Civic Society London

To: DCLG Planning Policy Consultation Team (via email)

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Civic Voice response to the DCLG National Planning Policy consultation

Civic Voice is the national charity for the civic movement. We work to make the places where everyone lives more attractive, enjoyable and distinctive and to promote civic pride. We set up in 2010 and will be celebrating our 6th anniversary in April 2016. Since we began, we have been joined by hundreds of volunteer-led, community based civic societies with over 76,000 individual members. Civic societies exist in over 60% of local authority areas.

Our response to the consultation is informed by our members’ practical experience and local knowledge. This response has also been informed by the experiences of our Expert Panel, which consists of retired planning inspectors, senior planning officers and heritage and conservation experts. All are members of a civic society.

Positive spatial planning

Civic Voice believes in the importance of the planning system. It combines vision with necessary regulation and plays a critical roleinpositively managing development, which protects and improves the quality and prosperity of places. We believe its role needs to be strengthened and supported through improved opportunities for public engagement. The planning system also needs effective resources, particularly at local authority level, to produce timely plans with quality of place at their heart.

A clear and effective National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which promotes sustainable development; balancing economic, social and environmental considerations, is critical to the planning decision making process, which affects the quality of our cities, towns and villages.

We welcome the opportunity to respond to the consultation. In summary, our response focuses on three key areas of concern with the proposed changes to the NPPF:

1. Unintended consequences of the presumption in favour of brownfield land

Civic Voice supports the principle of developing suitable brownfield (previously developed land) before greenfield sites. However, we are concerned that the proposal, which would in effect, create a presumption in favour of brownfield land is too crude a policy tool and could result in unintended consequences. This is particularly concerning given the link to the statutory register of brownfield land suitable for housing development and ‘permission in principle’ proposed through the Housing and Planning Bill.

To us, brownfield land means urban infill sites, not previously developed land in rural areas, where access to services and public transport is often limited. There are numerous examples of brownfield urban infill sites up and down the country, which are in much need of investment and regeneration. National planning policy should, quite rightly, prioritise such sites for redevelopment given the clear benefits to our towns and cities, and Civic Voice would welcome strengthening national policy to encourage this. We are concerned, however, that the proposed presumption in favour could open up large amounts of land to solely housing development, not necessarily within areas requiring regeneration or in sustainable locations.

2. Implications of the housing delivery test

It must be accepted by Government that there are other factors which have led to historic under delivery of housing. The principal one is the problem of unimplemented planning permissions. At present there is no requirement for developers to implement permissions or indeed, complete sites. Unimplemented permissions do not deliver houses.

Civic Voice objects to the proposed approach to require those local planning authorities, in areas where ‘under-delivery’ is identified, to identify more sites for housing. We are concerned that the effect of this would be to allow developers to continue accumulating permissions with still no guarantee of delivery and significantly more land will be allocated for housing than is required. This proposal would further undermine the community’s influence over the location of new housing without imposing any additional pressure on developers to build houses.

3. Loss of the strategic approach to Green Belt

The consultation puts forward several proposals to encourage housing delivery in particular, starter homes, on sites within the Green Belt i.e. widening the rural exception site policy, encouraging redevelopment of brownfield land in the Green Belt, supporting new settlements. Civic Voice is concerned that the cumulative effect of the proposals would be to create a fundamental change to and weakening of Green Belt policy.

It is important to remember the five purposes of the Green Belt, as set out in the NPPF and the well-established test for releasing Green Belt land for development; ‘in exceptional circumstances’. This is a high bar and the current NPPF gives strong protection to Green Belt. We await the detailed policy wording of the proposed changes but we are very concerned that the current proposals will allow ‘nibbling away’ and erosion of established Green Belt and inevitable resultant pressure to amend Green Belt boundaries.

We attach our detailed response to the consultation questions overleaf, which I hope you find helpful.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Harvey

Executive Director

Civic Voice Response to the Consultation Questions

AAffordable Housing

Q1. Do you have any comments or suggestions about the proposal to amend the definition of affordable housing in national planning policy to include a wider range of low cost home ownership options?

