We were unable to load Joobi library for the plugin Debug Traces. If you removed the joobi folder, please also remove this plugin from the Joomla plugin manager.We were unable to load Joobi library for the plugin System plugin for Users. If you removed the joobi folder, please also remove this plugin from the Joomla plugin manager.We were unable to load Joobi library for the plugin Cron Task. If you removed the joobi folder, please also remove this plugin from the Joomla plugin manager.We were unable to load Joobi library for the plugin Joobi Tags. If you removed the joobi folder, please also remove this plugin from the Joomla plugin manager.
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/arihenry/public_html/peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/plugins/system/apps_system_plugin/apps_system_plugin.php:14) in /home/arihenry/public_html/peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/plugins/system/jat3/jat3/core/parameter.php on line 107

Font Size

We were unable to load Joobi library for the plugin Joobi Tags for Joomla Articles. If you removed the joobi folder, please also remove this plugin from the Joomla plugin manager.


Matters and Issues for EiP

Matter 1 Vision, Strategy, Spatial Approach and Procedural Compliance

  1. To what extent is the Core Strategy in general conformity with both the London Plan and its draft replacement?
  2. Is the evidence base in support of the chosen strategic approach robust and credible against alternatives?
  3. Does the CS reflect local distinctiveness adequately? (eg area visions?) Is the number of visions distinctive/effective/too prescriptive?
  4. Does the CS provide sufficient detail on how much development is intended to happen where and when?  By what means it will be delivered? Is the delivery strategy for achieving the objectives adequate?
  5. Should the strategy and various visions include greater clarity upon the quantum of development in individual areas?
  6. Has the production of the Core Strategy followed the SCI? Has this led to timely, effective and conclusive discussion with key stakeholders on what option(s) for a core strategy are deliverable?
  7. Has the effectiveness of public consultation undertaken in relation to the Core Strategy been affected unacceptably by additional consultation upon Area Action Plans? What implications, if any, does this have for the tests of soundness?
  8. To what extent does the CS repeat or reformulate national or regional policy (eg London Plan)?
  9. To what extent has the production of the CS followed the LDS?
  10. Is the CS aligned and coordinated adequately with the Sustainable Community Strategy? Are there areas of discord/omission?
  11. Does the CS contain sufficient justification of its policies? Is more explanation needed of how the policies relate to the key issues and spatial objectives? Is it sufficiently clear how the policies meet the needs of the Borough identified in the course of the CS preparation?
  12. Is there a cumulative and undue burden upon development of requirements emanating from the London Plan and the CS re sustainability assessments (SP1); transport assessments (SP2); health impact assessment (SP5)?
  13. What constitutes ‘the policy’?  Does it include all the text? Or just grey shaded boxes?
  14. Does the CS acknowledge adequately border issues (eg Camberwell)?
  15. Have the comments on the Scoping Study at ‘issues and options’ stage been considered adequately; (rep 140)?

Matter 2 Sustainability, Equalities, Proposals Map & General Presentation

  1. To what extent is the Core Strategy in general conformity with both the London Plan and its draft replacement?
  2. To what extent does the CS accord with the advice of PPS1, PPS12 and associated guidance?
  3. To what extent has the Sustainability Appraisal informed the content of the CS?
  4. Proposals Map – are the changes proposed sufficiently clear and comprehensive?  Are the saved policies of the UDP clear and referenced?
  5. Does the evidence base, including the Sustainability Appraisal and the Equalities Appraisal, inform adequately the approach of the CS with regard to equality?  Does the CS address adequately this issue?

Matter 3 Sustainable Development

  1. To what extent are the Core Strategy and SP1 in general conformity with both the London Plan and its draft replacement?
  2. What evidence underpins SP 1and is this base robust and credible?  Is the approach of the CS in accord with, amongst others, PPS1 and 4? Is the approach adopted sufficiently flexible and thereby effective?
  3. Is the spatial distribution of dev the most suitable option – have alternatives been considered adequately? Does SP 1 enable the positive redevelopment of other parts of the Borough? 
  4. Is there a need to cross reference more clearly the provision of necessary infrastructure?
  5. Is the SA requirement proportionate and flexible?  Should it be based upon a development size threshold? Evidence base for this position? Alternatives considered (how so assessed?)?
  6. How does the CS seek to address issues of social deprivation?
  7. Should SP 1 require a Social Impact Assessment – should there be a greater reference to neighbourhoods, local needs and to development within sustainable limits?
  8. Are ‘very high standards’ measurable? If so, how?

Matter 4 Sustainable Transport

  1. To what extent is the Core Strategy and SP2 in general conformity with both the London Plan and its draft replacement?
  2. Is the evidence base to SP 2 robust and credible?
  3. When and how will land be safeguarded for planned public transport improvements?  Are any implications for the proposals map resolved?
  4. Is there a need to clarify how the transport assessment requirement would work in practice – what does ‘...in line with LP Policy 3C.1 ...’ mean?  Should there be a development size threshold?
  5. Is the strategy underpinning SP 2 adequate – should it seek to reduce car use by more than just limiting the provision of car parking? Eg examination of existing car park provision = target to reduce car use/ownership?
  6. Should the provision of car parking be linked to the economic viability of development?
  7. Does the CS address adequately issues relating to alternative forms of transport to the private car, eg cycling?
  8. How does the CS relate to TfL business plan? Matters of disagreement?
  9. Is there a need to cross reference CIL in the supporting text of SP2?

