AGENDA ITEM 6
BOROUGH OF POOLE
ECONOMY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
26 APRIL 2012
REPORT OF HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION SERVICES
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF)
1. Purpose
1.1 To inform members of:
· The key issues and implications arising from the Government’s new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published on 27 March 2012; and
· Officers’ response to the NPPF’s implications for Poole.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That Members note the implications of the NPPF and how it is now a material consideration in the preparation of Local Plans and in determining planning applications.
3. Background
3.1 The consultation draft of the NPPF was issued by the Coalition government in July last year inviting comments (by mid-October) on its amalgamation of existing national planning policy (Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS)) into one document. The NPPF consultation draft intended to significantly streamline national policy contained in approximately 3,000 pages of PPSs and PPGs.
3.2 The now published and final NPPF is part of the Government’s reform of the planning system. Its intention is to be more responsive to local issues and needs, and more focused on being a facilitator and driver of sustainable growth.
4. NPPF - Key Points
4.1 A more detailed overview of the key changes and implications of the NPPF is included as an appendix to this report. The key points are summarised as follows:
Re-definition of Sustainable Development
4.2 The NPPF provides an additional and tighter definition to the meaning of “sustainable development”[1] and includes 12 Core Land Use Principles. In re-emphasising the presumption in favour of sustainable development through the planning system it highlights 3 mutually dependent dimensions – economic, social and environmental factors that must seek to positively improve quality of life and environment.
4.3 The NPPF, although retaining the need for local areas to generally plan and establish strategies for all the key concepts such as housing, employment, the environment, considerably waters down the need to consider them on a spatial level i.e. how space is used to meet needs. The implication is that spatial planning was time consuming and prevented the adoption of policy and strategy quickly enough to respond to the demands of the market. Therefore, all references to spatial planning are removed from the NPPF and the message is we should have a “positive planning system” that is not a barrier to development and investment, and that ‘creativity’ should take precedence over scrutiny.
4.4 Consequently the definition of sustainable development is re-drawn (at least in terms of the planning system’s role in delivering it) to focus on the delivery of growth in terms of housing and jobs as well as having due regard to the environment. This is clear shift from PPS1 – Planning for Sustainable Development which directs the planning system to also achieve social responsibility and create sustainable communities. The NPPF still refers to the need for sustainable communities but the emphasis is now on new homes, jobs and investment.
Transitional Arrangements
4.5 With the NPPF consisting of just 59 pages (including appendices), a lot of previous national level detail has been removed (in excess of 3,000 pages of PPSs and PPGs). It is now the choice of Local Authorities and communities to include any relevant lost policy detail in their local plans.
4.6 As Poole has an adopted and up to date Core Strategy, and recent DPDs (Delivering Poole’s Infrastructure DPD and Site Specific Allocations DPD) have been found sound and can be adopted by the Council, it is important that these documents are seen to be broadly in line with the NPPF. If parts of the document are considered to be lacking in consistency with, or contrary to the NPPF, then such issues will need to be addressed within the next 12 months. For Poole it will be important that evidence (such as housing land supply) is revised to provide the most up to date and relevant data to assist decision making. It is not considered that there are any policies that are contrary to the NPPF but there may be areas where local policy could be lacking and require reinforcing.
4.7. For Local Authorities without an up to date Development Plan, the NPPF will take effect as their primary material consideration with immediate effect. This means development will be determined on the basis of the presumption in favour of sustainable development where it complies with the broad themes of the NPPF in the absence of any local policy.
4.8 Local Development Frameworks (LDF) are now to be called Local Plans with the emphasis now on producing a single document, rather than a suite as required by the LDF system.
4.9 Despite the change in terminology and format, the NPPF clearly gives increased emphasis on the importance of meeting development needs through local plans. There is a clear need for Local Authorities to develop and adopt positive, clear and up to date local plans which proactively plan for development. Poole’s LDF is already on track for doing this but it will be necessary to ensure that the new style local plan to ensure complies with the NPPF and picks up any important policy areas lost from national policy.
Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development
4.10 The presumption in favour of sustainable development has been retained (since the draft consultation) but the previous core principle that decision takers at every level should assume the default answer of ‘yes’ to sustainable development, has been removed. This has helped to pacify the green lobby who saw this previously as a “developer’s charter’.