Response:

Civic Voice disagrees with the proposal. We are supportive of measures to encourage the delivery of more affordable homes and welcome more innovative ways of supporting delivery through the planning system. However, a starter home costing £250,000, or £450,000 in London, is not ‘affordable’.

Continuing efforts to improve access to housing for people who have difficulty affording it are welcome and there can be no doubt that the cost of buying a house is beyond the reach of many first time buyers, particularly in London and the south east. However, our members are concerned that widening the definition of affordable housing in national planning policy to include ‘discount market sales, innovative rent to buy’ and ‘starter homes’, in effect, lower cost market housing, without requiring that housing to remain affordable in perpetuity, will not necessarily increase the supply. The effect of this may, in fact, over time, reduce the supply of ‘affordable’ homes.

We are concerned that providing a one-off discount; in the case of starter homes, 20% for first time buyers, without any mechanism for this to be recovered when the property is sold, may provide a one-off benefit to purchasers (who are not necessarily the most needy). There appears to be nothing in the proposed policy to ensure that that home, if sold at a later date, remains at an ‘affordable’ price.

Civic Voice supports widening the definition of affordable housing to include a greater range of housing types/tenure but considers that the requirement in the current definition of affordable housing in the NPPF ‘to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision’ should remain.

Most local authorities have affordable housing policies in their adopted or emerging Local Plans. We are concerned, therefore, that the proposed requirement for local planning authorities to deliver ‘a proportion of starter homes on all reasonably-sized housing developments’ will, in effect, reduce the amount of other types of affordable housing coming forward e.g. social rented and shared ownership homes, measured against locally set targets. This is because developers are likely to assert that it is not viable to meet the existing affordable housing policy requirement in addition to starter homes.

Q2. Do you have any views on the implications of the proposed change to the definition of affordable housing on people with protected characteristics as defined in the Equalities Act 2010? What evidence do you have on this matter?

No comment.

BIncreasing residential density around commuter hubs

Q3. Do you agree with the Government’s definition of commuter hub? If not, what changes do you consider are required?

Response:

Civic Voice supports the principle of increasing residential density in highly sustainable locations. However, we are concernedthat the proposed definition of a commuter hub is imprecise and could potentially cover most, if not all, rail, tube or tram stations. As drafted, it appears to include all stations that have a service every 15 minutes, ‘or could have in the future’. This is likely to be difficult to disprove and there can be few stations where people do not routinely continue their journey by other means i.e. by bus, walking or cycling.

We consider the proposed policy to ‘require higher density development around commuter hubs wherever feasible’is very vague and we would welcome clarification of the proposed policy wording. For example, it is unclear how far away from a commuter hub, higher densities would apply. Such a policy should refer to walkable distances, taking into account local circumstances.

Q4. Do you have any further suggestions for proposals to support higher density development around commuter hubs through the planning system?

Response:

Civic Voice supports the principle of making efficient use of land and increasing residential density in accessible locations where residents would be well served by public transport. However, Civic Voice does not support a blanket approach of increasing density around commuter hubs as high densities may not always be appropriate to local context. Density should be determined on a case by case basis, responding to site circumstances and protecting local character and distinctiveness.

Whilst there are examples of well-designed high density developments across the country, there will be many locations where similar densities would be inappropriate. Indeed, there are many examples of residential development that have achieved high densities to the detriment of quality of place. We are also concerned that the proposed policy could lead to lengthy argument at public inquiries about balancing the provision of higher density at commuter hubs with the need to ensure that development is appropriate for the location.

It is our view that densities should be determined by local and site circumstances and delivered bypositive planning through Local and Neighbourhood Plans, master planning and site briefs. It is important that development responds to local character to achieve the great places of tomorrow.

Q5. Do you agree that the Government should not introduce a minimum level of residential densities in national policy for areas around commuter hubs? If not, why not?

Response:

Yes. Civic Voice would not support a return to introducing minimum densities in national planning policy.

CSupporting new settlements, development on brownfield land and small sites, and delivery of housing agreed in Local Plans

Q6. Do you consider that national planning policy should provide greater policy support for new settlements in meeting development needs? If not, why not?

