Planning Reform and Transfer to Local Government Consultation – Phase 1

Planning Policy Division

Department of the Environment

Level 6 Causeway Exchange

1-7 Bedford Street

Town Parks

Belfast

BT2 7EG

19 August 2014

Planning Reform and Transfer to Local Government: Proposals for Subordinate Legislation Phase 1 Public Consultation

Introduction

The Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA) represents 26 registered housing associations in Northern Ireland. Collectively our members provide 44,000 homes comprising general needs, specialist and supported accommodation, as well as shared ownership. Housing associations are not-for-profit social businesses which increasingly borrow significant amounts of private finance to deliver public benefit in meeting housing need, supporting their tenants and investing in communities.

Working in partnership with the Housing Executive and the Department for Social Development, Northern Ireland housing associations are working to deliver 2,000 social housing starts this year, as well as supporting over 1,000 families in to home ownership through the Co-ownership scheme. NIFHA acknowledges the support of the Housing Executive in the preparation of this response.

Key points

  • LDPs should ‘allocate sufficient land to fully meet society’s needs.’

(Functions of LDP)

  • An assessment of social and affordable housing delivery in relation to the Housing Executive’s Annual Housing Need Assessments should be an important element of the Annual Monitoring Report. (Q12)
  • There should be a duty on the Department, when considering PAC recommendations and subsequent modifications to Plans, to consult statutory consultees on any modifications. (Q11)
  • Compared to current acute and growing housing needs, there is significant under-provision of land for social and affordable housing in many out-of-date adopted plans.
  • We therefore do not consider the transitional arrangements proposed adequately address the urgent requirement to rectify this to ‘meet society’s needs’ before new LDPs are adopted.
  • Given the likely timeframes for the adoption of Local Policies Plans, it is vital that strategic housing sites are included within Plan Strategy documents, with a Key Site Requirement for social and intermediate housing.
  • Adopted Plan Strategies should come into force to supersede out of date plans, and the Ards and Down Area Plan and BMAP, prior to the LPP being published and adopted.
  • Transitional arrangements should also be considered that allow for emerging Local Development Plans (LDPs) (both Plan Strategies and Local Policies Plans) to be given weight – and potentially take precedence over – out-of-dateadopted plans, informed by approaches taken in other UK jurisdictions.

Local Development Plans

  • We strongly support the statement in paragraph 3.4 that the Local Development Plan should allocate sufficient land to meet society’s needs. Given the shortage of housing, caused in part by an under-allocation of land in development plans, and our resulting inability to ensure everyone has access to a decent, affordable home, it isappropriate to amend this to state that LDPs should ‘allocate sufficient land to fully meet society’s needs.’ [emphasis added] We believe that adequate land allocated for social and intermediate housing is a vital element in meeting housing needs and will help achieve the promotion and improvement of well-being.
  • We note the requirement in paragraph 3.11, that the council should advertise the publication of draft Plan documents for two successive weeks in a local newspaper. NIFHA believes that the advertisement of Plan preparation, as outlined, is minimal. It is important communities are fully involved within the preparation of a development plan, therefore, the minimum requirement for advertisement should be strengthened with requirements that advertisements are placed within free newspapers, which are distributed to households. Advertisements should also be placed within council buildings and facilities and libraries and shopping centres could be included. Given the importance of digital media, councils should be expected to promote the draft Plan documents through their websites, and encouraged to do so through social media channels. The requirement of two-week advertisements could also be extended. (Q1)
  • We fully support the Northern Ireland Housing Executive being identified as a statutory consultee in the Development Plan process. (Q2)

Timetable

  • In terms of the preparation of the timetable the consultation document suggests that the Council must consult with statutory consultees (paragraph 3.18). In the draft legislation Regulation 5 does not go as far as suggested in the consultation document and merely requires that ‘The council must, in the preparation of the timetable, consult the planning appeals commission and such of the consultation bodies as the council considers appropriate’. We would advocate an amendment to the legislation to read ‘The council must, in the preparation of the timetable, consult the planning appeals commission and consultation bodies’. This will ensure that all interested parties are aware of the timetable at the earliest opportunity and can plan allocation of resources accordingly. (Q3)
  • Regulation 7(3) allows for the timetable to be agreed by default if the Department do not respond within four weeks of receipt of the timetable. However there appears to be no time limit for the Department to make a decision on the timetable if it has requested an extension to the consideration period under Regulation 7(2). We should suggest an amendment to Regulation 7(2) to limit the consideration period to an additional four weeks (eight weeks overall) in order to avoid undue delay in the process. (Q3)