Matter 5:Jobs and Business

  1. To what extent is the Core Strategy and SP10 in general conformity with both the London Plan and its draft replacement? What areas of discord remain?
  2. To what extent is the content of PPS4 in particular satisfied by the Core Strategy?
  3. Is the evidence base to SP 10 robust and credible?  Is the policy the best option when considered against alternatives? Does the evidence support the CS split of employment and housing land in total?
  4. Is the CS sufficiently flexible to cope with changing circumstances – to what extent does it recognise that higher value non-commercial uses (eg housing) could enable redevelopment for employment benefit eg mixed uses?  Is the restriction of land uses to B2/B8 etc sound?
  5. Does the policy create a ‘blanket ban’ on using commercial sites for residential development?  Is the indicated approach sound?
  6. Should office space only be protected where there is a demonstrable need for its retention, perhaps subject to criteria? Should commercial space only be retained if not more appropriately reallocated to other uses, inc housing?
  7. Should existing industrial space in centres only be protected where there is a demonstrable need for its retention and subject to criteria?
  8. To what extent has the retention of job numbers been considered as a viable alternative to floor space targets? To what extent does the CS allow for a flexible interpretation/assessment of the overall benefits of a scheme?
  9. Does the CS place adequate emphasis upon the role of the tourism and hotel sector to generate employment, esp local? Should CS set out criteria for hotel locations especially in Bankside, Borough and London Bridge? Should hotels be enabled in CAZ and Bankside/London Bridge Opp Areas – not just identified centres?
  10. Is the CS policy sufficiently flexible in its approach to releasing surplus B2/B8 land? Are the assumptions relating to the timescales for such release sound?
  11. Does the Core Strategy focus unduly upon ‘B use’ floor space – should policy recognise the value of net employment increases?  Is the implied protection of all existing business space in Bankside, Borough and London Bridge at odds with the strategic aim of increasing jobs in Southwark?  (see Rep 434).
  12. Is the cluster approach adopted by the ELR to reviewing employment sites sufficiently robust?  Is it effective and appropriate?  Does it allow sufficiently for local site variations?
  13. Does the policy take adequate account of current vacancy rates in existing industrial and business floor space?  Does this warrant retaining B8 floor space at Crimscott St?
  14. Does the CS take sufficient account of cross border issues? Eg Lewisham and the Surrey Triangle?
  15. Should the objective for local employment generation have a target (eg 30%?)
  16. Does the policy/CS cater adequately for micro SMEs?
  17. Does the CS Policy seek to deliver a jobs and business strategy in accord with aims for a sustainable transport network? 
  18. Does the CS respond adequately to the cultural distinctiveness and creative industries which exist and provide employment opportunities throughout the Borough? 
  19. Should the definition of employment uses in the glossary include sui generis (Relationship to PPS4 et al)?
  20. Does the CS policy consider adequately and plan for social infrastructure in the reduction of industrial/warehouse space – ie police facilities?

Matter 6: Shopping, Leisure and Entertainment

  1. To what extent is the Core Strategy and SP4 in general conformity with both the London Plan and its draft replacement; particularly in its hierarchical approach?
  2. Is the evidence base to SP 4 robust and credible? Is the hierarchical approach and the hierarchy identified justified by the evidence base? Where does the CAZ sit within the hierarchy? What alternatives considered?
  3. To what extent is the content of PPS4 satisfied by the Core Strategy and SP4?
  4. What role should the intended Enterprise Strategy have in the LDF process within Southwark?
  5. Should a quantum for new development be provided for the District and Local Centres?
  6. Does the policy identify development in Elephant and Castle plus Canada Water as sequentially preferable to other suitable town centres? (If so, why – in accordance with PPS4?)
  7. Does the policy address adequately the small scale local provision of shops and services outside of town centres?
  8. With due regard to the draft London Plan, is the role of street markets considered adequately within the CS?
  9. Does the policy address adequately the cross border issues? Eg Camberwell New Road?
  10. Is the protection of small scale retail units outside of identified centres intended to be prescriptive?
  11. Does the Policy and CS address adequately leisure/cultural interests?
  12. Should SP 3 refer explicitly to ‘community facilities and social infrastructure’

Matter 7: Education and Services

  1. To what extent is the Core Strategy and SP4 in general conformity with both the London Plan and its draft replacement?
  2. Is the evidence base to SP 4 robust and credible and provide an adequate consideration of alternatives?
  3. Are the interests of the arts and cultural facilities addressed adequately?
  4. Does the evidence base incorporate the needs of the community sector, particularly where resident led (rather than voluntary sector)?  Is the infrastructure (buildings) in place/available to deliver the strategy? Should it have included a survey of community meeting spaces?
  5. Should the policy distinguish different types of community use and the need to achieve a balance in a given area? Rep 276, 260, 370 et al. Should ‘community use’ be more broadly defined? Is the existing list in the fact box adequate?
  6. Does the use of the undefined phrase ‘local need’ render the policy unsound and ineffective? How does the evidence base support this approach? How would this be assessed in practice?
  7. Is the policy too inflexible by ‘ensuring development will provide’?
  8. Does the CS policy deal effectively with the requirements of the HMCS and the LFB?
  9. Is it sufficiently clear that the provision of facilities is linked to need and the viability to provide?
  10. Does SP 4 cover adequately the issues of religious facilities?
  11. Are issues of health addressed adequately?

Matter 8: Housing

  1. To what extent is the Core Strategy and its housing policies in general conformity with both the London Plan and its draft replacement? (including housing numbers and spatial distribution)? Is there flexibility within the Core Strategy to accommodate any change to the regional housing targets which may emerge in the short (or medium) term?
  2. Is the evidence base to the housing policies robust and credible? How does this relate to the PPS3 and its associated guidance?  To what extent is the content of PPS1 and 3, particularly satisfied by the Core Strategy?
  3. To what extent, and in what ways, was the chosen spatial distribution of housing considered against alternatives?
  4. What is the relationship between the Southwark SHLAA and the GLA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and Housing Capacity Study 2009.  Why do discrepancies exist in their conclusions?
  5. Is there a demonstrable five year housing land supply within the first five years of the CS? To deliver housing targets? Is the housing trajectory robust? What does it purport to illustrate? Are there identified sites for years 6-10? (to deliver housing targets) Are there identified sites for years 11-15? What reliance on windfalls?


  1. Is Strategic Policy 5 too prescriptive?  How would this policy lead to, or work alongside, a flexible DPD?
  2. Does the evidence base support the density approach of SP 5? Should there be a clearer relationship between density thresholds and PTAL?  Is the policy in conformity with the existing and draft London Plans in this regard? Should density be design led to increase flexibility? Could exemplary design justify higher densities outside Opportunity Areas and Action Areas? Could SP Policy 5 increase density to increase housing supply? Would it create an undue constraint on delivery?
  3. Should the policy incorporate housing targets for all opportunity and growth areas?


  1. To what extent is Policy 6 in conformity with the existing and draft London Plans (and PPS3)?
  2. Is there any substantive evidence to indicate that the 35% threshold would not be economically viable and act as a constraint upon housing delivery?  Is such a threshold the optimum, unless otherwise stated, across the Borough?
  3. What evidence indicates the deliverablility of the policy aims, in terms of social rented, intermediate and private housing, over the plan period?
  4. Is Strategic Policy 6 too prescriptive?  How would this policy contribute to a flexible DPD?
  5. How have migrant worker households been considered within the Housing Requirements Survey? Does this affect the robustness of the policy proposed?