Response:

Civic Voice disagrees with the proposal. Whilst new settlements can contribute to meeting development needs, our experience is that there are often more sustainable options for the local planning authority to consider when developing their spatial strategy. Often the most sustainable locations for new housing are firstly urban infill sites, followed by urban extensions and then new settlements. The creation of sustainable new settlements requires significant investment to provide the necessary supporting infrastructure and services, which can divert investment away from the regeneration of our towns and cities.

The NPPF could do more to encourage the first two options, urban infill and sustainable urban extensions, before advocating new settlements.

Civic Voice considers that where evidence determines that a new settlement is the most appropriate spatial strategy to meet need, it should come through Local and Neighbourhood Plans, prepared in conjunction with local communities.

We would also be concerned if such national policy support for new settlements indirectly led to new settlements being imposed on local communities, where the local planning authority is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. A new settlement would have substantial long term impact on an area and must be properly planned, not developed primarily to address short term housing need.

Overall, we consider that Para. 52 of the NPPF already provides sufficient support for new settlements.

Q7. Do you consider that it would be beneficial to strengthen policy on development of brownfield land for housing? If not, why not and are there any unintended impacts that we should take into account?

Response:

The proposal to create a form of presumption in favour of brownfield land combined with the expectation that this will lead to development of many more small sites is of concern. We would be concerned if a consequence of the policy resulted in sites being developed for housing, outside of the normal planning process, which would normally be unsuitable. It is also important to recognise that as Para.17 of the NPPF accepts, many previously developed sites have environmental, historic or cultural value worthy of protection and an environmental assessment of such sites at an early stage of the planning process is critical.

A further potential unintended consequence of the proposal is the loss of employment sites and premises. Residential development almost always generates more income and many local planning authorities, quite reasonably, seek to protect employment sites and premises, to ensure that opportunities for employment continue to be available to local people. Employment sites are key to developing sustainable communities and the NPPF should facilitate such protection where it is justified.

To achieve the attractive places of tomorrow, it is important that the development of brownfield sites is shaped locally through Local and Neighbourhood Plans, which set out where brownfield development is acceptable and schemes are informed by local design guidance such as site briefs or masterplans. We should be always be aspiring for high quality design in new development creating ‘Beauty in My Backyard’[1] or ‘Areas of Outstanding Urban Beauty’[2].

Q8. Do you consider that it would be beneficial to strengthen policy on development of small sites for housing? If not, why not? How could the change impact on the calculation of the local planning authorities’ five-year land supply?

Response:

Civic Voice does not agree with the proposal for the reasons outlined in our response to Question 7. In particular we are concerned that strengthening policy on development of small sites for housing could lead to inappropriate redevelopment of residential plots and loss of employment sites.

Most adopted Local Plans include policies which support windfall development, having regard to local circumstances/criteria. Civic Voice considers this, together with policies in Neighbourhood Plans, is the most appropriate place to determine the approach towards development of small sites.

The Government should also consider the cumulative impact of lots of small sites coming forward on service and infrastructure provision. Typically, less can be provided through planning obligations on small brownfield sites which, in some areas, may lead to an infrastructure and/or service deficit.

Q9. Do you agree with the Government proposal to define a small site as a site of less than 10 units? If not, what other definition do you consider is appropriate, and why?

The proposed threshold seems sensible, providing such development comes forward through a positive, plan-led approach.

Q10. Do you consider that national planning policy should set out that local planning authorities should put in place a specific positive local policy for assessing applications for development on small sites not allocated in the Local Plan?

Response:

Civic Voice has no objection in principle to this as it will show that the local planning authority supports windfall development in principle. Such a policy also provides clarity to the applicant on the criteria applications will be assessed against.

However, overall, we do not consider this is necessary. As the consultation makes clear, most Local Plans already contain clear policies supporting windfall sites. Furthermore, Para. 14 of the NPPF already requires applications to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, setting a positive approach to determining applications

There may be no harm requiring there to be a policy on windfall sites in all plans. However, even where no specific policies exist there is generally no difficulty identifying the material considerations (effect on neighbours, character and appearance of the area, highway safety, etc.) which must be taken into account when determining applications and appeals. Any changes to the NPPF must not reduce the weight which can be given to these considerations in circumstances where there is no specific Local Plan policy, as this would make it harder for local communities to determine what is appropriate in their area.