Welcoming these two measures, which were called for by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) in its evidence to the inquiry, Adam Royle, Senior Parliamentary Officer, said:

“It’s clear that, as a nation, we need to eat more healthily, but there is also a finite amount of good quality agricultural land, as well as water shortages and other environmental limits on food production. This report shows how we can encourage increased consumption of healthy food by helping people to grow, sell and buy more food locally, in a way that supports rural communities and sustains our beautiful countryside. ”

Since 2007 CPRE has led a Big Lottery-funded national project, Mapping Local Food Webs[1], and published its Farming Vision in January.

Adam Royle continued; “We agree with the Committee that Government should do more to encourage communities to plan for local, sustainable food production. CPRE hopes that Ministers will adopt these recommendations, so that communities have the powers they need to sustain their local food webs, with all the freshness, quality and taste that these provide”.

End

Notes to Editors

[1] The project has supported over 250 volunteers in 19 towns and cities in each region of England researching their own local food web. CPRE will launch a report presenting the national findings of the project on 12 June.

Ian Woodhurst, CPRE’s farming campaigner said, “Given these disappointing findings it’s important that the Government conducts a thorough review. We believe it’s important that farmers are clear about what’s expected of them and that they all need to contribute towards making farming practices more environmentally sustainable.”

Following the publication of the survey, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is calling for the review of the CFE to address three key areas of concern:

• How the CFE can ensure all farmers help improve the environmental quality of England’s farmed environment. While many farmers are doing good things through the CFE, they continue to be let down by others who appear unwilling or reluctant to play their part.
• A rigorous appraisal of whether the voluntary approach of the CFE has provided better value for money than a mandatory requirement for all farmers, taking into account all the costs expended by the organisations involved.
• How the CFE will work alongside proposed reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) that aim to make the CAP deliver more for the environment.

The voluntary approach of the CFE has helped government agencies, farming and wildlife organisations work more closely with farmers to introduce vital green farming measures in some areas. But CPRE remains sceptical about whether a voluntary approach will ultimately be as effective as a simple requirement for all farmers to put a small percentage of their land into environmental measures. Defra has put around £1.5m of public money into the CFE and it has to rely on Government agencies and farming and wildlife organisations to persuade farmers to pitch in, and publicly funded green farming schemes to deliver its aims. The partner organisations involved [4] have contributed enormous amounts of time, money and effort to try to make the CFE work. Yet surveys suggest a hard core of farmers are still unwilling to participate.

Ian Woodhurst concluded, “It’s likely that forthcoming reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy will introduce further environmental requirements for farmers so the CAP delivers more public benefits. The reforms provide an opportunity to introduce measures that recognise the work of those farmers who are doing their bit for the environment, and to prevent others from doing very little or nothing at all.”

End

Notes to Editors

[1] The survey of land managed under the Campaign for the Farmed Environment 2011/12 crop year – England was published on 10th May. It is available from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/landenvmanage/
Key results are: Table 2.2 – If you are in ELS did you join or renew in response to the campaign: Joined ELS in response to the Campaign (% of holdings): 10%; Renewed ELS agreement in response to the Campaign: 34%; Did not join/renew; 57%. Table 5.1 – Have you retained any uncropped land or left cultivatable land out of production? Yes (percentage of holdings): 37%; No: 63%. Table 5.2 – Total area of cultivatable land out of production not in agri-environment schemes: November 2009 (area in hectares) 157,355ha; Feb 2010 155,875ha; Feb 2011 130,374; Feb 2012 82,409. Table 6.1 – Have you put land into some form of unpaid environmental management by choosing at least one of the Campaign voluntary measures? Yes (percentage of holdings) 24%; No – 76%.

[2] In 2009 the Government consulted on two alternatives for retaining the environmental benefits of set-aside. One was a mandatory approach that would require all farmers to put a small percentage of their land into environmental management. The other was a voluntary approach devised by the farming industry which the Government decided to implement. The Campaign for the Farmed Environment was therefore established. The CFE’s aim is to encourage farmers to sign up to options in the Entry Level Environmental Stewardship Scheme (ELS), and implement additional voluntary actions that aim to recapture the environmental benefits associated with former set-aside land. It provides advice, support, and training to farmers and their advisers who choose to participate in the Campaign in order to facilitate the implementation of measures on their farms.

