the delivery of sustainable development.
Production of AMRs is a statutory duty for LPAs, and is set out in Section 113 of the Localism Act 2011. LPAs currently have discretion as to which targets and indicators to include in their reporting, as long as they are consistent with the relevant UK legislation (AMRs must conform with the minimum requirements set out in the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (Section 34)).
Having looked at a number of LPAs, not all are consistently publishing their AMRs, making it harder for a council to prove it is effectively implementing planning policies. Persistent failure to publish an AMR may not only bring reputational harm (as the report is intended to foster public trust and accountability in planning decisions), it could lead to legal challenges if they have failed to adhere to statutory requirements.
If YOUR authority’s AMRs are not available on their website submit a Freedom of Information Act request for access. Once you have visibility, do check that they are accurately reporting compliance with planning policy. It is clear from our recent report WHO PAYS FOR UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT that this not happening.
The MHCLG does not appear to be aware that the effectiveness of national policies is not being monitored and there also appears to be no scrutinising of the additional cost burden to the public purse, or household finances, following the approval of unsustainable development.
With this in mind, we would also like to suggest that you request that your councillors submit a motion to Full Council as set out below.
Motion submitted by xx: Definition of Sustainable Development
XX Council notes that:
- XX Council declared a climate emergency in XX and has pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by XX.
- The National Planning Policy Framework confirms that “At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. So, what we do today should not prevent our future generations from being able to breathe clean air, access clean water, secure sufficient food, and enjoy a liveable planet with a healthy natural environment.
- The Community Planning Alliance (an umbrella group for over 700 communities nationwide) has developed a clear definition of sustainable development, which they would like to see incorporated into the next iteration of the NPPF.
- The UK’s recent National Security Assessment on Global Biodiversity Loss and Ecosystem Collapse details the risks of climate inaction including: the expansion of organised crime; war and poverty; more natural disasters leading to large-scale migration; economic insecurity; and new pandemics. It also stated that simultaneous crop failures will create food insecurity (the UK imports 40% of its food).
- In relation to the natural environment, research highlights that communities do not think politicians care about their community, that mental health is the number one benefit of green space, and that there is a clear mandate for the government to invest in improving our green spaces. Another study confirms that people want developments to protect and enhance nature, voters say nature is a necessity not a luxury, and 43% of British people are more likely to vote for a party that prioritises nature conservation. The research identifies that only 14% of British people think politicians are aligned with their values on nature, while two-thirds (67%) say politicians are out of touch on the issue, supporters of all major parties want to see habitats safeguarded, green spaces preserved, infrastructure developed alongside housing, and more affordable homes built.
XX Council believes that:
- Climate change is driving warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers, increasing risks of severe flooding, heatwaves, and water shortages, as set out in this government report.
- The effects of climate change are projected to become more severe and widespread as greenhouse gas emissions and global temperatures continue to rise.
- To minimise these effects, XX Council must maximise genuinely sustainable development, including ensuring that any proposed land use change does not increase the risks to local communities or add costs to the public purse.
- Unsustainable development, such as that which causes additional risks of flooding, or the health and wellbeing impacts of additional air, noise, light, vibration, dust or water pollution, increases costs to the public purse, not just in relation to dealing with incidents that arise, but also in relation to the financial, mental and physical health implications for local communities.
XX Council resolves to:
- Write to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and encourage them to adopt the Sustainable Development definition published by the Community Planning Alliance, and formally incorporate it into the National Planning Policy Framework
- Adopt the Sustainable Development definition published by the Community Planning Alliance at a local level to support the consideration of genuinely sustainable development in local decision-making
- Require any exceptional unsustainable development to identify the anticipated additional costs to the public purse and to households as part of the planning permission process.
- Explicitly highlight any potentially unsustainable development in the Authority’s Monitoring Report.
What should a mandated definition of ‘sustainable development’ achieve
Where public money is invested in any scheme (including national initiatives), the public must benefit. Where households will be impacted by a development, they must be compensated appropriately. It is not sustainable to significantly and adversely affect the health and wellbeing of communities and expect them to just endure greater risks of flooding, chronic health conditions and higher costs. It is not sustainable for the public to have to continue to pay for the impact of development, whilst the financial benefits go to into company profits and shareholder pockets.
As set out in the CPA proposed definition, maximising sustainable development will reduce the cost burden on the public sector (the taxpayer) and individual households. It will ensure the prioritisation and efficient reuse of existing resources, and will clearly identify, and take into account, the value of our natural capital and ecosystem services.