consultation on the recommendations made by the Local Plans Expert Group. (LPEG). ... which is that the local plan-led s
Local Plans Expert Group - Local Plans Report to Government National Trust response to recommendations April 2016 Introduction The National Trust is pleased to offer this response to the Government’s consultation on the recommendations made by the Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG). We are Europe’s largest conservation body with over 4 million members and an annual turnover of more than £450 million. Established over 115 years ago, our primary purpose is to promote the preservation of special places for the benefit of the nation. To achieve this aim we manage over 250,000 hectares of countryside, 3620 listed buildings, and more than 770 miles of coastline across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We own 57 villages, wholly or partly own six World Heritage Sites and manage 8% of registered historic parks and gardens. More than 100 million visits are made every year to the properties in our care. The National Trust is a major business as well as a charity. We own Europe’s largest network of holiday cottages and gift shops, are a large-scale landlord and farming enterprise, and on occasion we also act as a developer, creating visitor facilities, converting farm buildings for business use and constructing housing with the ultimate aim of supporting our conservation work. As a major participant, the National Trust has championed a strong, effective land use planning system in England since the 1920s. We strongly believe that planning exists to serve the public’s present and future interests. A robust system is the best way to guide good development to the right place and to ensure that poorly designed proposals and those in the wrong location don’t get built. We believe that good planning is an essential tool for balancing a variety of land use interests in the pursuit of an overriding public one and for ensuring sustainable futures for the nation’s special places. Summary The National Trust welcomes the fundamental assumption behind this report, which is that the local plan-led system is the best way to guide good development to the right places, meeting long term needs. John Rhodes made this explicit at the launch event for this report, and we would urge the Government to re-affirm its commitment to the plan-led approach and the principles of sustainable development in any future policy statements and legislation. 1
There are many points in the report that the Trust support and agree with. Many of the reforms proposed will help to reduce the conflict in the system and reduce some of the administrative and regulatory burden that is restricting plan preparation. However we have a number of significant concerns with the recommendations taken as a whole. In summary, these are: •
The report promotes a much reduced, simplified, and formulaic plan preparation process, with an emphatic emphasis on housing growth, which could reduce the scope of plans to be an expression of local distinctiveness and to plan positively in other areas, for instance biodiversity, adapting to coastal change, flooding resilience, landscape and heritage
•
There is a concerning lack of detail on how Assessments of Environmental Capacity will be delivered through practical changes to guidance – despite the fact that these are acknowledged by LPEG as an essential counter-weight to Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) in its vision for plan-making. This stands in stark contrast to very detailed proposed changes to guidance on assessing housing need
•
We support LPEG’s assertion that planning needs a period of stability after significant recent reform – but feel that proposing 47 reforms across this system is not compatible with the need for stability. Although a small number of these are welcome, many could result in further confusion and instability in the system. These are on top of many other changes in recent years and additional to other forthcoming reforms such as those in the Housing and Planning Bill.
•
The report makes many recommendations relating to strategic planning. We agree that there is a clear need for more consistent, strategic planning, but we do not believe that the recommendations put forward would successfully address the problem, nor that they would deliver and be consistent with democratic and environmental objectives. The Government should, in particular, review how strategic planning is considered within its devolution agenda
•
The report fails to adequately address local authority resourcing and skills. Council planning teams have had the largest percentage cuts of any local authority function in the last five years. It is difficult to see how further radical change can be effectively absorbed and delivery speeded up without the provision of additional resources. Government should provide transition funding to help planning authorities adjust to the significant reforms being made to the system
•
Overall the report presents a mixed and contradictory picture on public engagement. There are some welcome recommendations (for instance promoting earlier public consultation at the vision and high level options stage). However, we are concerned by proposals to 2
remove discretionary consultation, to confine representations at Examination stage to written form, and a lack of proposals to improve transparency over strategic planning mechanisms
Response to individual recommendations Establishing Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) (Section 3) 4. SHMAs The National Trust welcomes the recommendation to adopt a simplified, standard common methodology within the NPPG for the preparation of concise SHMAs. The Trust considers that existing SHMAs are too complicated and often lead to a challenge that proposals are not based on reliable evidence; that figures for housing need are unnecessarily high and inflexible; and they ignore market forces governed by the ability of people to pay for homes. For example, this was highlighted in the ‘Critique of West Midlands Housing Needs Assessments’ to the CPRE (Warwickshire) in January 2016 by Professor Alan Wenban-Smith, MA, MSc, MRTPI, former Visiting Professor of Planning at Birmingham City University. A notable conclusion in the report was that “a large gap between OAN and capacity to deliver is not compatible with the sustainable development requirements of NPPF because builders will choose the most profitable sites, generally greenfield.” Also that the “rigid adherence to forecasts gives only the illusion of certainty, inhibiting necessary adaptations to new problems and unforeseen opportunities. The present system for setting OANs is the worst of all worlds: volatile projections within a rigid and unresponsive framework.” 1 There is clearly a concern that over-estimating the demand for housing may have consequential impact on the phasing of development, encouraging undesirable urban extensions and incursions into Green Belt and agricultural land at a very early stage once the Local Plan has been adopted. This also undermines urban regeneration and the recycling of derelict and other urban land, contrary to paragraph 80 of the NPPF. 5. Housing Market Signals The National Trust challenged the inclusion of the market signals guidance in the NPPG in 2013. In our view a case has not been made for making upward adjustments to housing needs assessments – and therefore, to land release based on house price data. The policy is built on the premise that housing land supply affects house prices significantly, yet this premise is hotly disputed 2. We would therefore be concerned that maintaining live tables on housing affordability would attach greater weight to a policy for which there is no clear justification, and would be an additional cost for central Government. 1