[3] Set-aside was introduced in 1988 to prevent over-production of food by taking agricultural land out of production. Set-aside land could then be managed to produce environmental benefits, for example by providing areas of feeding habitat for wildlife and by preventing water courses becoming contaminated by agricultural sprays. Areas of set-aside also added to the diversity of the landscape by creating patches of non-cultivated land. In recent years around 500,000 hectares of land has been left fallow or put into set-aside, making it England’s third largest land use. CPRE agreed that set-aside should be phased out, now that the CAP no longer requires farmers to produce particular crops to receive farming payments, but called for a mandatory measure to be introduced to prevent the loss of the environmental benefits accrued while set-aside existed.

[4] CFE partner organisations include: National Farmers Union, Country Land and Business Association, Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, and Linking Environment and Farming, working in partnership with Defra, Natural England, the Environment Agency and the RSPB. For further details see http://www.cfeonline.org.uk/

“We welcome the inclusion in today’s legislative programme of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. Farmers and small producers across England’s villages, market towns and countryside have been waiting for a long time for a body that will ensure they get a fair deal from supermarkets.

“CPRE’s own research, through our Mapping Local Food Webs programme, shows that, across the country, networks of suppliers, producers and retailers are providing great local food and drink, contributing to the life and vitality of villages, towns and cities and helping to build a sense of local identity and distinctiveness. But many are also struggling against the overwhelming power of the big supermarket chains. Supermarkets are here to stay, but a strong Adjudicator will help to ensure that they operate fairly, giving vital local food networks a better chance to compete.

“We hope that the Government will now introduce its promised Bill to Parliament at the earliest opportunity, and ensure that it creates an Adjudicator with teeth.”

End

Notes to Editors:

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill

The Bill would create a Groceries Code Adjudicator to uphold the Competition Commission’s existing Groceries Code and ensure suppliers are treated fairly and lawfully by large retailers (those with a groceries turnover in the UK of more than £1 billion). The aim is to boost investment and innovation in the supply chain to the benefit of consumers by stopping supermarkets passing on excessive risk and costs to suppliers. The Adjudicator would be given the power to arbitrate disputes between retailers and suppliers, investigating anonymous complaints and taking sanctions against retailers who break the rules. The government is proposing to give the adjudicator the power to ‘name and shame’ supermarkets that are found to have broken the code, but not the power to fine.

A new report by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) highlights the dramatic proliferation of onshore wind turbines.  In many cases these are damaging valued landscapes and intruding into some of the most tranquil areas of England. CPRE is calling for a locally accountable, strategically planned approach to onshore wind development.

In 2008 there were 685 30 metres or taller wind turbines either completed, in construction, or awaiting approval. By 2010 this had increased to 1831 and at the start of 2012 the number was 3442. Applications made by March this year brought the total to more than 4,100 [2].  These statistics do not include turbines smaller then 30 metres which also add significantly to the strain on the planning system in many areas.

Download a map showing wind farm locations superimposed with CPRE’s tranquillity map of England (http://bit.ly/K4g2OA) and wind farm locations with protected landscapes (http://bit.ly/I5dajN).

Shaun Spiers, CPRE Chief Executive, says: “There is no easy way to provide the country with the energy we need.  CPRE accepts onshore wind in the right places as part of the mix required to meet the UK’s carbon reduction targets, but we are seeing more and more giant turbines sited in inappropriate locations.  Communities feel increasingly powerless in the face of speculative applications from big, well-funded developers, and this risks undermining public support for the measures needed to tackle climate change.

“The English countryside is one of this country’s great glories.  It will always change, of course, and it is right that the countryside should play its part in supplying the renewable energy the country needs.  But we must find a way of reconciling climate change mitigation and landscape protection.  Otherwise we will sacrifice the beauty and tranquillity of much-loved landscapes for at least a generation.”

Shaun Spiers concludes: “In spite of localist rhetoric, the industrialisation of valued countryside is happening as a result of central government policies.  The Government must take responsibility and set out far more clearly a framework for meeting the country’s energy needs while protecting our matchless countryside.”

The CPRE report: ‘Generating light on landscape impacts: How to accommodate onshore wind while protecting the countryside’, makes a number of proposals for action.  It refers to assurances given last year by former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne that the Government would not ‘wantonly plant windfarms across the countryside at random’ or let the ‘market loose upon the countryside’. Yet many communities are now faced with what seems like an unending stream of applications [3].

