Ministers must resolve confusion surrounding the government’s fiercely debated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), said the BPF, after an influential committee of cross-party MPs called for ‘significant changes’. In their newly published report, the CLG Committee suggested government reinstate the brownfield first policy and amend the contentious presumption in favour of sustainable development. This presumption would then only apply if a proposal is consistent with a local authority’s local plan, and even offers a ‘more inclusive definition’ of sustainable development.

The BPF supports many of the report’s findings, particularly the reintroduction of brownfield and town centre first policies. The property industry is also not at odds with the committee’s proposed definition of sustainable development and the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development consistent with a local plan’, as long as there is a suitably robust mechanism to ensure that, in the absence of a local plan, development can continue. It is also imperative that there is a suitable incentive for local authorities to produce a plan - seven years on from legislation requiring local authorities to do so, most authorities do not have finalised plans in place.

Liz Peace, chief executive of the British Property Federation, said: “This report and much of the rhetoric surrounding the NPPF exposes the vast disparity of views when interpreting the framework. Ministers must stand up and be counted and explain exactly what certain sections of the NPPF will mean in practice.

“Many of the committee’s findings we have long supported, such as the reintroduction of a brownfield first policy. The commercial property industry, by-and-large, already develops on previously used land in town and city centres.

“We could support the committee’s definition of sustainable development and re-worded ‘presumption in favour’ as long as local authorities were compelled to produce a local plan. As it stands, only 47% of local authorities have got around to producing one and the committee’s suggestion risks a complete development hiatus in the remaining 53% of areas.

“To some extent, much of the debate around the different definitions of sustainable development and the obsession with the length of the NPPF itself misses the point that the new system will only succeed if all local authorities have a robust local plan.”

Meanwhile the MPs scrutinising the proposals have said they are "weighted too far towards a single interest" - developers' needs. The department's watchdog of cross-party MPs consider that although it is admirably short, this has been at the expense of clarity.

They approve the fact that the government wants the planning system to be less complicated, more receptive to all forms of sustainable development, and able to reach effective decisions more quickly.

But they fear that the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' will in practice lead to inappropriate development. They also fear that, far from speeding up the planning system, it could well slow it down because the lack of guidance will mean time lost in appeals.

The final NPPF will have far-reaching consequences. "It therefore needs to be balanced and comprehensive," they say, and "must leave no room for doubt that the purpose of the planning system is to address social, environmental and economic demands on land supply on an equal basis".