http://home.btconnect.com/cprewarwickshire/pages/Wenban-Smith%20Report.pdf http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/housing-and-planning/housing/item/4158-set-up-to-failwhy-housing-targets-based-on-flawed-numbers-threaten-our-countryside 2
3
Turning OAN into Local Plan Requirements (Section 4) 7. Assessment of Environmental Capacity The National Trust supports the recommendation that a proportionate Assessment of Environmental Capacity should be an important part of plan making and that it should be defined as an essential element of the local plan evidence base. The Trust would consider that the Assessment of Environmental Capacity is a very significant and vital element of the LPEG recommendations. Without the same level of commitment to this element as given to that for meeting housing need – and the detailed and extensive proposal for change, the overall package of recommendations and changes would be significantly incomplete and unbalanced. It is therefore disappointing that recommendation 7 simply proposes an indicative scope be prepared for a future amendment to the NPPG on an Assessment of Environmental Capacity, whereas the Expert Group has prepared proposals to fully revise NPPG in other areas, for instance on assessing housing need. We would be very concerned if other changes suggested by this report to guidance are made without the introduction of parallel guidance on the Assessment of Environmental Capacity. Without this the report and its approach to local plans would be heavily and unreasonably skewed to the absolute drive to meet housing need. We are concerned that there is a general over emphasis on housing and growth in the LPEG report. For example “… we anticipate that local authorities should be seeking to meet their objectively assessed needs in the most sustainable and environmentally acceptable way, rather than resisting those objectively assessed needs for growth.” (NT underlining). There would need to be a consistent and robust approach to assessing Environmental Capacity, and local authorities will need to have the relevant skills and resources to carry out the assessment and to subsequently review that capacity over the whole of the plan period, particularly as the Environmental Capacity of a local plan area will inevitably change over time. There are clear benefits to incorporating an Assessment of Environmental Capacity into Local Plans, thereby underpinning the key principles of sustainable development. In particular, as stated in paragraph 4.3 of the report, “there would be considerable advantage in bringing this evidence together in a single assessment to help establish the development capacity of the local plan area so that paragraph 14 of the NPPF can be applied from an informed perspective.” However, it is important that in bringing evidence together in a “single assessment”, genuine environmental considerations are not intentionally or inadvertently ‘screened out ’. One of the key challenges will be to ensure that the importance of Environmental Capacity can penetrate and impact upon the decision-making process in Local Plans. In particular, paragraph 4.5 of the 4
report needs to be emphasised “that there may be circumstances where development requirements cannot be met because of the demonstrable lack of environmental capacity.” (NT underlining) It is essential that any assessment of Environmental Capacity is not seen as just another tick-box exercise and equally it should not be necessary to embark on a paper-chase in order to understand the environmental effects of the Local Plan. By planning, implementing and managing Environmental Capacity as an integral part of Local Plans and the decision making process, it should be possible to deliver a range of benefits to help improve quality of life and wellbeing for local communities. For example: Environmental • protecting and enhancing local landscapes, including landscape character, local distinctiveness and aesthetic qualities • safeguarding and enhancing natural and historic assets • providing the context for a living, working landscape • improving environmental quality, including better air and water quality, lower noise and light pollution, and local adaptation to coastal change and climate change • contributing to sustainable drainage and flood mitigation • providing an opportunity to protect, recreate and rehabilitate landscapes and habitats damaged or lost by previous development or agricultural change • helping to maintain and enhance biodiversity by reversing habitat fragmentation, and increasing biodiversity to restore functioning ecosystems that underpin a rich wildlife resource • promoting connectivity and Opportunity Mapping to help improve strategic local landscapes and natural habitats Social • • •
•
• •
helping to conserve and enhance local identity and a ‘sense of place’ providing the essential contact between people and the aesthetic and spiritual qualities of landscapes and nature developing a multi-functional landscape resource that meets local needs and aspirations, and providing opportunities for community involvement improving health and well-being, including increased physical activity such as walking and cycling, and opportunities for quiet contemplation providing community resources for learning and training, creating a focus for social inclusion and environmental education inspiring cohesive partnership working across a range of disciplines and sectors
5