In Cornwall and Durham, at opposite ends of the country, it is widely felt that the capacity of the landscape to accommodate wind turbines without unacceptable damage has been exceeded.  Cornwall currently has 94 operational turbines over 30 metres tall with a further 18 consented and 11 in planning.  County Durham has 60 operational turbines, 27 under construction, 19 consented and six in planning [4].

In other locations the number of onshore windfarm applications currently in the planning system, if built, could mean that the landscape capacity of their area will also be exceeded. Northamptonshire, for example, currently has 13 operational turbines over 30 metres high, and an additional 46 consented and 32 in planning.  Northumberland has 29 operational turbines over 30 metres high and an additional 24 under construction, 64 consented and one in planning [5].

Research indicates that some wind energy developers enter the planning process with a dismissive mindset towards public concerns, seeking to disparage arguments against new development as baseless and emotional rather than well-reasoned and legitimate [6]. In 2008 CPRE compiled a large body of evidence about the approach by wind energy developers which undermines the integrity of the planning system [7].

The Regional Spatial Strategies, revoked through the Localism Act 2011, often used landscape character assessments to help work out what areas were suitable for renewable energy.  These helped to outline a landscape-sensitive distribution of onshore wind across a region.  Following the abolition of regional planning CPRE is calling on the Government to develop a strategic, plan-led approach which recognises the importance of landscape capacity, including the cumulative impacts of onshore wind turbines.

CPRE calls on the Government to:

• provide more clarity about the total number of onshore wind turbines it expects to see built and where these might be located;
• develop a strategic plan-led approach which recognises landscape capacity, including cumulative impacts of onshore wind turbines;
• ensure local planning authorities seek to protect landscape character through their local plans and in planning decisions;
• instruct the Planning Inspectorate to give significant weight when making decisions on development proposals to any local plans which have attempted to identify appropriate and inappropriate areas for onshore wind development; and
• provide national obligations for the onshore wind industry to take legal and financial responsibility for decommissioning onshore wind turbines and restoring the landscape once they stop working or when they reach the end of their useful life.

End

Notes to Editors

[1] CPRE, Generating some light on landscape impacts: How to accommodate onshore wind while protecting the countryside, 30 April 2012 http://bit.ly/J9qoLJ

[2] RenewableUK, UK Wind Energy Database, http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/index.asp Clean data can be found here: https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=18qmes8ba-SC_2knKavaJtDwivewagUIfwKgScGI

[3] Secretary of State for DECC, Chris Huhne’s speech to CPRE entitled ‘Beauty, Tranquillity, and Power Stations?’, 2011

[4] See 2

[5] See 2

[6] University of Manchester et al, Beyond Nimbyism project summary report, 2009. Accessed from www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism/deliverables/reports_Project_summary_Final.pdf.

[7] CPRE, ‘Goodwill payments: Do they benefit communities or bring planning into disrepute?’, 2008

The results of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and Campaign for Dark Skies (CfDS) annual Star Count Survey show that just over half (53 per cent) of the people taking part could see 10 stars or fewer within the constellation of Orion – indicating severe light pollution in their area [1].

Almost one thousand location reports revealed that only one in ten (9 per cent) participants could see between 21 and 30 stars and just two per cent of people had truly dark skies, seeing 31 or more stars.

The full star count maps for 2011 and 2007 can be downloaded here: 2012, 2011 and 2007.

The proportion of people taking part in the survey who live with severe light pollution was down from 54 per cent in 2007 to 53 per cent this year. The results suggest that, despite good initiatives to reduce light pollution in some places, the contamination of Britain’s night skies continues largely unchecked.

Emma Marrington, CPRE Rural Policy Campaigner, says: “When we saturate the night sky with unnecessary light, it damages the character of the countryside and blurs the distinction between town and country. But this isn’t just about a spectacular view of the stars; light pollution can also disrupt wildlife and affect people’s sleeping patterns.”

Bob Mizon, Campaign for Dark Skies Coordinator, says: “Light pollution is a disaster for anyone trying to study the stars. It’s like a veil of light is being drawn across the night sky, denying many people the beauty of a truly starry night. Many children growing up today will never see the Milky Way; never see the unimaginable glory of billions of visible stars shining above them.”

In 2010 Councils collectively spent £529 million on street lighting which accounted for around 5-10 per cent of each council’s carbon emissions [2][3].