  1. Is Strategic Policy 7 too detailed and too prescriptive?  How would this policy contribute to a flexible DPD? Could it be a constraint to housing delivery? What options were considered?
  2. To what extent does the GLA SHLAA support such an approach?  Is it compliant with the draft LP?
  3. How would the policy aims be secured? To what extent does the available evidence demonstrate that the policy would not be a constraint upon housing delivery?
  4. To what extent would the policy address the need for supported housing units?
  5. To what extent is the detail of SP7 consistent with the existing and draft London Design Guides?  To what extent would the policy cross reference and/or repeat information to be produced in any subsequent supporting DPD/SPD?  Do the sizes indicated exceed that of the Home and Community Agency ‘Housing Quality Indicators’? Would this jeopardise delivery of schemes which receive grant aid?
  6. Does SP Policy 7 adequately address supported housing units in light of the Housing Requirements Study?

SP8 and SP9

  1. Is the evidence of a need for student accommodation both robust and credible?
  2. Is policy 8 too prescriptive?  How would this policy contribute to a flexible DPD?
  3. What evidence exists to indicate the extent that the requirement for affordable housing in Policy 8 would prejudice the supply of student housing?
  4. Is SP Policy 8 consistent with draft London Plan para 3.53 and 3.39 – ie not require affordable as part of student? Should SP Policy 8 require affordable housing from all sites? (eg next to campus?) Conflict with London Plan para 3.42 and draft LP3.45? Inflexible and unsound.
  5. Would the proposed change to SP 8 produce a sound policy (ie delete ‘local’)?
  6. Is the target for SP Policy 8 of 130 non self contained units/year too low and based on sound evidence?
  7. What is the second sentence of the final paragraph on page 87 referring to?  What evidence supports this element of the document?  Is it justified here?
  8. Why does Policy 9 not contain a target for pitches linked to the evidence of need?  Is this consistent with the approach of the Core Strategy in other areas?
  9. Is the criteria approach consistent with Annex C of Circular 1/06?

Matter 9: Open Space and Wildlife/Habitats

  1. To what extent is the Core Strategy and SP11 in general conformity with both the London Plan and its draft replacement?
  2. To what extent is the content of PPS9, particularly paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 satisfied by the Core Strategy?
  3. Is the evidence base to SP 11 robust and credible? What evidence underpins SP 11?  How does this relate to the PPS9 Good Practice Guide? 
  4. To what extent has the Biodiversity Action Plan been implemented? To what extent can this be considered robust in light of its part reliance upon an ecological audit of 1995?  Are the Core Strategy and SP 11 consistent with the London Biodiversity Action Plan?
  5. To what extent does the evidence base accord with the advice of PPG17?
  6. What are the open space needs of the Borough and how will they be satisfied? Given the content of CDEN3, is there an open space strategy for the Borough? 
  7. Is SP 11 sufficiently flexible? For example as relates to the provision of open/play space, particularly in the CAZ?  Is there any conflict with the provisions of the London Plan or its draft?
  8. Does the Core Strategy provide adequate reference to green corridors/green chains?
  9. To what extent should/does the CS provide reference to local food production and related land requirements?
  10. Has the proposed changes relating to N27 on the proposals map resolved fully the concerns previously expressed? Have the detailed site concerns raised with regard to open space been fully resolved? Eg Representations 733, 169, 815
  11. Have TfL concerns been resolved?

Matter 10: Waste and Environmental Standards

  1. To what extent is the Core Strategy and SP13 in general conformity with both the London Plan and its draft replacement?
  2. To what extent is CDB12 Joint Waste Apportionment Technical Paper agreed with the GoL and the Mayor of London and to what extent does it satisfy the aims of PPS10 and its companion guide? Are the figures cited consistent in lieu of rep 560 and 679?
  3. What evidence underpins SP 13?  Is the evidence base to SP 13 robust and credible?
  4. To what extent will the Development Management DPD safeguesard sites to manage Southwark’s waste?  Will such sites be safeguarded adequately in the interim?
  5. How is hazardous waste to be managed?
  6. Should waste targets incorporate a preference for waste reduction and recycling over incineration (feasibility of clear targets in this area?)?
  7. Is the Thames Tunnel referenced adequately (in supportive terms) within the CS? Should it be included as a target and Strategic Objective of the CS?
  8. Will surface and ground water quality be protected adequately by the proposed changes?
  9. Are the energy targets in SP13 actually fixed requirements?  Is the policy sufficiently flexible in such terms? Should the targets be subject to tests of viability and suitability?  Have alternatives been considered fully?
  10. Is SP 13 (energy) in accord with PPS1 and the Climate Change Supplement? In line with PPS22 para 8? 
  11. Does SP 13 replicate unnecessarily Building Regulations and its intended changes?
  12. Does SP 13 address adequately development that affects existing buildings? Eg retrofitting?
  13. Do the CS and SP 13 address adequately the issue of air pollution, especially in the north of the Borough?
  14. Does the policy imply that all development should address existing pollution/amenity problems and is this sound?

Matter 11: Design and Conservation

  1. To what extent is the Core Strategy and SP12 in general conformity with both the London Plan and its draft replacement?
  2. Is the evidence base to SP 12 robust and credible? How have alternatives been assessed?
  3. To what extent is the requirement for ‘highest possible standards’/’exemplary design’ flexible and effective?
  4. To what extent is the CS approach to tall buildings in conformity with the content of the draft LP?
  5. Is the definition of a tall building appropriate? (Rep 354). Is it sufficiently flexible to allow for context?
  6. Is the evidence base in support of the tall buildings CS policy robust (see rep 775)? Is there an assumption that tall buildings are part of a key approach to achieving the Southwark Vision; is this supported by the evidence base? What is the evidence that tall buildings ‘raise the profile of an area’ or act as stimulus for regeneration or a catalyst for investment?
  7. How will tall buildings be managed in their delivery? Particularly in relation to Action Areas?
  8. Should tall buildings be permitted throughout the CAZ?  To what extent would the tall building policy fetter unreasonably the development of buildings taller than their surroundings in areas outside of those identified for tall buildings?
  9. Does the policy adequately meet the aims of draft LP 7.12 concerning the ability to recognise and appreciate Strategically Important Landmarks?
  10. Is there adequate clarity upon where tall buildings may be considered appropriate, inappropriate or sensitive? Can the CS identify reasonably locations for tall buildings in advance of detailed evidence in support of AAPs or SPD? (EH/CABE advice 07)?
  11. To what extent do the proposed changes to the CS reflect adequately the content of PPS5 and have sufficient regard to the historic environment, especially in relation to tall buildings?
  12. Do the changes proposed adequately reflect government advice pertaining to archaeology; particularly as relating to APZs?
  13. Is there adequate recognition of Tower of London World Heritage Site in CS policy?

