On Christmas Eve, Warwick’s Professor of Economics, Andrew Oswald, wrote to the Financial Times agreeing with the decision of the Communities and Local Government Committee that the document should be rewritten, removing the default answer of “yes” to development.
Launching the report of an inquiry that examines the draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF) Bill, Clive Betts, Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee said:
“The way the framework is drafted currently gives the impression that greater emphasis should be given in planning decisions to economic growth. This undermines the equally important environmental and social elements of the planning system. As currently drafted the ‘default yes’ to development also carries the risk of the planning system being used to implement unsustainable development.
“The document omits any reference to ‘brownfield development first’. We welcome the Government’s openness to reinstating the familiar and well understood term ‘brownfield development’ in the NPPF. For similar reasons the NPPF should be revised to reflect the ‘Town Centre First’ policy.”
Andrew Oswald cited growing scientific evidence suggesting that the default should be “no”, in particular the research of Richard Easterlin at the University of Southern California and Armin Falk in work on brain science at the University of Bonn, showing that greater economic wealth from this point on in the UK’s history is not likely to improve the well-being of our citizens.
People see expensive cars but not the health damaging particulates they discharge
Oswald also pointed to research by Arik Levinson at Georgetown University, Peter Clinch at University College Dublin and Bernard Van Praag at the University of Amsterdam, which finds that “green” variables are very important but undervalued.
People see expensive cars and not particulates in the air – infringing EU laws; they do not appreciate how profoundly, and often subconsciously, they are affected by rural views or lack of noise. They believe they would be happier if they had slightly more money and lived in a slightly worse environment.
The default answer of “no” to development would be the state’s protective legislation, following that on seat-belts and smoking in public buildings and vehicles – deplored by many as ‘nannying’.
Will Professor Oswald’s advice be followed – or will various vested interests carry the day? Correspondent Jon Craig – for one – predicts that the Prime Minister will set aside the committee’s decision.
