Agenda item

This report provides a summary to the government consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Services invited Members to consider, for submission, the proposed summary responses to the questions raised in the Government’s consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and wider reforms to the planning system.

The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Services highlighted several key proposed changes, including:

Ø  Structural changes to the overall document;

Ø  Specific amendments to policies across chapters, with a clearer distinction between plan-making policies and decision-making policies, intended to improve clarity and reduce misinterpretation when determining planning applications;

Ø  The introduction of national decision-making policies;

Ø  Support for urban densification, including consideration of low-density plots, upward extensions and in-fill developments.

Ø  The introduction of ‘medium sites’, defined as sites delivering 10 to 49 homes or up to 2.5 hectares;

Ø  A stronger emphasis on a ‘predict and provide’ approach to transport planning;

Ø  Measures to secure a more diverse mix of homes, including a mandatory minimum requirement of 10% social rent on major developments

Ø  A national minimum standard of 45% accessible and adaptable homes for new housing;

Ø  Support for development around railway stations with mandatory minimum density requirements.

The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Services responded to questions and points raised by Members:

• Q43 (page?63) – A question was raised about the weight proposed to be given to the reuse of buildings and materials, and whether demolition would be treated as a last resort. Although the Council’s draft response does not specifically reference this issue, it was acknowledged as an important factor in addressing climate change and reducing carbon footprint. It was suggested that additional wording could be included to encourage the Government to strengthen this aspect if Members wished.
• Chapter?6, Q48 (page?68) – A request was made to strengthen the response in challenging the target?driven approach to housing need assessment, and to suggest that need should instead be based on the Council’s own assessments. The Assistant Director Planning Strategy and Development Services acknowledged the value of local assessments but noted that, in practice, they often involve significant expenditure on consultants to determine housing need.
• Q53 (page?70) – A suggestion was made to challenge the five?year housing land supply requirement, on the basis that it can lead to poor decisions and speculative applications. It was proposed that an additional comment could be included to state that this is not an appropriate mechanism, should Members wish to do so.
• Land banking – A query was raised about whether any question within the consultation related to land banking. It was confirmed that no such question appeared to be included.
• Green wedges – A query was raised about whether green wedges could be referenced in the Green Belt question to help reinforce their role within planning policy. It was noted that Green Belts are a national designation and carry the highest level of planning protection. While green wedges share some similarities in purpose, they carry significantly less weight when challenged.
• Focus on urban areas – It was observed that many of the consultation questions were framed with an urban focus, resulting in the need for the Council’s responses to be caveated.

Members thanked officers for producing a comprehensive report that clearly reflected the views of East Devon District Council.

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the consultation be noted and the responses to each consultation question included in this report be agreed for submission as the Council’s response.