Matter 12: Implementation and Monitoring

  1. To what extent is the Core Strategy and SP14 in general conformity with both the London Plan and its draft replacement?
  2. To what extent is the content of PPS1 and 12 satisfied by the Core Strategy with regard to implementation and monitoring?
  3. Are the targets and monitoring proposed related adequately to the Policy objectives? 
  4. Does the CS provide adequate clarity upon the issue of water and wastewater infrastructure delivery?
  5. Is there sufficient clarity regarding how, when and where infrastructure will be provided (and by whom)?
  6. How will the Community Infrastructure Levy be managed within the Borough and what implications does it have for the delivery of the Core Strategy?
  7. How will transport improvements, including those sought by Transport for London, be secured?  Does the Core Strategy reference Cross Rail adequately?
  8. Should Tables 1 and 2 be clearly iterative and reviewed regularly in light of the AMR and production of further DPDs (eg AAPs)?
  9. Should the CS indicate explicitly that developments in compliance with its policies will be approved?
  10. Do the CS and SP 14 deal adequately with policing and HMCS?
  11. Does the CS deal adequately with London Bridge Hospital?

Examination in Public hearing programme (draft)

Southwark Borough Council Core Strategy Examination: Hearing Sessions July 2010 – Revised Programme V.2

Morning sessions will run 10:00 - 13:00

Afternoon sessions will run 14:00 - 17:00

(please note that the final hearing programme may be slightly different - we will post the final version as soon as it's available)

Tuesday 20th July 2010


Hearing 1: All day session

  • Matter 1 - Vision, Strategy, Spatial Approach and Procedural Compliance
  • Matter 2 - Sustainability (inc Appraisal), Equalities, Proposals Map and Presentation

Section/Policy: Whole document; Section 1, section 2, section 3, section 4

Ms A Fairhurst GoL (OR 135)
Mr D Watkinson GLA (OR 169)
Mr J Hewitt Hawkstone TRA (OR 191)
Mr M Ball (OR: 166)
Mr Mark  Mihajlovic - Camberwell New Road Regeneration (OR:141)
Ms Liliana Dmitrovic – People’s Republic of Southwark (OR: 165)
Ms P Adenwalla (OR 178)
Mr M Nicholas Surrey Quays (OR 179)
Ms K Pasquale TfL (OR 214)
Mr R Lee (OR 140)
Mr S Fidgett Frasers Property (OR: 152)
Mr D Morris Blackfriars Rd Ltd (OR 184)
Mr S McGrath (McKay Securities) (OR:192/138)
Mr L Hollweg (OR 144)
Mr J Leach (OR:137)
Mr J France (OR 145)
Mr A Henry (OR 165)
Mr J Waterhouse/A Coster (Iceni Projects)

Wednesday 21s July 2010

Morning: Hearing 2

  • Matter 3 - Sustainable Development
  • Matter 4 - Sustainable Transport

Section/Policy: Section 5 SP1, Section 5 SP2

Mr Jerry Hewitt – Hawkstone TRA (OR: 191)
Ms Liliana Dmitrovic – People’s Republic of Southwark (OR: 165)
Mr Mark  Mihajlovic - Camberwell New Road Regeneration (OR:141)
Ms K Pasquale TfL (OR 214)
Mr R Lee (OR 140)
Mr D Watkinson GLA (OR 169)
Mr D Morris Blackfriars Rd Ltd (OR 184)
Mr S Fidgett Frasers Property (OR:152)
Mr S McGrath (McKay Securities) (OR:192/138)
Mr J Leach (OR: 137)
Mr D McCarthy (OR 185)

Afternoon: Hearing 3

  • Matter 5 - Jobs and Business

Section/Policy: Section 5 SP10

Mr Patrick Grincell – Savills OBO Joyner Trucks (OR:124)
Mr Matthew Brewer – Rich Investments (OR:129)
Mr Mark  Mihajlovic - Camberwell New Road Regeneration (OR:141)
Mr Daryl Mylroie Rolfe Judd Planning   
Ms Liliana Dmitrovic /Ari Henry People’s Republic of Southwark     165
Mr Jonahan Shelton Workplace Plc    197
Mr Jonny France SE5 Forum    145
Mr John Parmiter Conrad Phoenix 148

Thursday 22nd July 2010

Morning: Hearing 4

  • Matter 6 - Shopping, Leisure and Entertainment

Section/Policy: Section 5 SP3

Mr M Mihajlovic (OR:149)
Sellar (OR:141)
Mr R Lee (OR 140)
Mr David Jessby Woodland Views Ltd  (OR:180)
Mr Luke Miller Friends of Nursery Row Park (OR:150)
Ms Pauline Adenwalla (OR:178)
Mr Matthew Brewer Cushman & Wakefield, on behalf of Rich Investments (OR:129)
Mr Steven Fidgett Frasers Property (OR:152)   
Mr Richard Lee Resident Objector (OB:140)

Afternoon: Hearing 5

  • Matter 7 - Education and Services

Section/Policy: Section 5 SP4

Mr Patrick Grincell – Savills OBO (Lake Estates – (OR: 216)
Mr Matthew Brewer – Rich Investments (OR:129)
Ms Eileen Conn (OB:149)
Ms Liliana Dmitrovic     People’s Republic of Southwark (OR:165)
Ms Felicia Onabanjo,Willowbrook (OR:200/198)
Mr Olatunji Adebayo TA Property Consultants (OR:199)
Mr Jonny France SE5 Forum (OR:145)
Mr Richard Lee (OR:140)

Friday 23rd July 2010
Provisional time for overruns/Site visits by Inspector

Tuesday 27th July 2010

Morning: Hearing 6

  • Matter 9 - Open Space and Wildlife

Section/Policy: Section 5 SP11

Cllr Fiona Colley – Southwark Ward Councillor (OR: 204)
Cllr C Pidgeon (OR: 147)
Mr R Lee (OR:140)
Mr Luke Miller Friends of Nursery Row Park (OB:150)
Mr Graham Saunders    English Heritage (OB:154)
Mr Jonahan Shelton Workplace Plc (OB:197)
Mr Michael Ball Waterloo Community Development Group 166
Ms Celia Cronin Friends of Nursery Row Park (OR:150)
Mr Lucus Hollweg (OB:144)
Mr Jonny France SE5 Forum,(OB:145)
Ms Liliana Dmitrovic People's Republic of Southwark (OR: 165)

Afternoon: Hearing 7

  • Matter 11 - Design and Conservation

Section/Policy: Section 5 SP13

Mr David Watkinson (GLA) (OR:169)
Mr Graham Saunders English Heritage (OR:154)
Mr Michael Ball Waterloo Community Development Group (OR:166)
Ms Camila Ween TFL (OR:214)
Mr Steven Fidgett Frasers Property (OR:152)        
Ms Celia Cronin Friends of Nursery Row Park (OR:150)
Mr Donnachadh McCarthy (OB:185)
Mr Jonny France SE5 Forum, (OB:145)

