Sustainable Development in the UK

The UK government is in trouble for using the term ‘sustainable development’ in the Draft National Planning Policy Framework in order to justify the following statement:

‘... a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible.’

The Bruntland Commission (1987) defined the term ‘sustainable development’ in the context of underdeveloped countries. Back in 1987 the concern was how to provide development without the associated path of destruction that the developed countries followed. There was an underlying assumption that there would be development so the need was ways to make it sustainable. This argument does not apply to highly developed countries like the UK.

The draft policy includes three threads:
planning for prosperity (an economic role)
planning for people (a social role)
planning for places (an environmental role)

This is the order of precedence used in the report and the bold highlighting has not been added by me; it has been used by the author to emphasise the guidance to local authorities and planning officials that:

‘... significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.’

This is a very clear example of the business as usual approach which I analysed in my book Victim of Success: Civilisation at Risk. In Chapter 13 (a coincidence of number choice) I wrote about ‘The Three-way Balancing Act’ between people profit and planet. I wrote:

‘I do not argue that we soften our focus on economics. Economic tools are quantifiable and measurable and the outcome of increased wealth is a tangible improvement. The problem is that a narrow focus on economics does not lead to sustainable outcomes. We need to bring the same level of rigour to the way we deal with social outcomes and protection of the environment.’

The UK government is leading the UK down the path that I described in the early chapters of Victim of Success on which we knowingly and stupidly continue down the path to destruction. There is no need; there is a better way; UK planning rules do need changing but the foundation assumptions of this draft (daft) policy is wrong.