Economic • providing an enhanced environmental setting that will assist in attracting business and inward investment, as part of a narrative for growth • promoting employment and retention of people in the environmental sector, including agriculture and forestry • enhancing the potential for investment in tourism and green technology • improving and sustaining land and property values • incorporating biodiversity offsetting To achieve sustainable communities and “a presumption in favour of sustainable development” (NPPF – p14), a ‘consensus’ on Environmental Capacity will need to be planned strategically at a national level to ensure that it is at the fore of local plan-making. An Assessment of Environmental Capacity should contribute to the delivery of sustainable planning objectives in Local Plans. In particular, planning and implementing an Environmental Capacity Assessment well in advance of any masterplanning, particularly in areas where significant change is envisaged, can bring many benefits, including safeguarding and enhancing vital natural assets, and helping to create a sense of place for well-designed new development while retaining vital links with the past. The Detailed Recommendations suggest that an Assessment should only not be required if a plan is nine months or closer to its publication. We would suggest that it should not be compulsory for any plan where housing and employment requirements have already been determined taking account of the OAN and constraints. For such plans, the Assessment should be optional (i.e. used to verify or review figures) and it is suggested that the Assessment should only be compulsory in situations where a wholly new OAN calculation is being prepared to inform a new plan. 8. Application of paragraph 14 of the NPPF The Trust strongly agrees with the stance taken by the LPEG in para 4.5 and fully supports the understanding of the NPPF set out there, that NOT all needs must or can be met in each area. This has not however always been the approach taken by local authorities and the inspectorate in assessing plan soundness. The Trust would therefore seek a stronger commitment to detailed explanation and practice guidance. However, we are concerned that neither recommendation 8 nor the corresponding part of the main report makes explicit reference to limb 2 of paragraph 14, within which conflict with specific policies of the NPPF is seen as potentially being a reason why objectively assessed need should not be met in an area, In this context, the National Trust would also like to see greater emphasis and prominence given to the DCLG statement of October 2014 that ‘Councils must protect our precious Green Belt land’: 6
“Local authorities should prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs. However, assessing need is just the first stage in developing a Local Plan. Once need has been assessed, the local planning authority should prepare a strategic housing land availability assessment to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period, and in so doing take account of any constraints such as Green Belt, which indicate that development should be restricted and which may restrain the ability of an authority to meet its need.” (NT underlining) 3 This statement has also been incorporated into National Planning Practice Guidance (ID 3-045-20141006). It is concerning, however, as with Recommendation 7, that this recommendation by the group is not as emphatic as other parallel recommendations on housing need. The National Trust would like to see a much greater commitment to and prepared detail for how Recommendation 8 would look in practice, including both limbs of paragraph 14. 9. Green Belts The National Trust would support paragraph 4.7 in the report that “there is no need to recommend any change to Green Belt policy, which is clearly set out in the NPPF. The purposes of the Green Belt are well understood and have stood the test of time.” However, the National Trust would urge caution in generally recommending that advice about how to conduct Green Belt reviews should be more readily available to local authorities, with the implication that if it is recommended by the government it carries more weight. A plethora of advice published by various bodies and organisations that is promoted by the government, could potentially lead to more confusion for local authorities in carrying out Green Belt reviews. A more helpful approach might be for the government, following consultation, to issue specific guidance on Green Belt reviews and incorporate possible examples of best practice. The Trust’s position is that any necessary revisions to the Green Belt should be made through the Local Plan process, and should take into account wider city and regional impacts through an agreed strategic approach. Our view is that any revisions should not undermine the principle of Green Belt protection nor long-term confidence in Green Belts. Particular reference in the report is made to the Planning Officer’s Society’s paper “We Need to talk about the Green Belt”, reminding authorities of the “fact” that Green Belt designation is a planning mechanism rather than an 3
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/councils-must-protect-our-precious-greenbelt-land
7
environmental designation. The National Trust would dispute this assertion that Green Belt is simply a “planning mechanism”. Green Belt is a ‘policy’ and a ‘land use designation’, with the essential characteristics of “openness” and “permanence”. Openness is not defined, but it is commonly taken to be the absence of built development. Once a Green Belt has been defined, it also has a very positive role to play in fulfilling many environmental objectives, as referenced in paragraph 81 of the NPPF. Recommendation 18 states that “if a planning authority with no local plan has not submitted for examination a local plan by the end of March 2017…, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF would fully apply, informed by local designations but unconstrained by local policies.” (NT underlining). It is unclear if this would also apply to Green Belt designations. In a letter to Mr Crispin Blunt, Conservative MP for Reigate constituency, dated 19th March 2013, the Rt Hon Mr David Cameron, MP the Prime Minister, writes: “… if no up-to-date Plan is in place, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply. However, the Framework makes clear that the presumption would not apply if specific policies – such as those protecting Green Belt – indicate that development should be restricted. The presumption therefore does not ‘trump’ Green Belt policy.” The National Trust would also refer to its comments about Green Belt in Recommendation 8. 10. Growth points As a general comment, the issue underlying recommendations 10-15 is that there is a need for an effective system of strategic planning that operates at the larger than local scale. The Trust agrees that this is an issue that needs addressing but we do not accept that the recommendations put forward would successfully address the problem nor that they would deliver and be consistent with democratic and environmental objectives. We are also concerned that the proposals for larger than local planning through co-operation within housing market areas (HMAs), voluntary joint planning, directed preparation of joint plans for “suitable geography such as transport corridors” and required joint planning across devolution bid areas risks creating a muddled, disjointed and ill-thought out patch-work of joint planning areas. The Government should carry out a review of how strategic planning is considered within its devolution agenda, to ensure a more consistent approach than the one proposed is taken. Turning to recommendation 10 specifically, The Trust agrees with the view at 4.10 that, “government needs to be alive to the possibility, however, that, even an informed approach to environmental constraints may not allow full OAN to be met...” and that there will potentially be a need to plan to meet national needs.