Wednesday 28th July 2010

All day session: Hearing 8

  • Matter 8 - Housing

Section/Policy:Section 5 SP5, SP6, SP7, SP8, SP9

Ms Alison Fairhurst (GOL) 135
Mr David Watkinson (GLA)169
Mr Richard Lee (OR:140)
Mr Jerry Flynn (OR134)
British Land Canada Quays (OB:181)
Mr Matthew Brewer Cushman & Wakefield, on behalf of Rich Investments (OR:129)
Sellar (OR:159)
Mr Michael Ball Waterloo Community Development Group (OR:166)
Helical (Great Dover St) (OR:172)
Ms Pauline Adenwalla (OR:178)
Mr Matthew Nicholas    GL Hearn, on behalf of Surrey Quays (OR:179)
Land Lease Retail and Communities (OR:190)
Mr Jerry Hewitt Hawkstone TRA (OR:191)
Mr David Morris Blackfriars Road Limited (OR:184)   
Mr Jonahan Shelton (OR:197)
Ms Felicia Willowbrook (OR:200/198)   
Mr Ari Henry People’s Republic of Southwark (OR:165)
Mr Luke Miller Friends of Nursery Row Park(OR: 150)
Mr Steven Fidgett Frasers Property (OR:152)
Rory McManus – DP9 OBO Unite Group Plc (OR:161)
Generation Estates (OR 160)
Helical (Great Dover St) Ltd (OR: 172)
Ms Samantha Coates / Graham Saunders English Heritage 154
Mr Donnachadh McCarthy 185

Thursday 29th July 2010

Morning: Hearing 9

  • Matter 10 - Waste and Environmental Standards

Section/Policy: Section 5 SP12


Mr Donnachadh McCarthy – (OR: 185)
Ms Carmelle Bell – Thames Water Utilities (OB:127)
Mr Lee (OR:140)
Mr Philip Villars – Indigo Planning OBO Mckay Securities Plc (OR: 195)
Mr Steven Fidgett Frasers Property (OR:152)

Afternoon: Hearing 10

  • Matter 12 - Implementation, monitoring and other matters

Section/Policy: Sections 3, 6, 7; Section 5 SP 14; ST 1, ST 2, Table 1, Table 2, AMR, Map

Mr D Watkinson GLA (OR:169)
Ms K Pasquale TfL(OR 214)
Indigo Planning OBO Mckay Securities Plc (OR: 195)
Mr Mark  Mihajlovic - Camberwell New Road Regeneration (OR:141)

Friday 30th July 2010

(Provisional for overrun and possible review session)
Site Visits undertaken by Inspector

PPS 1: Delivering sustainable development

General approach
27. In preparing development plans, planning authorities should seek to:

(i) Promote national, regional, sub-regional and local economies by providing, in support of the Regional Economic Strategy, a positive planning framework for sustainable economic growth to support efficient, competitive and innovative business, commercial and industrial sectors.

(ii) Promote urban and rural regeneration to improve the well being of communities, improve facilities, promote high quality and safe development and create new opportunities for the people living in those communities. Policies should promote mixed use developments for locations that allow the creation of linkages between different uses and can thereby create more vibrant places.

(iii) Promote communities which are inclusive, healthy, safe and crime free, whilst respecting the diverse needs of communities and the special needs of particular sectors of the community.

(iv) Bring forward sufficient land of a suitable quality in appropriate locations to meet the expected needs for housing, for industrial development, for the exploitation of raw materials such as minerals, for retail and commercial development, and for leisure and recreation - taking into account issues such as accessibility and sustainable transport needs, the provision of essential infrastructure, including for sustainable waste management, and the need to avoid flood risk and other natural hazards.

(v) Provide improved access for all to jobs, health, education, shops, leisure and community facilities, open space, sport and recreation, by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car, while recognising that this may be more difficult in rural areas.

(vi) Focus developments that attract a large number of people, especially retail, leisure and office development, in existing centres to promote their vitality and viability, social inclusion and more sustainable patterns of development.

(vii) Reduce the need to travel and encourage accessible public transport provision to secure more sustainable patterns of transport development. Planning should actively manage patterns of urban growth to make the fullest use of public transport and focus development in existing centres and near to major public transport interchanges.

(viii) Promote the more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed use development and the use of suitably located previously developed land and buildings. Planning should seek actively to bring vacant and underused previously developed land and buildings back into beneficial use to achieve the targets the Government has set for development on previously developed land.

(ix) Enhance as well as protect biodiversity, natural habitats, the historic environment and landscape and townscape character.

(x) Address, on the basis of sound science, the causes and impacts of climate change, the management of pollution and natural hazards, the safeguarding of natural resources, and the minimisation of impacts from the management and use of resources.

28. Planning authorities should demonstrate how their plans are integrating various elements of sustainable development and should seek to achieve outcomes which enable social, environmental and economic objectives to be achieved together. Considering sustainable development in an integrated manner when preparing development plans, and ensuring that policies in plans reflect this integrated approach, are the key factors in delivering sustainable development through the planning system. Planning decisions should be taken in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning decisions taken in accordance with the plan are therefore key to the delivery of sustainable development.

29. In some circumstances, a planning authority may decide in reaching a decision to give different weight to social, environmental, resource or economic considerations. Where this is the case, the reasons for doing so should be explicit and the consequences considered. Adverse environmental, social and economic impacts should be avoided,

Spatial planning

30. The new system of regional spatial strategies and local development documents should take a spatial planning approach. Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they can function. That will include policies which can impact on land use, for example by influencing the demands on or needs for development, but which are not capable of being delivered solely or mainly through the granting or refusal of planning permission and which may be implemented by other means. Where other means of implementation are required these should be clearly identified in the plan. Planning policies should not replicate, cut across, or detrimentally affect matters within the scope of other legislative requirements, such as those set out in Building Regulations for energy efficiency.

31. The regional spatial strategies and local development documents that are development plan documents form the framework for taking decisions on applications for planning permission. Decisions have to be taken in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Only policies in plans which can be implemented through the granting of planning permission can form the framework for decisions under section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

32. It is this spatial planning approach which provides the framework for delivering sustainable development. In preparing spatial plans, planning authorities should:

(i) Set a clear vision for the future pattern of development, with clear objectives for achieving that vision and strategies for delivery and implementation. Planning should lead and focus on outcomes. Plan policies must be set out clearly, with indicators against which progress can be measured. Plans should guide patterns of development and seek to manage changes to the areas they cover.

