GOVERNMENT proposals to remove 95 per cent of existing planning law would "blow holes" in Hillingdon Council's effort to prevent inappropriate development, councillors have warned.

The so-called National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is an attempt by government to aid developers and stimulate economic growth but has been slammed by local conservationists as a threat to high streets and green spaces.

Speaking at a cabinet meeting on Thursday (29), Councillor Keith Burrows (Con) said that while there were a few positives to the simplification of national planning policy, he had grave concerns at the implications of it in Hillingdon.

"If we were to agree with this framework our own local development plan would have to be revised to put Green Belt under threat," the cabinet member for planning said.

"We are not prepared to do that. We feel our planning guidance is extremely robust and designed to protect residents. The NPPF will blow holes in a lot of what we are trying to do."

The NPPF, if it became law, would remove several key planning rules controlling noise pollution, flooding and building on greenfield land. A preference for brownfield development would be removed.

A public consultation period on the NPPF closes on October 17 and the council agreed last week on what the wording of its response should be.

It will tell government that: "Current planning policy guidance notes have generally worked well. They provide clear advice for formulating local plans and a clear approach towards development in the Green Belt, in town centres, in areas prone to flood risk, and so forth.

"Removing this guidance will create uncertainty both for developers, local planning authorities and local communities."
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner MP Nick Hurd, through his job as minister for civil society, had input into the draft NPPF and told the Gazette last month he supported it, especially the introduction of neighbourhood plans designed to give local people more power in planning policy.

But the council verdict described this move as "an exceptionally unclear policy initiative which needs to be properly thought through".

It also added: "The focus on economic growth is at the expense of the natural environment."