8
In considering how to plan at a larger than local level to meet housing need, the Government should be mindful of the following considerations: • Environmental capacity • Community engagement • Democratic oversight • The need for a national overview The introduction of limited powers to promote housing under the NSIP process is being considered through the Housing and Planning Bill. DCLG issued a briefing note in October 2015 which sets out the limits to this approach, covering the functional and geographical relationship with a National Infrastructure project. The Trust believes that the use of the major infrastructure regime to promote large scale housing projects would undermine the local planning process and community involvement in housing projects, and would go against the clear intention that the NSIP process is for nationally significant infrastructure development. Working across boundaries to meet needs (Section 5) 11. The Duty to Cooperate The suggested text in point (i) of recommendation 11 ignores the second limb of NPPF paragraph 14 ("Local plans should meet objectively assessed need… unless… specific policies in this framework indicate development should be restricted”) and is inconsistent with it. As a whole, we consider that the proposed changes to the NPPF set out in this recommendation do not help where agreement between authorities is not being reached on meeting unmet OAN from one area in another. In addition, over-spilling OAN to neighbouring authorities, including those in different HMAs, and adding it to their OAN appears inconsistent with the statement in the LPEG report (para 3.23) that “calculation of OAN should be a clear objective calculation. It does not, for instance, require public consultation or wider engagement.” The main LPEG report does not state how the apportionment of contested unmet OAN between other authorities would ever be an objective calculation and this part of the calculation is not obvious in the proposed methodology flowchart in appendix 6. Elsewhere in Appendix 6, the suggested new text for the NPPG under the heading “How should HMA analysis be used to support the duty to co-operate?” refers to local authorities testing the assertions of neighbouring authorities, challenging them and making representations on their plans: as set out in the proposed changes to the NPPF under this recommendation. That does not sound like an objective calculation. If it is not an objective calculation, we suggest that it is something which does require public consultation and wider engagement – through effective strategic planning at a larger than local scale. 12 – Directed preparation of a joint local plan While there have been benefits from joint local plans / core strategies for small groups of authorities, the preparation of a joint local plan covering a larger cluster or transport corridor may easily become unwieldy particularly 9
when ensuring democratic involvement of all authorities concerned. Focused strategic planning of those issues which are of larger than local significance may provide an answer but the question would be whether this would really be through a local plan or some form of nationally coordinated and consistent regional strategic planning process. Devolved Powers (Section 6) Recommendation 13. Conditions in devolutions bids Recommendation 14. Housing and economic boundaries Recommendation 15. Ensuring consistency There may be an opportunity for LPA groupings involved in devolution deals to carry out strategic planning together. However, the National Trust suggests that this should be voluntary, rather than compulsory as the LPEG report suggests. It is quite possible that some devolution groupings are being made along political/economic lines and don’t necessarily reflect sensible strategic planning groupings. These recommendations also raise the question of whether previously submitted bids need to be re-considered if planning for housing is to be a major focus for combined authorities. Recommendation 15 – which proposes a certificate of conformity similar to that which structure plan authorities granted to local plans under that system does not address how this would work in relation to the duty to co-operate with local authorities outside the devolution bid area nor whether the duty to co-operate would still be subject to consideration at the examination if such a certificate has been issued. The Trust considers that the duty to co-operate extends to more than the distribution of OAN, for example cross-boundary protection of the settings of heritage assets or planning for landscape scale environmental work are important elements of our engagement with some local plans. Incentives for timely plan preparation (Section 7) 16. Financial incentives The National Trust has no comment on the principal of financial incentives. However, we are concerned about the suggestion that vital infrastructure funding should be withheld from areas without an up-to-date local plan. Some of these may be the areas where the greatest needs for infrastructure and investment lie. 17. Statutory duty The National Trust has no comment to make on whether a statutory duty should be introduced. However, if the Government decides to follow the recommendation, it must ensure that local planning authorities have sufficient resources, skills and expertise to produce a local plan and adapt to the ever10
changing national policy and legislative environment. This is a problem that was also recognised in the recent Commons CLG Committee report on the operation of the NPPF 4. 18. Time limiting out of date plans The NPPF already contains (albeit problematic) provisions at paragraph 49 that indicate housing policies will not be considered up-to-date if there is no five year housing supply. There are also provisions at paragraph 215 to ensure that pre-NPPF local plan policies are only given weight in decisionmaking insofar as they are consistent with the NPPF. We therefore consider that Recommendation 18 is unreasonable and unnecessary. i. We consider that there can be no justification for rendering ‘out of date’ the housing policies for an area that is successfully using those policies to deliver housing against need. The proposed deadline of March 2017 is also arbitrary and unreasonable. ii. We reject the suggestion that pre-NPPF plans should also be considered out of date at March 2018. If there is sufficient housing supply and if the preNPPF local plan policies are consistent with the NPPF then there is no reason for policies to be considered out of date. The deadline is again arbitrary and unreasonable. iii. For the same reasons, we also