Interventions – a good one and an unhelpful one.

It’s always exciting when the political tectonic plates start to shift as a result of effective campaigning.  The unified raspberry that has greeted the draft of the EnPeePeeEff (National Planning Policy Framework) across England (the rest of the UK can relax for now) has at last brought the Prime Minister, David Cameron, into the centre of the furore around the future of planning  - timely.

The bellicose approach adopted by ministers so far has cut away any faith that the current consultation exercise is anything other than going through the motions; with David Cameron’s personal intervention the game has changed – but, and this is the important campaigny bit – it isn’t time to even think that anything has been achieved.

In the Prime Minister’s letter to the environmental NGOs he gives specific and welcome reassurance about National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty but doesn’t mention Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In the light of our concerns about the possible impact of the draft NPPF on the protection of SSSIs, the RSPB commissioned legal advice from Nathalie Lieven QC of Landmark Chambers. She states that "I have no doubt that overall the draft NPPF does materially lessen the protection of SSSIs and has the potential to have a material impact on planning decisions affecting a SSSI." Our advice shows that whatever the Government’s intention towards protecting SSSIs, that is not the effect of the NPPF policies.  The conclusion is that nature’s crown jewels will be at greater risk unless the NPPF is amended.

And just to be clear what we are asking for:                                      

• A rigorous definition of sustainable development that ensures that every development is  sustainable , and that this is explicitly stated throughout the NPPF.  So one key test of what we mean by sustainable is that our wildlife heritage is maintained - and where possible enhanced.
• Removing the Localism Bill’s elevation of financial contributions from developers as material to planning decisions. We expect this issue to be discussed during Lords Report Stage very shortly. 
• The restoration of the principle  that land of lesser environmental value should be considered for development first as part of a commitment to urban regeneration and the effective and efficient use of land
• Withdrawing the default ‘yes’ to development in the absence of local plans, to ensure that local communities and the environment are protected from  damaging speculative development.

The Prime Minister may have taken the fingers out of the ears of Ministers – but all is still to play for.  In whole-heartedly welcoming his personal commitment to the countryside – our measure of success is action not warm words, it’s what happens to rectify the shortcomings in the Government’s proposals that will count. But his intervention is significant and we will continue to engage constructively on the details of the NPPF and the Localism Bill – you can help too, here’s how.  The consultation runs to 17 October.

So to a less helpful intervention. As a man of Kent I was distinctly peeved (other reactions are available) to read Simon Jenkins’ dismissal of the north of my county as a wasteland waiting for an airport.  I don’t know what it is about the Thames that it regularly attracts grand-standing about where to stick an airport that has been regularly rejected and for which there is no political backing.

We’ve been stepping up with communities in North Kent for years – campaigning for a better future for one of the world’s most important wildlife sites and I’m going to leave the last word to the Friends of North Kent Marshes: ‘We are appalled and dismayed that commentators on aviation expansion such as Simon Jenkins are so ill-informed about the Thames Estuary and its internationally protected wildlife habitats. As communities we are rightly proud of our natural and cultural heritage; the Thames Estuary and Marshes are so important that they have the highest protection under national and international law and form the single most important natural asset within the Thames Gateway. Any attempt to build an airport within the Thames estuary will be fought with relentless vigour’.

Follow me on twitter