Preferred Options Paper

  • There is a conflict between the draft legislation which, at Regulation 9(2) places a statutory obligation on the council to take into account the representations received from consultation bodies, and, the consultation document which advises that the subsequent elements of the development plan process will be sufficient to demonstrate consideration without a statutory obligation (paragraph 3.31). We believe the statutory obligation as set out in 9(2) of the draft Regulations should remain in order to ensure consistency across the council areas especially when someone other than the PAC may be responsible for testing soundness at the independent examination. (Q4)

Counter Representations on Site Specific Policy Representations

  • NIFHA notes the opportunity for counter representations for site-specific policy, as outlined in paragraph 3.60. We would also like to see an opportunity for counter representations at the strategic policy stage. (Q7)

Publicity of the Independent Examination

  • The papers suggest a minimum of four weeks notice should be provided before the opening of the independent examination. We believe this should be extended to eight weeks to provide parties the opportunity to allocate resources to prepare evidence to the independent examination. (Q8)

Adoption of a Development Plan Document

  • Paragraph 3.86 indicates that the Department can direct a council to adopt the Plan with modifications, specified in the Department’s ‘direction’. NIFHA would like to see a duty for the Department, when considering PAC recommendations and subsequent modifications to the Plan, to consult statutory consultees on any modifications. (Q11)

Annual Monitoring Report

  • We support the proposal that an Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) must be made by the council to report whether the objectives of the LDP are being achieved. The Housing Executive believes that the AMR should state how needs of the communities are being met, including housing needs. Therefore, NIFHA believes that an assessment of social and affordable housing delivery in relation tothe Housing Executive’s Annual Housing Need Assessments should be an important element of the AMR. (Q12)

Transitional Arrangements

  • Compared to current acute and growing housing needs, there is significant under-provision of land for social and affordable housing in many out-of-date adopted plans.We therefore do not consider the transitional arrangements proposed adequately address the urgent requirement to rectify this to ‘meet society’s needs’ before new LDPs are adopted. Realistically it may take five years or more for many councils to adopt their new LDPs.
  • The proposed transitional arrangements mean that, under section 6(4) of the 2011 Act plan led regime, development decisions will have to be made in accordance with already adopted plans. Many of these plans were adopted a significant time ago. In line with the transitional arrangements primacy would therefore be given to dated plans such as, the Antrim Area Plan (adopted 1989), Armagh Area Plan (adopted 1995), Ballymena Area Plan (adopted 1989), Fermanagh Area Plan (adopted (1997), and Strabane Area Plan (adopted 1991). These Plans were all adopted pre-RDS, pre PPS3, pre revised PPS4, pre PPS7, pre PPS8, pre PPS12, pre PPS15 and pre PPS21, to name a few significant changes in planning policy direction.
  • We therefore believe that the relevant provision of the 2011 Act should not be enacted until the adoption of the full suite of new LDPs. This would allow planning officers to consider the weight to be given to an existing adopted plan and all other relevant (and up to date) planning policy in line with the existing development management regime rather than give primacy to an outdated – and likely inadequate – Plan, that is unlikely to ‘allocate sufficient land to meet society’s needs’ including for new homes. Once the new suite of LDPs have been adopted the relevant provision of the 2011 Act could be enacted by a commencement order. (Q16)
  • NIFHA is concerned that paragraph 3.117 states the Local Development Plan will not be in place until the council has prepared and adopted both the Plan Strategy and the Local Planning Policy (LPP) documents. Therefore, new Plan Strategy documents will not take effect until the LPP has been prepared and adopted, which is likely to be at least eighteen months later. This means that an adopted Plan Strategy, which is accordance with the Regional Development Strategy, will have little weight in planning decisions while extant Plans, developed before the RDS will have the greatest weight. Any development management policies contained in the Plan Strategy will also not have affect. In addition, Plan alterations, as recommended by the PAC, to the Ards and Down Area Plan, and the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) to identify land for social housing to meet needs, have not been carried out. Consequently, NIFHA believes it is vital that strategic sites are included within the Plan Strategy document, with a Key Site Requirement for social and intermediate housing. We believe that adopted Plan Strategies should come into force to supersede out of date plans, and the Ards and Down Area Plan and BMAP, prior to the LPP being published and adopted.
  • Transitional arrangements should also be considered that allow for emerging Local Development Plans (LDPs) (both Plan Strategies and Local Policies Plans) to be given weight – and potentially take precedence over out-of-date adopted plans – informedby approaches taken in other UK jurisdictions. Such approaches are consistent with a plan-led approach and can help ensure current housing and other needs are adequately met .
  • For example, following the example of England’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) [para. 216], decision-takers could also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:
  • the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the presentation, the greater weight that may be given);
  • the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that should be given); and
  • the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in existing Planning Policy Statements and/or the finalised Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in PPSs and/or SPPS, the greater the weight that should be given).