reject this suggestion that plans where an Inspector has recommended early review should be considered out of date if an early review has not been undertaken. Similar arguments apply that such plans can be successfully delivering housing against need and making a valuable contribution to other core planning purposes. iv. The legal, practical environmental and democratic consequences of abandoning the principle of ‘saved policies’ needs to be thought through. Some core strategies/local plans have clearly been prepared on the basis that specific policies of existing plans will remain “saved”, and we are concerned that a lot of useful policy could be sacrificed unnecessarily if this proposal is implemented. v. No detail or clarity is provided on the rational or practical implications of putting an LPA without a submitted local plan by the end of March 2017 into ‘special measures’. It is also not clear if this refers to pre- or post NPPF local plans, or to pre-2004 local plans. Overall, Recommendation 18 is unhelpful as it suggests unnecessarily removing local policies that have been evidenced, consulted on and agreed by Councils and which are contributing to housing delivery and the other 4
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmcomloc/190/19006.htm
11
objectives of the NPPF. We suggest that this recommendation is either abandoned or reviewed and significantly reduced in scope. 19. Stable national policy The National Trust strongly supports the assertion of this report (S28) that planning now needs a period of stability after significant recent reform. It is confounding, therefore, that this report goes on to suggest 47 reforms across strategic planning. While a small number of these may be welcome, we believe that many will result in further confusion and instability in the system, particularly in combination with other recent and upcoming reforms i. We consider the proposal for a regular review cycle for the NPPF, subject to thorough consultation, to be reasonable, although a fixed 5-year period may be too rigid. For this recommendation to secure stability it is essential that the government reduces the use of ad hoc planning policy being made through Ministerial Statements without public consultation. We also suggest that at such a time as the NPPF is periodically reviewed, it should be fully updated to provide a single repository for all government planning policy, other than National Policy Statements. ii. We agree that NPPG should only be subject to periodic change iii. A technical working group to provide scrutiny to changes to NPPG would be a significant improvement on the current situation, although fuller consultation would also be preferable. It is important that any such group draws on expertise from across the planning profession, including representatives of the public, private and voluntary sectors, as well as potentially academia, and from the environmental sector (a notable and regrettable omission from the current Local Plans Expert Group). A wider geographic spread of representation would also be desirable given the differences in planning issues and experience around the country. Local Plan process (Section 9) 20. Modifications after publication The freedom to modify a plan after publication would have benefits but requires safeguards. We welcome the suggestion in the body of the report (para 9.10) that there should be consultation on the modifications and regard this as an essential safeguard. We also consider that for at least some modifications the SEA and SA would need to be reviewed to take account of the modification and effectively inform consultation and examination. 21. Community engagement The recommendation to allow authorities to amend the plan (modifications) before submission is supported. It is a practical approach to improving plan 12
preparation, and allows the public to see the effect of consultation and development of the plan through the process, making it more transparent. However while early engagement in an ‘issues and options’ style approach (recommendation 21) for high level vision and options, is supported as an early stage consultation, further rounds of consultation on specific proposals may be desirable and necessary to achieve efficient and meaningful consultation. Please also see our comments in Recommendation 22. 22. Efficient, meaningful consultation Recommendation 22 is too restrictive and narrow. It should be at the local authorities discretion whether to additionally consult on all or part of the draft plan, for instance on a specific location or area, to achieve as good a plan as possible prior to the regulation 20 stage, which should minimise further modifications, post submission. In the past further consultations have been necessary where (for example) the government moved the legislative or policy goalposts, or where major issues are identified through consultation or infrastructure planning which lead to a significant change in strategy. To prevent this or require exceptional circumstances is too restrictive on local authorities’ ability to prepare the plan in the most effective way. The alternative would appear to be for the local planning authority to re-start the process, leading to even greater delay in plan-making. 23. Timetabled plan making The suggestion of an enforced timetable is idealistic and does not take account of the scale and complexity (and variability) of local plan research and consultation processes, which often involve extensive and complex joint working, commissioning of numerous consultants and collation of many hundreds or thousands of consultation responses, consultation events, and drafting and agreeing plan text and policies and achieving political sign off. Local teams must organise statutory consultees, run duty to cooperate activity, prepare technical reports, run the MOT process, carry out SEA and SA (even in their modified form). All of these processes take time to organise, carry out and agree. Furthermore, local plans are subject to local authority processes and committee timetables, not to mention legislative, policy and political changes at national and local level. The concept of a specified maximum timetable also fails to reflect the large variations in staffing levels at local authorities, with small rural authorities potentially having just one or two policy officers, while large urban authorities may have 10+. Within a climate of continual cuts to planning departments it is not surprising that timescales for local plans appear to be increasing rather than decreasing. Resourcing is a particular issue, which the LPEG report has failed to adequately address. 13
