Agenda item

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report regarding the Draft National Planning Policy Framework Consultation by the Director and the Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, Policy and Conservation.

 

The proposed National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) involved the deletion of all but one of the current Planning Policy Statements (PPS), all of the current Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG), and a small number of circulars, replacing these with a much shorter single document. The overall intentions were to:

 

(a)        Consolidate and streamline national planning policy to reduce bureaucracy;

 

(b)        Promote sustainable economic growth while retaining important environmental and social objectives;

 

(c)        Empower local communities to do things their way instead of excessive control from Central Government; and

 

(d)        More “user friendly” and accessible, so that it was easier for members of the public to have a meaningful say in planning decisions.

 

The consultation ran for a 12 week period from 25 July to 17 October 2011. Officers expressed concern that this major and complex change to national planning guidance was being put out for consultation through the main annual holiday period when some members and staff were likely to have been away for a number of weeks. There were 41 policy questions relating directly to the draft framework, and other Impact Assessment, covering costs of implementation, sustainable development, economic development, planning for people, and environment.

 

The draft NPPF also introduced some changes to planning policy. The most significant ones were:

 

(i)         presumption in favour of sustainable development;

 

(ii)        removing office development from a “town centre first” approach;

 

(iii)       increasing the time horizon for assessing impacts on town centres from 5 to 10 years;

 

(iv)       removing the maximum non-residential car parking standards for major developments;

 

(v)        removing the national brownfield target for housing development;

 

(vi)       requiring local authorities to add at least 20% to five year housing requirements;

 

(vii)      removing the national minimum site size threshold for provision of affordable housing;

 

(viii)      removing the rural exception sites policy; i.e. for these sites only to be for affordable housing;

 

(ix)       within the Green belt to permit development on previously developed land even if it had not been identified as a “major developed site” in the local plan;

 

(x)        Community Right to Build schemes to be permissible within the Green Belt if backed by the local community;

 

(xi)       extending the alteration or replacement of dwellings (already permissible in the Green Belt) to include all buildings;

 

(xii)      removing the requirement for councils to set decentralised energy targets (based on e.g. micro generation, combined heat and power systems, and district heating systems); and

 

(xiii)      expecting councils to consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and any supporting infrastructure.

 

CLG was also seeking responses from all individuals and organisations with an interest in planning. Officers have therefore sent details of the consultation to town and parish councils, residents’ and other groups, local businesses and developers, using contact details from the database for the Local Development Framework (LDF), encouraging them to respond.

 

The Director of Planning advised amongst other points, including those arising from consideration of the same report by the LDF Cabinet Committee indicated that the consultation arguments were favourable to development. There was concern that large numbers of derelict glass houses in the district could be converted to houses using these changes. Although it was advised that members need to be realistic about the major changes they would face in the future with regards to development.

 

The members commented on the following questions and officer’s suggested responses:

 

Q13 (a)            The policy on planning and the Green Belt gives a strong clear message on Green belt protection. Do you strongly agree/agree/neither agree nor disagree/disagree/strongly disagree?

 

Answer – Disagree

 

Q13 (b)           Have you comments to add?

 

“Development in the Green Belt likely to have significant effects on any of the five purposes of including land in Green Belt would not be sustainable under the terms of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, unless it is accepted that very special circumstances apply.”

 

4.2 Policy Questions

 

Q2 (c)  The policies for planning strategically access local boundaries provide a clear framework and enough flexibility for councils and other bodies to work together effectively. Do you strongly agree/agree/neither agree nor disagree/disagree/strongly disagree?

 

Officer Response – Neither agree or disagree.

 

Members felt that this response should be enlarged and was too vague.

 

Members discussed Appendix 1 of the report, it was felt that Questions 3a to 6a should be responded with “Disagree.”

 

Q10 (a)            The polices on housing will enable communities to deliver a wide choice of quality homes, in the right location, to meet local demand. Do you strongly agree/agree/neither agree nor disagree/disagree/strongly disagree?

 

Officer Response – Neither agree or disagree.

 

Members felt the answer should be “disagree.”

 

Q14 (c)            The policy on renewable energy will support the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy. Do you strongly agree/agree/neither agree nor disagree/disagree/strongly disagree?

 

Officer Response – Neither agree or disagree.

 

Members felt a firmer answer was needed.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the consultation response be agreed subject to suggested amendments by members of this Panel together with those of the LDF Cabinet Committee.