Planning reforms put parks and open spaces at risk

We have warned that the government’s ‘pro-growth’ planning agenda comes at the expense of social and environmental benefits.  We believe that the government’s decisions on the statutory consultee system and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published on 17 August, will weaken protection for parks, gardens and open spaces.  But the society also offers a welcome for new provisions to protect and enhance the public rights-of-way network.

Helen Monger, one of our case officers, says: 

‘Taken together, these reforms show a government prioritising economic growth at the expense of making places healthy and liveable.  By removing statutory-consultee status from the Gardens Trust and narrowing the roles of Sport England and Historic England it rejects the specialist expertise which is essential to planning authorities when they determine planning applications concerning parks, gardens, and recreational spaces. 

‘We are also disappointed by the government’s reply to the responses on the NPPF consultation.  Most of our submissions, and those of others representing outdoor recreational spaces, have been ignored.   

‘For instance, we argued strongly against the notion of so-called “safeguarded land”, a new category of land in the green belt which is to be safeguarded for, not from development.  We could see that such designation on land used for public recreation could prevent local people from registering that land as a town or village green to secure its protection and their rights to enjoy it.  Nevertheless, the government has persisted with this new category in the NPPF,’ Helen declares. 

The society has welcomed some changes, including strengthening Policy TR8, (Public rights of way), to require existing rights of way to be ‘protected and enhanced’ (rather than simply ‘maintained’ as was in the consultation), promoting opportunities to extend or improve the rights-of-way network, and commended the integration of planning policies with Rights of Way Improvement Plans.  The new NPPF also requires replacement recreational provision under Policy HC7 (Development affecting existing recreational land and facilities) to be equivalent or better in both quantity and quality, rather than quantity or quality (as was in the consultation). 

Helen continues: ‘The NPPF appears to ignore the government’s Environmental Improvement Plan, published last December, which has as a central aim “to make sure that everyone has access to green or blue spaces within a 15-minute walk from home”.  There is no mention of this aspiration as part of the development framework, and it will not be achieved without deliberate effort.  For example, we have recommended that developers should be mandated to register open spaces within developments as town or village greens as mitigation.  This gets no mention.’ 

The society also questions the emphasis in Policy N3 (Trees in new development), on planting trees in parks and other green spaces, arguing that good-quality designed landscapes have value in their own right and that greening existing public amenity space should not be a substitute for creating new green space and introducing plants into areas that are nature depleted. 

Helen goes on to say: 

‘The overall direction of travel is distressing.  Despite the country’s hottest summer and longest drought on record, the government introduces policies which threaten green spaces.  Yet these are vital for the population to cool off and experience the natural environment.  Many people do not have access to private spaces and rely on parks, gardens, and local green spaces for their sanity and health.  When will government understand that public access to open spaces is an essential part of sustainable development, not a blocker to it? 

‘We shall continue to press our arguments, for the public good.’ 

Header photo: Dembee Tsogoo