(ii) Consider the needs and problems of the communities in their areas and how they interact, and relate them to the use and development of land. They should deal not only with what can be built where and in what circumstances, but should set out also how social, economic and environmental objectives will be achieved through plan policies.

(iii) Seek to integrate the wide range of activities relating to development and regeneration. Plans should take full account of other relevant strategies and programmes and, where possible, be drawn up in collaboration with those responsible for them. The aim should be to co-ordinate urban and rural regeneration strategies, regional economic and housing strategies, community development and local transport plans with development plans. Planning authorities should consult closely with the bodies responsible for those strategies to ensure a coherent and consistent approach. Regional spatial and economic strategies in particular should draw upon and be supported by a common, robust, evidence base.Local development documents should take forward those elements of the local community strategies that relate to the physical development and use of land in an authority's area.


33. Good design ensures attractive usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development. Good design is indivisible from good planning.

34. Planning authorities should plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.

35. High quality and inclusive design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process. High quality and inclusive design should create well-mixed and integrated developments which avoid segregation and have well-planned public spaces that bring people together and provide opportunities for physical activity and recreation. It means ensuring a place will function well and add to the overall character and quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development. This requires carefully planned, high quality buildings and spaces that support the efficient use of resources. Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are clearly factors in achieving these objectives, securing high quality and inclusive design goes far beyond aesthetic considerations. Good design should:

  • address the connections between people and places by considering the needs of people to access jobs and key services;
  • be integrated into the existing urban form and the natural and built environments;
  • be an integral part of the processes for ensuring successful, safe and inclusive villages, towns and cities;
  • create an environment where everyone can access and benefit from the full range of opportunities available to members of society; and,
  • consider the direct and indirect impacts on the natural environment.

36. Planning authorities should prepare robust policies on design and access. Such policies should be based on stated objectives for the future of the area and an understanding and evaluation of its present defining characteristics. Key objectives should include ensuring that developments:
are sustainable, durable and adaptable (including taking account of natural hazards such as flooding) and make efficient and prudent use of resources;

  • optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks; -respond to their local context and create or reinforce local distinctiveness;
  • create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion;
  • address the needs of all in society and are accessible, usable and easy to understand by them; and
  • are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

37. In planning for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design, planning authorities should have regard to good practice set out in By Design - Urban design in the planning system: towards better practice By Design - better places to live; Safer Places - the Planning System and Crime Prevention; and Planning and Access for Disabled People: A Good Practice Guide.

38. Design policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally. Local planning authorities should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness particularly where this is supported by clear plan policies or supplementary planning documents on design.

39. Development plans should also contain clear and comprehensive inclusive access policies. Such policies should consider people's diverse needs and aim to break down the unnecessary barriers and exclusions in a manner that benefits the entire community. Although society and individuals have invested heavily in enabling people to manage their personal circumstances, many people are unnecessarily affected by ill-conceived design, with the mobility needs of, for example, disabled people, elderly people and others considered separately from others and only once designs are completed.

Community involvement

40. Planning shapes the places where people work and live. The planning system operates in the public interest to ensure the development and use of land results in better places for people to live, the delivery of development where communities need it, as well as the protection and enhancement of the natural and historic environment and the countryside. The outcomes from planning affect everyone, and everyone must therefore have the opportunity to play a role in delivering effective and inclusive planning. Community involvement is vitally important to planning and the achievement of sustainable development.

41. One of the principles of sustainable development is to involve the community in developing the vision for its area. Communities should be asked to offer ideas about what that vision should be, and how it can be achieved. Where there are external constraints that may impact on the vision and future development of the area (for example, those that may arise from planning policies set at the regional or national level) these should be made clear from the outset. Local communities should be given the opportunity to participate fully in the process for drawing up specific plans or policies and to be consulted on proposals for development. Local authorities, through their community strategies and local development documents, and town and parish councils, through parish plans, should play a key role in developing full and active community involvement in their areas.

42. Planning authorities should build a clear understanding of the make-up, interests and needs of the communities in their areas. Communities will be made up of many different interest groups, for example, relating to a particular place, issues (such as access for the disabled, local environmental quality, or support for small businesses), values or religion. Some of these will be well established and represented. But some groups may be less well equipped to engage with the planning system. An inclusive approach should be taken to ensure that different groups have the opportunity to participate and are not disadvantaged in the process. Identifying and understanding the needs of groups who find it difficult to engage with the planning system is critical to achieving sustainable development objectives.

43. Community involvement in planning should not be a reactive, tick-box, process. It should enable the local community to say what sort of place they want to live in at a stage when this can make a difference. Effective community involvement requires an approach which:

  • tells communities about emerging policies and proposals in good time;
  • enables communities to put forward ideas and suggestions and participate in developing proposals and options. It is not sufficient to invite them to simply comment once these have been worked-up;
  • consults on formal proposals;
  • ensures that consultation takes place in locations that are widely accessible;
  • provides and seeks feedback.

44. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires regional planning bodies and local planning authorities to prepare a Statement of Community Involvement, in which they set out their policy on involving their community in preparing regional spatial strategies, local development documents and on consulting on planning applications. Guidance on Statements of Community Involvement, together with details of the Government's overall approach to community involvement, is set out in more detail in "Community Involvement in Planning: The Government's Objectives".

11 Further guidance on these terms is contained in PPS11 (Regional Spatial Strategies) and PPS12 (Local Development Frameworks).
12 Guidance is currently being prepared by ODPM on how to improve the evidence base for regional economic strategies and regional spatial strategies.
13 The Local Government Act 2000 places on principal local authorities a duty to prepare Community Strategies, for promoting or improving the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas, and contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK.
14  DETR/CABE, 2000.
15  DTLR, 2001.
16  ODPM/Home Office, 2003.
17  ODPM, 2003.
18  ODPM, 2004.

PPS 1: Planning for sustainable development

Social cohesion and inclusion

14. The Government is committed to developing strong, vibrant and sustainable communities and to promoting community cohesion in both urban and rural areas. This means meeting the diverse needs of all people in existing and future communities, promoting personal well-being, social cohesion and inclusion and creating equal opportunity for all citizens.

15. Regeneration of the built environment alone cannot deal with poverty, inequality and social exclusion. These issues can only be addressed through the better integration of all strategies and programmes, partnership working and effective community involvement.