Overall the effect of these proposals will be to shorten and reduce the importance of the drafting of the plan itself to a minority activity in driving forward a project process with an absolute fixed deadline. The time available for actually drafting the plan will be severely limited and subsumed to the process itself, resulting in poorer Local Plans. 25. A smaller, focussed evidence base The National Trust would generally support this recommendation, provided that the need for robust environmental evidence is not diminished or “screened out”, in the pursuit of growth and potentially unsustainable housing targets. Robust environmental evidence needs to be included in the definition of “strictly necessary”. We are concerned that the narrow scope of the NPPG definition proposed by LPEG would result in evidence that fails to reflect variation in local environments and circumstances 26. Strategic Environmental Assessment While Article 3(1) of the SEA Directive, limits the scope of the directive to plans and programmes that are likely to give rise to significant environmental effects, it is difficult to envisage a local plan that would meet the ambitions of the LPEG report which would not be likely to give rise to significant environmental effects. Similarly, while minor modifications are potentially exempt under Article 3(3) the same consideration of whether they are likely to give rise to significant environmental effects applies. An approach based on not undertaking SEA in such circumstance might be at risk of legal challenge that would cause greater cost and delay than undertaking SEA. Regardless of the legal requirement, as LPEG Appendix 10 para 50 notes, well-conducted SEA provides useful evidence of the reasonable alternatives and their relative environmental performance. It should support consultation and examination of the plan. The proposals for environmental capacity assessment set out in the LPEG report should, if implemented well, complement and benefit from the timely and effective undertaking of strategic environmental assessment. 27. Sustainability Appraisal The National Trust agrees to some extent that Sustainability Appraisals may have become just a tick-box exercise, particularly if local authorities have had to assimilate a significant reduction in their planning staff and range of expertise in recent years. An approach that “provides an audit of the local plan against the terms of the NPPF and considers whether it falls short in any respect” might be a more practical alternative that would be better understood by the public. However, the public consulted must be presented with an accurate picture of what are the reasonable alternatives and why they are not considered to be 14
the best option in the Local Plan. Sustainability Appraisal is usually undertaken alongside SEA for practical and resource reasons. Changing the NPPG to remove reference to the need to consider practical alternatives in Sustainability Appraisal firstly risks creating the misapprehension that this requirement is not needed for SEA, in conflict with the Directive, or alternatively creating a difference in approach to SEA and SA that creates an opportunity for confusion and waste with the whole process becoming even more complicated and creating the potential for some important environmental issues to be lost. If sustainability appraisal is to inform plan-making, we suggest that it has to be an iterative process: the results of the appraisal should inform the plan leading to a modified plan that is re-appraised. Such re-appraisal need not be expensive, time-consuming or complicated. With the additional introduction of Assessments of Environmental Capacity, consideration may need to be given to having a single integrated framework that brings together AECs, SEAs and SAs. 28. Early MOTs While there would be benefits to an early MOT of plans, the recommendation suggests two rounds of commissioned assessments which would have consequences in terms of (i) resourcing, and (ii) timescales. There already exists a self-assessment checklist prepared by PAS and endorsed by PINs, which local authorities are encouraged, though not required, to use: http://www.pas.gov.uk/local-planning//journal_content/56/332612/15045/ARTICLE. While a single external review of the plan may be more reasonable and achievable (alongside use of the PAS checklist), this is subject to the process being organised effectively by PAS and PINs and ideally resourced by the government. 29. PINs Resources The National Trust considers that resourcing is a particular issue with regard to the timely preparation of Local Plans, which the LPEG report has not adequately addressed. While the limitations of PINs resources are acknowledged, the report fails to recognise in paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 that one of the other principal reasons for slow Local Plan making preparation in recent years, is because staff resources in many local authority planning policy teams have been dramatically reduced as a result of government cuts to local authority budgets. 30. PINs annual report The National Trust agrees in principle that an Annual Report by PINS could be useful in promoting consistency. 31. Soundness and the implications for examinations 15
The proposed weakening of the soundness test to “an appropriate strategy” could easily create a position where an Inspector finds it near impossible to find a plan unsound on this basis even if has obvious flaws. Unless Inspectors are also given the power to recommend that plans be modified to become better and more appropriate strategies, a recommendation that does not appear in this report, this would leave many objectors, needing to convince the local planning authority to modify the plan prior to the examination or having no chance of influencing the plan. This would seriously worsen community engagement. We are also very concerned by the proposal to carry out examination primarily through written representations. This is incompatible with LPEG’s other recommendations which promote community engagement and would represent an infringement of the public’s right to be heard at this key stage of the local plan-making process. While planning practitioners might be comfortable with written processes, we believe that removal of a right to be heard by the Inspector would seriously damage public trust and confidence in plan-making. We do however consider that encouragement could be given to techniques that would reduce the need, or demand, for hearings, such as the greater use of written questions set by the Inspector to all relevant parties (which are focused on obtaining written responses by the parties) as well as promotion and formalisation of the role of Statements of Common Ground. 