CPRE has welcomed the inclusion in the new planning reforms (National Planning Policy Framework) that  local councils be encouraged to plan to reduce light pollution, by encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions to control lighting. With such national guidance in place, and with a number of councils now providing good ‘best practice’ examples of how to limit light pollution, more local authorities can  now take action to limit the impact from artificial light on urban and rural communities , intrinsically dark landscapes and the natural environment.

Emma Marrington concluded:  “All too often we hear poor excuses for bad or excessive lighting. Of course we need the right, well-designed lighting in the right places – and some areas need to be lit for safety reasons – but there should not be a blanket assumption that glaring lights are needed. The evidence gathered during this year’s Star Count Week shows that we need to take action now to roll back the spread of light pollution.”

The full star count maps for 2011 and 2007 can be downloaded here: 2012, 2011 and 2007.

End

Notes to Editors

[1] CPRE and CfDS Star Count Survey carried out by 981 volunteers between 20 – 27 January and 20-26 February 2012. The second week of observations was added due to poor weather conditions preventing observations in many areas in the first week.

Participants were instructed to pick a clear night, with no haze or clouds, to count the number of stars in the constellation of Orion bounded by the four distinctive bright stars in the constellation. The star count did not include these four corner stars – only those within this rectangular boundary – but did include the stars in the middle known as Orion’s three-star belt. Full data tables are available on request.

[2] Department of Communities and Local Government, Local authority revenue expenditure and financing England 2010-11 final outturn, 17 November 2011

[3] Energy Saving Trust, www.energysavingtrust.org.uk, 09 April 2010

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) fights for a better future for the English countryside. We work locally and nationally to protect, shape and enhance a beautiful, thriving countryside for everyone to value and enjoy. Our 57,000 members are united in their love for England’s landscapes and rural communities, and stand up for the countryside, so it can continue to sustain, enchant and inspire future generations. Founded in 1926, President: Bill Bryson, Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk

The Campaign for Dark Skies (CfDS) is run by The British Astronomical Association which is Britain’s largest astronomical organisation, with thousands of members nation-wide. Its Campaign for Dark Skies was founded in 1989, and aims to ensure quality lighting in the UK. A well-lit environment below and a view of the starry sky above are not incompatible.

We are pleased with the direction of travel on several of our key priorities, including the recognition of the value of undesignated countryside, the definition of sustainable development and the explicit acknowledgement that use of brownfield land is a core planning objective. Ultimately, however, the proof of the new policy framework will be how it works in practice. We and our supporters up and down the countryside will work with the Government, local authorities and communities to try to secure the best results for what Planning Minister Greg Clark rightly referred to today as ‘our matchless countryside’.

Our initial statement is available here: http://bit.ly/GU1Usb .  Looking at the National Planning Policy Framwork (NPPF) in more detail, CPRE has broken applied a ‘traffic light’ assessment to the key issues – Green (improved/good), Amber (unchanged/caution) and Red (poor/area for concern):

Key Issues

Green: The undesignated (ordinary) countryside

The draft NPPF made no reference to the intrinsic value of the more than 55% of English countryside not in a National Park, Green Belt, Site of Special Scientific Interest or other designated site, but nonetheless of huge value to millions of people who live in, visit and enjoy it. So we are delighted that Ministers have heeded our campaigning, and included as one of the core planning principles recognition of ‘the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside’ which applies whether that countryside is specifically designated or not. This will not mean no development in the countryside, but it will help ensure that building on green fields is not an option of first resort

Amber: Brownfield

We commend the Government for acknowledging explicitly that using previously developed (brownfield) land should be a core planning objective. Making sure that land is used effectively is essential if local authorities and developers are going to deliver genuinely sustainable development.

The wording in the NPPF falls short of the existing guidance, however, in that it does not require brownfield sites to always be developed before greenfield ones. We will therefore be monitoring very closely how this policy is put into place on the ground to ensure that greenfields are not being developed when alternative brownfield options are available.

Amber: Sustainable Development

The draft NPPF made no reference to the existing (2005) UK Sustainable Development Strategy or to the five guiding principles of that document. The final version rectifies this by including a box summarising the 2005 Strategy, and is stronger on achieving the environmental and social aspects of sustainable development at the same time as economic growth. There is a continued lack of clarity, however, as to what sustainable development actually means in practice, and no suggestion that environmental limits in the UK (as opposed to the global) context should be identified or respected.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development has been helpfully qualified, however, in comparison to the draft. There is no reference to a default ‘yes’ to development and applications should only be approved where they are either clearly in line with Local Plans or are demonstrably sustainable. It is also made clear that the presumption does not override policies protecting the Green Belt or other important areas of landscape.