16. Development plans should promote development that creates socially inclusive communities, including suitable mixes of housing. Plan policies should:

  • ensure that the impact of development on the social fabric of communities is considered and taken into account;
  • seek to reduce social inequalities;
  • address accessibility (both in terms of location and physical access) for all members of the community to jobs, health, housing, education, shops, leisure and community facilities;
  • take into account the needs of all the community, including particular requirements relating to age, sex, ethnic background, religion, disability or income7;
  • deliver safe, healthy and attractive places to live; and,
  • support the promotion of health and well being by making provision for physical activity.


Protection and enhancement of the environment

17. The Government is committed to protecting and enhancing the quality of the natural and historic environment, in both rural and urban areas. Planning policies should seek to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside and urban areas as a whole. A high level of protection should be given to most valued townscapes and landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural resources. Those with national and international designations should receive the highest level of protection.

18. The condition of our surroundings has a direct impact on the quality of life and the conservation and improvement of the natural and built environment brings social and economic benefit for local communities. Planning should seek to maintain and improve the local environment and help to mitigate the effects of declining environmental quality through positive policies on issues such as design, conservation and the provision of public space.

19. Plan policies and planning decisions should be based on:

  • up-to-date information on the environmental characteristics of the area;
  • the potential impacts, positive as well as negative, on the environment of development proposals (whether direct, indirect, cumulative, long-term or short-term)8; and,
  • recognition of the limits of the environment to accept further development without irreversible damage.

Planning authorities should seek to enhance the environment as part of development proposals. Significant adverse impacts on the environment should be avoided and alternative options which might reduce or eliminate those impacts pursued. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, planning authorities and developers should consider possible mitigation measures. Where adequate mitigation measures are not possible, compensatory measures may be appropriate. In line with the UK sustainable development strategy, environmental costs should fall on those who impose them - the "polluter pays" principle.

20. Development plan policies should take account of environmental issues such as:

  • mitigation of the effects of, and adaptation to, climate change through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the use of renewable energy; air quality and pollution; land contamination; the protection of groundwater from contamination; and noise and light pollution;
  • the protection of the wider countryside and the impact of development on landscape quality; the conservation and enhancement of wildlife species and habitats and the promotion of biodiversity; the need to improve the built and natural environment in and around urban areas and rural settlements, including the provision of good quality open space; the conservation of soil quality; and the preservation and enhancement of built and archaeological heritage;
  • the potential impact of the environment on proposed developments by avoiding new development in areas at risk of flooding and sea-level rise, and as far as possible, by accommodating natural hazards and the impacts of climate change; and,
  • the management of waste in ways that protect the environment and human health, including producing less waste and using it as a resource wherever possible.

Prudent use of natural resources

21. The prudent use of resources means ensuring that we use them wisely and efficiently, in a way that respects the needs of future generations. This means enabling more sustainable consumption and production and using non-renewable resources in ways that do not endanger the resource or cause serious damage or pollution. The broad aim should be to ensure that outputs are maximised whilst resources used are minimised (for example, by building housing at higher densities on previously developed land, rather than at lower densities on greenfield sites).

22. Development plan policies should seek to minimise the need to consume new resources over the lifetime of the development by making more efficient use or reuse of existing resources, rather than making new demands on the environment; and should seek to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy). Regional planning authorities and local authorities should promote resource and energy efficient buildings; community heating schemes, the use of combined heat and power, small scale renewable and low carbon energy schemes in developments; the sustainable use of water resources; and the use of sustainable drainage systems in the management of run-off.

Sustainable economic development

23. The Government is committed to promoting a strong, stable, and productive economy that aims to bring jobs and prosperity for all. Planning authorities should:

(i) Recognise that economic development can deliver environmental and social benefits;

(ii) Recognise the wider sub-regional, regional or national benefits of economic development and consider these alongside any adverse local impacts;

(iii) Ensure that suitable locations are available for industrial, commercial, retail, public sector (e.g. health and education) tourism and leisure developments, so that the economy can prosper;

(iv) Provide for improved productivity,choice and competition, particularly when technological and other requirements of modern business are changing rapidly;

(v) Recognise that all local economies are subject to change; planning authorities should be sensitive to these changes and the implications for development and growth;

(vi) Actively promote and facilitate good quality development, which is sustainable and consistent with their plans;

(vii) Ensure the provision of sufficient, good quality, new homes (including an appropriate mix of housing and adequate levels of affordable housing) in suitable locations, whether through new development or the conversion of existing buildings. The aim should be to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home, in locations that reduce the need to travel;

(viii) Ensure that infrastructure and services are provided to support new and existing economic development and housing;

(ix) Ensure that development plans take account of the regional economic strategies of Regional Development Agencies, regional housing strategies, local authority community strategies and local economic strategies; and,

(x) Identify opportunities for future investment to deliver economic objectives.


Integrating sustainable development in development plans

24. Planning authorities should ensure that sustainable development is treated in an integrated way in their development plans. In particular, they should carefully consider the interrelationship between social inclusion, protecting and enhancing the environment, the prudent use of natural resources and economic development - for example, by recognising that economic development, if properly planned for, can have positive social and environment benefits, rather than negative impacts, and that environmental protection and enhancement can in turn provide economic and social benefits.

25. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the regional spatial strategy and local development documents be subject to a sustainability appraisal9,which will incorporate the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive10.

26. In preparing development plans, planning authorities should:

(i) Recognise the needs and broader interests of the community to secure a better quality of life for the community as a whole.

(ii) Ensure that plans are drawn up over appropriate time scales, and do not focus on the short term or ignore longer term impacts and the needs of communities in the future. Planning authorities should consider both whether policies have short term benefits which may have long term costs, but also whether short term detriments (which are capable of being mitigated) may be offset by longer term benefits which are realistically achievable.

(iii) Not impose disproportionate costs, in terms of environmental and social impacts, or by unnecessarily constraining otherwise beneficial economic or social development.

(iv) Have regard to the resources likely to be available for implementation and the costs likely to be incurred, and be realistic about what can be implemented over the period of the plan.

(v) Take account of the range of effects (both negative and positive) on the environment, as well as the positive effects of development in terms of economic benefits and social well being. Effects should be properly identified and assessed through the sustainability appraisal process, taking account of the current quality of the environment in the area and any existing environmental issues relevant to the plan.

(vi) Ensure that plans and policies are properly based on analysis and evidence. Where the outcome of that analysis and evidence remains uncertain, policy makers should exercise and demonstrate soundly based judgement, taking account of the other principles set out in this paragraph. Where justifiable on the basis of the evidence available, a precautionary approach to proposals for development may be necessary.

(vii) Take full account of the need for transparency, information and participation.

(viii) Recognise that the impact of proposed development may adversely affect people who do not benefit directly. Local planning authorities can use planning conditions or obligations to ameliorate such impacts.