32. National concordat While we have no in principle objection to a national concordat between statutory consultees, the section of the report on statutory agencies fails to recognise the significant resource pressure that these agencies are under as a result of severe and sustained funding reductions. We would suggest that, contrary to the implicit suggestion of this recommendation, statutory consultees already are committed to the plan making process. The second part of this recommendation seems to conflate the Duty to Cooperate with the specific requirements within the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 to consult certain specified consultees (though not necessarily to receive a response) at certain stages of plan preparation. There is a risk that the amendments to the NPPG suggested by LPEG would lead local authorities to disregard the responses of statutory consultees where these are received outside of the statutory consultation process and timeframe. As the Duty to Cooperate promotes active and ongoing engagement this could be counterproductive. Local Plan Content (Section 10) The National Trust strongly agrees that Local Authorities should be left to determine the plan content and scope and enabled to produce a distinctive local expression of planning policy. The ability to do this is however very 16
limited by the time available to achieve this under the proposed plan timetable (section 9). 33. Staged plan making 34. Role of other plans Additional guidance on staged plan making is welcomed though it is not exactly clear from the LPEG report what this means. It appears to be a return to the 2004 system of Core strategy, Development Plan Document (DPD) and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) plus neighbourhood plans. There is some confusion about para 153 of the NPPF and the role of a single ‘new style’ local plan. The staged approach was often not very effective in delivering the full range of DPD required to meet the wider needs and policy agenda as once the Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPD had been completed, it was time to review the Core Strategy again, so development management policies, community leisure and even employment policies tended to be left out or never catered for, to the impoverishment of the local plan. Neither have neighbourhood plans been very successful in coming forward and filling the gap in the higher tier strategic approach. 35. Policy Formulation The National Trust does not agree with this recommendation. The only guidance necessary is in terms of what specific phraseology is acceptable regarding technical details, or any specific legal wording. If local plans are going to have any validity as local expressions of the community’s aspirations, then they have to have the freedom to make that expression in local terms, acceptable to the local politics. A policy style guide will neuter the local expression of distinctiveness and replace it with a bland one style fits none look and feel. There is no evidence or argument to suggest or demonstrate why this would be necessary or desirable. Local authorities are experts and have very long experience in drafting policy, to suggest that a style guide is needed degrades of the importance of local plans as a local expression of local distinctiveness. 39. Content of local plans Appendix 12 simply repeats the content of the NPPF, NPPG and current regulations which are available and accessible to all local authorities. While we regard this part of recommendation 39 as unnecessary and heavy-handed our greater concern is with the content model at paragraph 10.4 which has an over-whelming emphasis on housing delivery and relegates biodiversity enhancement, heritage protection and positive place-making to “issues of local importance.” Implementation and delivery (Section 11) 40. Long term supply and reserve sites
17
Paragraph 47 of the NPPF already requires that local planning authorities ‘… ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework…’. In practice this usually involves identifying sites across the plan area, through allocations and the SHLAA, to meet needs over the plan period. It is therefore unclear what this recommendation will achieve other than potentially reducing the flexibility of the planning system to respond to change over the 15-20 year plan period. In relation to Reserve Sites, we are concerned that this concept could be open to abuse if, for example, promoters are able to free up Reserve Sites on lucrative greenfield sites by withholding development on more challenging brownfield sites. Reserve Sites are already used in some areas, and while it may be beneficial for the government to promote Reserve Sites, we would suggest that their use should be optional. It is more than likely that imposing this additional requirement will cause further delays in the plan making process in areas where there is a shortage of suitable sites. 41. Boosting supply i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Additional NPPF wording around how local plans should take account of the needs of other authorities within and beyond the Housing Market Area may be helpful. However, the wording suggested by LPEG provides no additional clarity and may therefore lead to further difficulties and delays during the Examination process. As stated previously, we consider that the proposed additional 20% supply within Reserve Sites is likely to be problematic. If this is brought in with immediate effect then authorities may need to carry out additional consultations on their draft plans. The suggestion that Reserve Sites are released when a five year housing supply cannot be demonstrated would be even more open to abuse than the current planning system. Sites that are more challenging / less profitable could easily be withheld in favour of sites that are more profitable (e.g. greenfield sites) but are less favourable from the perspective of sustainable development and strategic infrastructure planning. In practice, provision of a housing trajectory is already part of the planmaking process. If a requirement for a Housing Implementation Strategy is to be put in place then there should be clear information from government on the benefits of doing so as well as proper guidance on what the document should contain. These should be in place before the recommendation is implemented, particularly bearing in mind that this is an additional information requirement for local authorities to meet.
18
v.