Red: Economic Emphasis

While much of the alarming language in the draft, such as the ‘default yes’ to development, has been removed, the final NPPF contains some worrying wording on economic development. Paragraph 19 refers to the need for ‘significant weight’ to be placed on the need to support ‘economic growth’ and suggests that planning is an ‘impediment’ to such growth.  Our research shows there is little evidence to support such a contention and that planning brings huge, long term benefits to the economy.  Local planning authorities need to be able to refuse proposals for economic development in the wrong places and to steer it to appropriate locations

Other Issues

Green: Light pollution and tranquillity

CPRE welcomes the inclusion of policies to enable local authorities to combat light pollution, by encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions to control lighting. We hope that more local authorities will now seek to limit the impact from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and the natural environment. CPRE also welcomes the first reference in national policy to the need to identify and protect areas of tranquillity for their value for recreation. We will work to ensure effective implementation of this policy to protect and enhance areas of tranquillity for their contribution to health and quality of life.

Green: Plan-led system

We warmly welcome the NPPF’s clear reiteration of the law that decisions on development must be taken in line with locally agreed policies unless other relevant issues indicate otherwise. We are pleased that where neighbourhood plans are drawn up in line with local policies, development will have to conform to the policies in those plans

We welcome the Government’s positive response to calls to allow local authorities time to get their local plans up to date before the presumption in favour of sustainable development kicks in. It will nonetheless be a significant challenge for many resource-strapped authorities to get their plans right within the 12 month deadline.

Red: Housing

Government has continued with its misguided approach to requiring the planning system to make available a 5 year supply of “deliverable” housing land and adding additional “buffer” requirements (5 or 20 % now judged on house building performance of planning authorities). The Government needs to recognise that planning can’t actually deliver hew housing, only make sites available

This overall approach to land supply is not new, but the additional buffer requirement is.  It could significantly increase pressure to develop easy, lower cost, greenfield and rural housing sites instead of, or in addition to, planned developments and brownfield regeneration.

End

Notes to Editors

[1] Department of Communities and Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework, 27 March 2012 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf

After an initial quick reading of the final NPPF, Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), says:

“We were very reassured that Greg Clark recognised the intrinsic value of the ordinary countryside ‘whether specifically designated or not’ and stated that the five principles of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy are included in the document. These were critical issues for CPRE. We are pleased the Minister appears to have listened to the strong public views, which mirrored our concerns.

“We now need to carry out a thorough analysis of the final document. While recognising the scale of the housing crisis, we remain very concerned to ensure that the Planning Framework does not place undue emphasis on short-term economic growth at the expense of other important long term, public interest objectives of planning, including the protection and enhancement of the environment.

“We are also concerned about the length of the transition period, which at 12 months will pose serious challenges to many local authorities. We hope these councils will be given adequate support to get their plans in place. This will be critical if local people are to have a real voice in planning decisions.

End

Notes to Editors

[1] Department of Communities and Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework, 27 March 2012 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf

 
Following today’s publication of the review of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman announced that a new cross-Government unit is to be set up to help developers deliver large infrastructure projects while protecting our most valued habitats and species.
 
Ben Stafford, Head of Campaigns at CPRE, says: “Planning is the strongest tool we have for protecting our landscape and the habitats and wildlife it supports. But with responsibilities for planning and the natural environment split between government departments, it has not been easy to make the links between the two.
 
“The Government’s aspirations for this new unit are laudable. Properly designed and resourced, it could make real improvements to how planning, wildlife and habitat regulations are implemented to deliver necessary sustainable development. Vigilence is needed to ensure that the new body is not used as a mechanism to side-step, water down or undermine environmental protection in order to fast-track damaging development.
 
“Both the environment and developers stand to gain if this is done well and CPRE intends to monitor the unit’s progress closely.”
 
End
 
Notes to Editors
[1] DEFRA press release: http://bit.ly/GGUrjI

Planning

Adam Royle, spokesman for CPRE, says: “We heard yet more of the Chancellor’s misguided and dangerous rhetoric on planning today. If the Government undermines sound planning, it will put sustainable economic growth at risk. Countries like Germany show that good economic performance and strong planning systems can go hand in hand.

“We will have to wait until next Tuesday when the final planning framework is to be published to see if the voices of reason in Government will yet win out.