Duty to Cooperate
4.11 It is the Localism Bill that introduced the statutory duty for public bodies to cooperate across boundaries, and the NPPF carries this on. The NPPF includes a duty to co-operate between public bodies on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries. In Poole this already happens with the Heathlands DPD and the Dorset wide Gypsy and Traveller site provision DPD.
Reduced focus on building on Previously Developed Land
4.12 The NPPF removes the previous planning system’s focus on using previously developed land before Greenfield land is considered. In the consultative draft the green lobby was concerned that this would lead to a shift in raising the prospect of more Greenfield sites coming under pressure to be developed. so this final draft clarifies the position with additional text on the preferred re-use of brownfield land. However, this is not such an issue for BoP as the majority of open areas is protected by either environmental constraints or Green Belt policy (which is retained).
Neighbourhood Planning
4.13 The NPPF requires neighbourhood plans to be in general accordance with the Local Plan’s strategic policies. LPAs need to create a shared vision involving all sections of the community in the development of Local Plans and Neighbourhood Planning. The approach should be collaborative and positive, with the use of tools like Community Right to Build Orders.
Economic Development
4.14 The NPPF encourages Local Authorities to engage closely with businesses to identify barriers to growth and find solutions to overcome them i.e. relax planning controls where appropriate for commercial development. LPAs need to consider a Local Plan’s deliverability so needs to have regard to viability. Obligations need to provide competitive return to landowners and developers, and local standards should be set along side Community Infrastructure Testing.
4.15 The NPPF emphasises the ‘town centre first’ approach for retail and leisure development but with simplified sequential and impact tests, with offices reinstated as subject to this policy (having previously been removed).
Housing
4.16 The NPPF requires Local Authorities where there has been “a persistent under development of housing” to allocate an additional 20% housing land in each demonstrable 5 year land supply tranche. This in effect means that such Local Authorities will now have to demonstrate 6 years deliverable land supply, which can be challenging. In other cases a 5% additional buffer is required.
4.17 Windfall sites will only be included in these calculations where there is compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available as a reliable source of supply locally in the past. And windfall sites should not include garden land (which has been the case in the past).
Green Belt
4.18 The final document provides greater weight on the continued protection of the Green Belt. Revision to boundaries should only occur in exceptional circumstances and new Green Belts are not to be introduced unless absolute necessity can be demonstrated.
4.19 There is further background given in the glossary on the definition of the “original building” for the purposes of calculating volume and ”proportionate additions “in the Green Belt.
5. Financial Implications
5.1 Uncertainty remains over how the production of Neighbourhood Plans will be resource, though it is anticipated that LPA Officers will assist where time and money and allows. As a National Framework financial constraints (in varying degrees) will apply to all LAs and to some extent the onus is on them to manage and plan its spending.
6. Legal and Risk Management Implications
6.1 The Council has a statutory responsibility to deliver the requirements of the NPPF. It is fails to do so (in terms of producing a Local Plan) then the default position would be for the NPPF to be the overriding material consideration in development proposals, with no local issues/conditions (set down in local policy) taken into account. Previous PPGs and PPSs were regarded as Government guidance but the NPPF is referred to as Government policy – this is a significant legal shift in status.
7. Equalities Implications
7.1 The NPPF will have significant social and economic benefits to communities that engage with LPAs in the production of their Local and Neighbourhood Plans, and in the delivery of sustainable development through planning proposals.
8. Conclusions
8.1 The NPPF is clearly pro-growth with reinforced emphasis upon sustainable development. Failure to keep evidence and policy up to date or without engagement with local people, will see the presumption towards development (where benefits outweigh harm) and the NPPF taking precedence thereby opening up potential for planning by appeal. This raises the importance of ensuring that Poole continues to have, and maintain by Review, an up to date Development Plan.
STEPHEN THORNE, HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION
Contact Officer: Helen Harris, Planning & Regeneration
01202 633329
Attached
§ Appendix A – Detailed overview of NPPF
2
[1] ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ Resolution 24/187 UN General Assembly definition. Also Bruntland definition.