(7) "Diversity and Equality in Planning: A Good Practice Guide" (ODPM, 2005) provides further guidance.
(8) For certain projects there is also a requirement to comply with the provision of Directive 85/337/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.
(9) Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks - Consultation Paper (ODPM, 2004).
(10) Directive on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment (2001/42/EC).

PPS 1: National planning policies, key principles

13. The following key principles should be applied to ensure that development plans and decisions taken on planning applications contribute to the delivery of sustainable development:

(i) Development plans should ensure that sustainable development is pursued in an integrated manner, in line with the principles for sustainable development set out in the UK strategy. Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should ensure that development plans promote outcomes in which environmental, economic and social objectives are achieved together over time.

(ii) Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should ensure that development plans contribute to global sustainability by addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate change4 - through policies which reduce energy use, reduce emissions (for example, by encouraging patterns of development which reduce the need to travel by private car, or reduce the impact of moving freight), promote the development of renewable energy resources, and take climate change impacts into account in the location and design of development.

(iii) A spatial planning approach should be at the heart of planning for sustainable development (see paragraphs 30-32 below).

(iv) Planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design in the layout of new developments and individual buildings in terms of function and impact, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development. Design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted (see paragraphs 33-39 below).

(v) Development plans should also contain clear, comprehensive and inclusive access policies - in terms of both location5 and external physical access6. Such policies should consider people's diverse needs and aim to break down unnecessary barriers and exclusions in a manner that benefits the entire community.

(vi) Community involvement is an essential element in delivering sustainable development and creating sustainable and safe communities. In developing the vision for their areas, planning authorities should ensure that communities are able to contribute to ideas about how that vision can be achieved, have the opportunity to participate in the process of drawing up the vision, strategy and specific plan policies, and to be involved in development proposals. (See also paragraphs 40-44 below).

Further guidance on access and inclusion, and a definition of inclusive design is included in Planning and Access for Disabled People: A Good Practice Guide (ODPM, March 2003).

(4) Further guidance can be found in "The Planning Response to Climate Change - Advice on Better Practice (ODPM, September 2004).
(5) Further guidance can be found in "Guidance on Accessibility Planning in Local Transport Plans" (Department for Transport, December 2004 - see www.accessibilityplanning.org.uk).
(6) Further guidance on access and inclusion, and a definition of inclusive design is included in Planning and Access for Disabled People: A Good Practice Guide (ODPM, March 2003)

PPS 1: Government objectives for the planning system

1. Planning shapes the places where people live and work and the country we live in. Good planning ensures that we get the right development, in the right place and at the right time. It makes a positive difference to people's lives and helps to deliver homes, jobs, and better opportunities for all, whilst protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, and conserving the countryside and open spaces that are vital resources for everyone. But poor planning can result in a legacy for current and future generations of run-down town centres, unsafe and dilapidated housing, crime and disorder, and the loss of our finest countryside to development.

2. Good planning is a positive and proactive process, operating in the public interest through a system of plan preparation and control over the development and use of land.

3. Sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning. At the heart of sustainable development is the simple idea of ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for future generations. A widely used definition was drawn up by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987: "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

4. The Government set out four aims for sustainable development in its 1999 strategy2. These are:

  • social progress which recognises the needs of everyone;
  • effective protection of the environment;
  • the prudent use of natural resources; and,
  • the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

These aims should be pursued in an integrated way through a sustainable, innovative and productive economy that delivers high levels of employment, and a just society that promotes social inclusion, sustainable communities and personal well being, in ways that protect and enhance the physical environment and optimise resource and energy use.

5. Planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development by:

  • making suitable land available for development in line with economic, social and environmental objectives to improve people's quality of life;
  • contributing to sustainable economic development;
  • protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside, and existing communities;
  • ensuring high quality development through good and inclusive design, and the efficient use of resources; and,
  • ensuring that development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities with good access to jobs and key services for all members of the community.

6. The principles of sustainable development have been incorporated in the Government's vision for sustainable communities, set out in Sustainable Communities - building for the future3. Planning has a key role to play in the creation of sustainable communities: communities that will stand the test of time, where people want to live, and which will enable people to meet their aspirations and potential.

7. This plan-led system, and the certainty and predictability it aims to provide, is central to planning and plays the key role in integrating sustainable development objectives. Where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8. To help meet these broad objectives, the country needs a transparent, flexible, predictable, efficient and effective planning system that will produce the quality development needed to deliver sustainable development and secure sustainable communities. National policies and regional and local development plans (regional spatial strategies and local development frameworks) provide the framework for planning for sustainable development and for that development to be managed effectively. Plans should be drawn up with community involvement and present a shared vision and strategy of how the area should develop to achieve more sustainable patterns of development.

9. Local communities, businesses, the voluntary sector and individuals have a right to a high quality service that is fast, fair, open, transparent and consistent and respects the cost, effort and commitment that has gone into engagement in plan making and in preparing and submitting applications. Planning authorities must ensure that plans are kept up to date and that planning applications are dealt with expeditiously, while addressing the relevant issues. Planning authorities should ensure also that they have in place appropriate arrangements for enforcement.

10. However, planning authorities need to go further. Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 every local planning authority now has a responsibility for reporting, on an annual basis, the extent to which policies set out in local development plans are being achieved. Their role, therefore, is not restricted to plan making and development control, but involves facilitating and promoting the implementation of good quality development. They should therefore aim to provide a good quality service for managing the development of their area: making plans, dealing with development consents and assisting implementation, striving for continuous improvement with regard to matters such as openness, customer service and stakeholder satisfaction.

11. Planning is a tool for local authorities to use in establishing and taking forward the vision for their areas as set out in their community strategies. The planning process already offers local communities real opportunities to influence how they want their areas to develop. More effective community involvement is a key element of the Government's planning reforms. This is best achieved where there is early engagement of all the stakeholders in the process of plan making and bringing forward development proposals. This helps to identify issues and problems at an early stage and allows dialogue and discussion of the options to take place before proposals are too far advanced.

12. Pre-application discussions are critically important and benefit both developers and local planning authorities in ensuring a better mutual understanding of objectives and the constraints that exist. In the course of such discussions proposals can be adapted to ensure that they better reflect community aspirations and that applications are complete and address all the relevant issues. Local planning authorities and applicants should take a positive attitude towards early engagement in pre-application discussions so that formal applications can be dealt with in a more certain and speedy manner and the quality of decisions can be better assured.

(2) A Better Quality of Life - A Strategy for Sustainable Development for the UK - CM 4345, May 1999. The strategy is currently subject to review.
(3)  ODPM, February 2003


Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development © Crown Copyright 2005

You are here: Home Planning Planning