“From the Chancellor’s words we fear the longstanding protection for the wider countryside will be abandoned. That would mean that 55% of English countryside, including many locally loved green spaces, could be placed at the mercy of developers.

“Also extremely worrying is the suggestion that communities may not be given any time to ensure their local plans conform to the new framework . This could leave more then one third of areas that don’t currently have a plan exposed to a crude ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’.

“On the basis of the budget statement, the Government’s promise that the planning reforms are about empowering local people looks very hollow indeed.”

Transport

Ralph Smyth, Senior Transport Campaigner at CPRE, Says: “The Government seems to be attempting to disguise a major u-turn on South East airport expansion as an economic aside. After responding to public opinion by pulling the plug on a third runway at Heathrow, the Government needs to hold its nerve against the turbulence of vociferous lobbying of the aviation industry.

“’Smart hubbing’ through better allocation of runway slots would provide all the additional passenger capacity needed, and avoid untold damage to the countryside including further loss of the little rural tranquillity that remains in the South East of England.

“This is not a case of ‘jobs versus the countryside’ or ‘runways versus rural England’, but about tackling narrow minded and short sighted vested interests.”

In November 2011 the Localism Act became law. Among many other things, the Act includes a new community-led planning regime that is intended to put power in the hands of local people. As part of this, parish and town councils and community groups will be able to produce ten-year Neighbourhood Development Plans which, if approved, become part of planning law, with the same weight as the local authority’s Core Strategy for the area.

Localism is a concept as well as a set of legal powers. There is still uncertainty about how strong this concept will become in the planning system but to some extent this is an opportunity for communities to set the agenda – the details of what can and cannot be done are still up for grabs. For example, if a council drafted a Sites and Allocations DPD and it clashed with a Neighbourhood Development Plan – even a draft one – then the DPD might have to be changed to work with, not against, the desires of the community.

CPRE Avonside, in partnership with the Avon Local Council Association (ALCA), has recently run a series of information and discussion events about the Localism Act and community-led planning. We’ve met hundreds of parish and town councillors and members of grassroots community groups, as well as local authority planning officers. It’s been fascinating to hear about people’s concerns and about what the Localism Act might mean in practice.

So, first of all, will the Localism Act really ‘put power into the hands of local people’? Well, up to a point… The Act is primarily intended to deliver development. The Government felt that the planning system led communities to resist new development, feeling that it had been forced on them from above; the real point of the Localism Act is to try to generate an environment in which people feel more positive about development because they have more control over it. However, in order to make sure that communities don’t use this control to resist development, the Act specifies that Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDP’s) firstly have to be ‘in general conformity’ with the local authority Core Strategy, and secondly that they can include more development than the Core Strategy specifies but not less.

What this means in practice is that the system is still top-down in that Core Strategies can demand development in an area and local communities cannot use their NDP to say no. However, they can use the NDP to control where the development takes place, what it looks like and how it is integrated into the surroundings. This could make a huge difference – if a village is asked to accommodate 30 new houses, the NDP could specify that they are built as infill in set locations between existing dwellings, using local materials and vernacular style, rather than as a ‘cut and paste’ greenfield development adjacent to the village.

And of course, there are many communities whose local Core Strategy does not specify any particular numbers of new houses, but who still feel at the mercy of developers. An NPD could allow for a small amount of appropriate development but specify additional protection for green fields or especially valued architecture or streets. In this way communities can safeguard the atmosphere and character of their area.

There are a number of strategies for safeguarding green space within NDP’s. For example, Oxford City Council has been using the concept of the ‘view cone’ within strategic planning for some years. This is a way of identifying and protecting particular views of an area.  It is marked on a map as a viewpoint (eg from the summit of Kelston Round Hill) with a view cone extending in a specific direction (eg from due north to 17 degrees). Community planners could identify views both into and out of their village or area that are particularly important for the character of the community, and define view cones within which new development is controlled with particular care.

The second big question arising from the Localism Act is ‘how many Neighbourhood Development Plans will actually get produced?’ Parish and town councils and community groups have expressed strong concerns about the demands that the process will place on their resources. Many have put a great deal of effort into Parish Plans, Village Design Statements and Conservation Area designations over the years; they feel that it will be very difficult to motivate their volunteers for yet another round of consultation and engagement. They are also concerned about the financial implications. Although front-runner groups have been able to access grant funding there is no guarantee that this funding will be extended to all.