A New Hierarchy of Development

  • Paragraph 6.3 states that the new hierarchy of development will allow resources to be focused on the management of applications with social significance, tailored to the scale and complexity of development. NIFHA would like to highlight that social housing applications are often complex but may not fall into the major category. We would like to ensure that applications, which may be local in scale but are in the public interest also, have a priority and access to pre application discussions.
  • The draft regulations advise that where a housing development is for 50 units or more, or where the area of a site is or exceeds 2 hectares, an application should be considered as an application for major development. We consider this an appropriate threshold for major development within an urban setting. However, within a rural context the effect of sizeable residential developments on smaller communities can be more significant due to proximity and more limited existing facilities. Applications for 50 units or more in rural locations are rare and we would suggest that the threshold is reviewed in respect of rural locations. A lower threshold in rural localities will ensure that communities within villages and small settlements will be able to be consulted on applications that affect their locality in line with requirements for Pre-application Community Consultation, something they would not be able to avail of if the threshold remains at 50 units. (Q19)

Scheme of Delegation

  • We welcome the principle of a scheme of delegation to enable an appointed officer to make decisions on local applications. We consider that the category of development that should be dealt with under the scheme should be set at a regional level rather than each council in order to ensure consistency across Northern Ireland. (Q24)

Revised publicity arrangements for applications for planning permission

  • It is agreed that the new statutory requirement to notify neighbours of planning applications will provide greater consistency across Councils. However, the proposed definitions of “neighbouring land” as “land which directly adjoins the application site, or which would adjoin it but for an entry or road less than 20 metres in width” and “affected occupier” as “the occupier of premises within a 90 metre radius of the boundary of the proposed application site” overly complicates the situation.
  • Article 8(1)(b) requires that notice shall be served “to any affected occupier on neighbouring land”. Given the definitions this could mean that an occupier of a dwelling located say 100 metres from the boundary of their land which adjoins an application site is not required to be notified. It is readily acknowledged that this anomaly is more likely to occur in rural locations but it would not be an uncommon situation.
  • To ensure clarity in respect of neighbour notification we suggest the definition of those required to be notified remains as those “occupiers of buildings on sites which adjoin the boundary of the application site, and those which would adjoin the boundary but for an entry or a road less than 20 metres wide”. This is in line with the current regime and will represent the most seamless way forward. (Q27)
  • NIFHA believes that EPIC should be retained for public use. This is an important way to inform the general public on planning applications and decisions in their area. This system should also be retained for consultees as it streamlines the consultation system and ensures the public and applicants can see consultation responses. However, it is important that the requirement to publish a notice of applications in newspapers remains so that those without access to a computer can be notified of planning applications in their area. (Q28)

Duty to respond to consultation

  • The Housing Executive is not identified as a statutory consultee for the development management regime within the draft legislation. NIFHA believes the Housing Executive must be identified as a statutory consultee in cases where a development proposal is likely to require a statement of affordable housing need. Currently this would apply to sites subject to policy CTY5 of PPS21, and those sites which have been identified for affordable housing in an Area Plan or through the development management process. (Q29)

Design and Access Statements

  • We also notes that paragraph 15.7 states that a proposed legislative requirement to provide a Design and Access Statement should be applied to outline or full applications. However, outline planning permission is often sought to establish the principle of development and may not contain detailed plans. Therefore, we believe that planning permission for an outline application could contain a condition that the design and access statement is submitted as part of a reserved matters application.
  • We also believe that design and access statement should be submitted as part of an application in an Area of Townscape/Village Character (paragraph 15.4).

Power to make non-material changes to existing grants of planning permission

  • The consultation document makes reference to the fact that a standard application form will ensure a consistent approach across the board while the legislation requires that the application is in writing only. We would suggest that a form for this type of application is created and rolled out across councils as it will ensure that sufficient information is submitted to the planning authority to enable them to consider the application. (Q36)

We hope these comments are helpful. If clarification is required on the any of the points made, please contact me at or 028 9089 7693.

Yours sincerely

CAMERON WATT
Chief Executive