Sustainable Development in the Countryside - The Issues

The Department for Regional Development (DRD) has produced The Draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 14 'Sustainable Development in the Countryside' to assist in the implementation of the Regional Development Strategy.  PPS 14 proposes stricter planning policies for rural areas as current levels of rural planning approval in Northern Ireland are unsustainable. It aims to replace relevant sections of the 1993 Strategic Plan for Rural Northern Ireland. Under the new policy, there will be a presumption against development in the countryside, with a limited number of exceptions to meet the needs of the rural community, including farmers.

Arguments For:

  • Northern Ireland Planning Minister Lord Jeff Rooker said: "PPS 14 is designed to protect one of Northern Ireland's greatest assets, its countryside. At present the numbers of rural planning approvals here are three times the combined total in England, Scotland and Wales."

  • "In 2004/05 alone there were 9,520 approvals for new dwellings. Indications are that the 2005/06 figure will be well over 12,000. That's equivalent to a town the size of Ballymena being built and is five times the level of just over a decade ago."

  • Lord Rooker said even though the policy statement is under a 12-week consultation exercise it would take precedent for all new applications. This is designed to prevent the planning service being swamped with applications during the consultation period, he said.

  • Policies to protect and support rural communities are included. There are supportive policies for retiring farmers, farm workers, farm diversification and a new policy for social housing in the countryside.

  • There are concerns about water quality caused by the increased use of septic tanks and the present level of approvals increases traffic levels and pollution on rural roads.

  • Lord Rooker said, "The countryside is one of Northern Ireland's greatest assets. It is in everyone's interests to protect it. The current level of development in the countryside threatens the rural landscape."


Arguments Against:

Arguments against the proposals come from a wide range of political parties, organisations and individuals. Their views can be accessed from the website
PPS14 - An Unsustainable Plan.  The main conclusions are:

  • We strongly support the 'principle' of sustainability and want to see greater control over the quality of design and siting of new dwellings in the country. We also want to see derelict and vacant traditional buildings restored and re-used. Credit should be given in the planning process for the use of sustainable and 'green' design, materials and systems. We believe that the 'practice' as proposed in the sweeping legislation of PPS14, will actually damage what it sets out to protect.

  • There are thousands of builders, tradesmen and employees of small, family owned and run manufacturing companies who live in the country and help to build the dwellings which PPS14 intends to stop. They are likely to become unemployed. Rural manufacturing companies are already under pressure from the withdrawal of the Rates holiday which they had benefited from until last year.

Other arguments against include the following:

  • The restrictive policies contained within PPS14 should be subjected to a fundamental review and new policies developed to address the strong opposition from all of the main political parties and the vast majority of those who responded to the 2006 consultation exercise.

  • Although most people agree that unrestricted development in the countryside is not sustainable, many people think that the policies contained within PPS 14 are unduly restrictive and inflexible.

  • Most people opposed to PPS14 agree that presumption in favour of development in the countryside should apply. However certain restrictions would be required to ensure that stakeholders within the rural community, either in terms of housing need or a strong connection with the area, received preferential treatment.

  • PPS 14 will have a detrimental impact on rural schools, community groups, sporting organisations, businesses and, by definition, the rural community.

  • Farming has changed so much in recent years that many farms would never meet the farm viability test contained in PPS 14.

  • In relation to the proposed replacement policy, many people express a view that it was just too restrictive, and recommend that it should be much more flexible. Restrictions on the size and siting of replacement dwellings were considered unnecessary by some, and many felt that they led to additional costs.

  • The proposals in relation to social housing policy were generally welcomed, but many people highlighted potential problems and shortcomings where improvements could be made.

  • In view of the current trends, many people felt that there was an inconsistent approach to planning and that rural approvals lacked effective enforcement. Therefore, they called for greater accountability in the planning process and better co-ordination between Government departments.

  • The consultation process identified kinship ties and occupancy conditions as the most strongly represented alternatives to the proposed presumption against development.

  • A general theme throughout the responses was that there was agreement that something needed to be done to stop speculative developers but that there was also a need for balance between sustainability and supporting vibrant rural communities.
What do you think?
If you want to make your voice heard, return to the ViBEL page and cast your vote in the poll.