On the other hand, community groups have felt pressured to develop NDP’s, feeling that they will be vulnerable to unwanted development if they do not act to define future development in their area. Equally, some parish councils feel pressure to set to work on NDP’s, because where they exist they are the default organisation to develop them; their local communities are looking to them, sometimes with unrealistic expectations of what an NDP can deliver.

Our feeling is that in the long run a great many communities will produce NDP’s, especially if funding is forthcoming from central government to support them. However, these NDP’s will look very different in different areas. Some frontrunners are already showing one way forwards by delivering NDP’s that are focussed on a single major development rather than on a large area; others are using the NDP process to build on existing Village Design Statements and give them weight, without involving themselves much in the details of development locations. Others again are finding ways to use their NDP to build a better infrastructure for local food – allotments, community gardens or farm shops.

The NDP is a very flexible tool, and in practice it might be used in very imaginative ways to solve specific local problems. This is very much in the spirit of Localism.

The third major issue that has been brought up around the Localism Act is the effect that it will have on local government. Possibly the government feels that local government is more of a constraint on communities than national government; certainly the Act does little to remove power from national government. It does, however, place considerable new duties and responsibilities on local government without giving any new resources to manage them. One local government officer told us that he was faced with anything up to 60 NDP’s emerging in his area, each requiring up to five out-of-hours meetings to support them; these 300 out-of-hours meetings will have to be attended over a year or two by just four staff. Another example comes with the Community Right to Bid, through which communities can register land or buildings as Assets of Community Interest; this delays sale of the assets for six months to give the community a chance to buy them. If the landowner loses money as a result of this, they must be paid compensation by the local authority. These aspects of the new regime will hardly lead local authorities to encourage communities to take full advantage of their new rights.

In some respects the demands on local authority resources form the largest block to the success of neighbourhood planning under the Localism Act. It is hard to see how local authorities will cope with the demands placed on them by their responsibility to support neighbourhood planning at a time of severe budgetary constraint. Many local authorities are already trying to steer neighbourhood groups away from NDP’s and towards participating in the development of Sites and Allocations Development Plan Documents and other DPD’s. But community participation in these processes will only ever really take the form of consultation, with local authorities free to use or ignore the results; they are a poor substitute for a genuinely local plan, produced by community involvement and given a democratic mandate through a referendum.

In conclusion, the Localism Act offers a genuinely new opportunity for local people to gain control of development in their area, but in reality this opportunity is severely compromised by the cost to communities in time and money; by the lack of local authority resources to support the process; and by the limitations on local control that have been built into the act.

But in some ways, these problems also provide an opportunity. If local councils lack resources to support community planning, perhaps they also lack the resources to try to control these processes as much as they might have? And if neighbourhood planning places too much strain on the resources of parish and town councils, perhaps the process also offers a chance to engage and involve more people with their work? And although the Localism Act tries to build a neighbourhood planning process that will deliver development, if communities really can steer this development to meet their own needs, that really would be something of a revolution.

CPRE Avonside Village of the Year Competition

This year we are aware that many communities are engaged in sprucing up their villages and organising dedicated events to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee all of which compliments those physical aspects that we look for in the Competition.

Consequently we are departing from our standard format of the village as a community and instead will be focussing on physical appearance but as always, the judges will be looking at the standards of care, tidiness and the absence of litter and not the picturesque. They will assess and make due allowance for aspects beyond the villagers’ control such as privately owned and badly maintained sites or the verges of busy through roads. We do not venerate villages because of their age nor are we impressed by thatch, we look exclusively at the standards of care.

Normally we award commemorative plaques to one large and one small village, the Avonside champions but for 2012 six villages one large, one small, from each of the three Unitary Authority Districts of B&NES, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire will receive a specially commissioned plaque as a permanent record of their success in the Jubilee Year.

It is not essential to have experience of the Competition to achieve success, many have won at their first attempt, neither is it essential that the entry be submitted by the parish council. The entry form is accompanied by all the information to enable an entry to be formulated and could easily be completed by any group in the village associated with the Jubilee or for example, neighbourhood watch. All that is required is to complete a single A4 tick-box sheet listing the features present and provide a map.

The invitations to participate in the Competition were posted to the parish councils in mid March for return by 31^st May 2012 and judging will take place in June and July.

There is ample time to complete the entry form and tidy the village so why not pit your village in friendly rivalry with others in your District we can guarantee it will enhance community spirit.