In practice, many authorities already publish their five year supply calculation annually, often as part of the SHLAA update. It would be equally acceptable to publish this as part of the AMR. This would however reduce the flexibility of policy teams around work programming and resourcing.
42. A monitored, plan led approach i.
As previously stated, many authorities already publish annual statements on their five year housing supply, often as part of the SHLAA.
ii.
It is not clear how sites can be brought forward from later in the trajectory. The trajectory will usually be based on information from housing promoters/developers about their lead-in times and build-out rates. These factors are not within the control of the local planning authority. This proposal will therefore only be effective in situations where the trajectory is based on specific (and currently uncommon) phasing proposals within policies. In such cases it is important that sites are released in accordance with specific triggers set by policies in order to ensure that housing delivery is aligned with delivery of infrastructure. The appropriate method of ratifying such a release would more likely be a Council resolution than an Authority Monitoring Report. More problematic still is the suggestion that a five year supply calculation will remain static over a one-year period, regardless of how many homes are approved in the intervening period. A local authority may therefore be subject to consecutive appeals and approvals for speculative development, which would wholly undermine the system of strategic planning for sustainable development. It should be noted that Recommendation 42(ii) does not take account of any factor other than housing need. Transport and other social, economic and environmental factors have not been factored into these proposals. Proposals also do not take account of Council decision making procedure.
iii.
Close working between local authorities and interested parties is supported by NT. In practice, the preparation of a five year housing supply by a local authority already involves significant consultation with landowners, developers and agents. This may be conducted by letters/emails, over the phone or through a forum. This process is of
19
course susceptible to potential manipulation by those providing advice on land availability and timescales. The proposal that five year supply calculations are formally submitted to an Examiner is interesting but unrealistic in terms of the additional resources and procedures required to administer such a system effectively. Moreover, for reasons set out at ii) above, NT does not support the concept of a static five year supply. Overall recommendations 42(iii-iv) are onerous and we strongly suggest that the government resists these proposals. It would be more helpful if NPPG could be updated with a clear statement that would deter developers involved in housing related planning appeals from proposing alternative OAN calculations. This strategy is increasingly used in an attempt to elevate housing requirements and undermine five year supply calculations. 43. Standard approach to five year supply calculations While NT agrees that a standard approach would be beneficial, we consider that the proposals within Appendix 13 of the LPEG report should be seen as a work in progress rather than a fully worked solution. One issue within the ‘housing requirement’ (2) section of this Appendix is the suggestion that in the absence of an up-to-date plan, the ‘requirement’ figure should use ‘an estimate of FOAHN…’. We suggest that clarification is required to make it clear that where a local plan is in place and the plan period has not expired, it is the local plan housing requirement that should be referred to. Otherwise there is scope for developers to argue that housing policies have been rendered ‘out of date’ by lack of a five year housing supply, therefore the plan is ‘out of date’, therefore the local plan requirement should be overlooked in favour of an estimate of Full Objectively Assessed Housing Need. This may therefore incentivise developers to propose alternative, untested OAN calculations rather than relying on the adopted housing requirement. i.
ii.
The suggestion of Recommendation 43(i) that the housing requirement in an adopted local plan is considered up-to-date for five year land supply purposes for ‘at least three years’ is an unhelpful, indeed retrograde, step. The housing requirement in an adopted local plan should be the basis for five year supply calculations throughout the plan period, or otherwise until such as time as the local authority has tested and formally agreed a new OAN figure as the basis for planning. No specific comments on ii-vii
Presentation, Access and Style (Section 12) 20
46. Minerals and Waste Plans Proposals for Minerals and Waste local plans appear in the executive summary and the recommendations but are not discussed in the main body of the report. Executive summary paragraph s45 suggests that minerals and waste plans would benefit from a large number of the recommendations for general local plans and recommendation 46 suggests that the government clarifies that it has comparable expectations for Minerals and Waste local Plans for plans to be produced by March 2017. Discussion paper 8 reports that delays to minerals plans and waste plans have in part arisen from past changes to the planning system and policy. The discussion paper also notes (footnote 3) that production of waste local plans has been good. Our view is that the changes which have caused delay have largely been targeted at general local plans and that minerals local plans and waste local plans appear at best to have been an after-thought. Rather than potentially repeating this situation we suggest that targeted consideration be given to what, if any, specific changes would best support the effective preparation and adoption of minerals local plans and, separately, waste local plans. 47. Technical working group We would support the establishment of a technical working group provided it included representation from the environmental, charity and community sectors and had a sufficiently wide geographic spread of representation to reflect planning experience and issues in diverse parts of the country. Some of the issues need consideration beyond and outside a general local plan technical working group. In addition to a general technical working group we recommend specific working groups addressing: • assessment of environmental capacity • larger than local planning • minerals planning • waste planning These groups should report back before any of LPEG’s recommendations are put into action. LPEG has only done a partial job in working up its proposals. In particular, its proposals around environmental capacity are an essential counter weight to those on assessing housing need and growth points, but are far less worked through. This must be corrected before other recommendations of the group are implemented to ensure a balanced approach.
21
