Moving forwards but hopefully before next century...

The Government published a paper "Planning for the Future" this week. 

What struck me as somewhat ironic, was the statement in para. 7 that says "In the Spring, we will publish an ambitious Planning White Paper which offers creative solutions to establish a planning system that works for the next century." I'd quite like it if the White Paper could offer creative solutions to get the planning system working better this century! 

The paper does make clear that the formula for calculating Local Housing Need will shortly be having an overhaul, so an update to the NPPF is definitely on the cards before the end of the year.  The paper says that the update will also make sure that principles of good design and place-making "to support the creation of beautiful places" are embedded into national and local policies, and will be checking whether the current approach to flood risk is robust enough. 

A useful overview is provided by Nicola Gooch here: https://imbusiness.passle.net/post/102g1lv/big-bold-beautiful-mhclg-sets-out-plans-to-reform-the-planning-system

Neighbourhood Plans and the 2 year clause in the NPPF

OK - quite a few Neighbourhood Plan groups and individuals have been mentioning this to me recently - so I thought it best to revisit this point (which I think I blogged about at the time but despite raising objections to the NPPF at that time it didn't get changed by our MPs).

The 2 year clause...

Most of the time, because Neighbourhood Plans (when made) are part of the development plan for an area, they should have a real influence on planning decisions.  This is because in planning law (Section 38-6 of the 2004 Planning Act) planning applications have to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

However, what the NPPF says, is one of those 'material considerations'.  And the NPPF talks about what should happen if the policies in the development (i.e. the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans), and specifically those policies which are the most important policies for determining that application, are out-of-date (in para 11d).  In such a scenario, planning permission should be granted unless the NPPF says it shouldn't be - so the decision-maker is basically being told to give those policies very limited weight, and only refuse the planning application if there would be real environmental harm. 

So what does it mean by 'out-of-date'?  This certainly is the case when the Local Planning Authority does not have a 5 year housing land supply.  The NPPF then, in para 14, says what consideration should be given to Neighbourhood Plans for that area.  And this is where the '2 year clause' hits home (so only where there isn't a 5 year housing land supply of the Local Plan is otherwise out-of-date).  It basically says that any conflict with a Neighbourhood Plan should be treated as a reason for refusal, but only if all of the following tests are met:

a) the neighbourhood plan was made less than 2 years before the date on which the decision is made;
b) the neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement;
c) the local planning authority has at least 60% of its 5 year supply (ie the equivalent of 3 years); and
d) the local planning authority’s housing delivery was at least 45% of that required over the previous three years (this relates to something called the 'Housing Delivery Test' - the latest results having just been published here).

Now all of these seem slightly unfair on communities that have spent a lot of time and effort jumping through the hoops of getting a Neighbourhood Plan made, but the 2 year clause seems particularly unreasonable.  Local Plans are expected to be reviewed at least every 5 years - so why shouldn't a similar timescale be applied to Neighbourhood Plans in this scenario?

What can you do?  Lobby your MP to get this changed.  Lobby the Minister that head up the MCHLG, and Steve Quartermain who is Chief Planner at MHCLG (see their website).  I have heard they are revising the NPPF later this year - so now is the time to get this changed.

But just to reiterate - it only applies when the Local Plan is 'out of date'.  So usually when there is a 5 year housing supply, Neighbourhood Plans which are more than 2 years 'old' will still be given full weight in decision making.  But this is the case at the moment across much of Dorset.  So I will blog separately on the Neighbourhood Plan review mechanism for those groups who are thinking whether they wish to look into this now.

Inclusive and age-friendly designs

Update to national planning guidance today - a new section on housing for older and disabled people.  It is not just the internal layouts (and therefore Building Regulations) that have a bearing on getting this right.  Points to remember include:

> Flexibility and space in the design and layouts;
> Entrances to buildings are clearly identified, so that they are easy to find, well lit and can be reached by a level or gently sloping approach;
> Parking spaces and setting down points in proximity to entrances;
> Landscaping schemes designed for ease and comfort of movement on foot and with mobility aids, with public spaces including step free spaces and seating.

 

The revised NPPF - what Neighbourhood Plan groups need to know

I completely understand if not everyone wants to spend time ploughing their way through the draft national planning policy framework.  Not all of you reading my blog are insomniacs (or maybe you are?)  But for communities working on neighbourhood plans – or who are now sitting back having got said plan through its referendum – it is worth making a few points back to the planning ministers to make sure all this effort is not undermined by some careless wording in the national plan.

There is a little footnote in paragraph 14 which is about those times when there is a housing shortage, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development.  This little footnote clarifies what "recently brought into force" means, and this determines whether full weight should be given to your neighbourhood plan.  What it says is that your plan needs to be less than 2 years old.  This basically means that to keep your plan effective, you need to start reviewing it before the ink has dried.  And even then you still won’t win.  Let’s face it, although it is theoretically possible, I don’t think any group in the country has managed to get a plan through the system in under 2 years.  Even Local Plans have a ‘5 year review’ expectation, and they don’t have to go through a referendum.  Why isn’t your plan at least ‘good enough’ for 5 years?

To make this point >>> complete Q4 of the response form!

One point that is welcome is that housing requirement figures for designated neighbourhood areas will be set through strategic plans (see paragraphs 66 and 67).  This give local people the opportunity to input into this process, particularly as a simple formula-based approach to determining a figure is not going to be appropriate in some areas. 

To make this point >>> complete Q14 of the response form!

There are some parts of the NPPF that haven’t changed, that perhaps should. 

Paragraph 51 on prematurity is one such example.  At the moment, as soon as some landowners find out that their site is not likely to be included in the plan (ie as soon as the results of the site options consultation are published), they feel they have nothing to lose by submitting a speculative outline application to get in ahead of the neighbourhood plan.  Yet the prematurity argument doesn’t kick in until after the pre-submission and the examination consultations, which is easily another 4 to 6 months.  We need the NPPF revised to say that, in areas progressing a Neighbourhood Plan, major applications will be considered premature by the time the pre-submission draft is published unless it is clear that the proposals are supported by the community.

To make this point >>> complete Q10 of the response form!

Another example is the simplistic stance that the "most recently adopted plan" takes precedence (paragraph 32).  Which means that generic policies in a revised Local Plan, that are not tailored to an area, should arguably trump more detailed policies in an adopted Neighbourhood Plan.  Wouldn’t it be better to get the planning authority to publish a statement to clarify which Neighbourhood Plan policies (or parts) would remain in force, and those which are superseded, as part of their plan-making process?

To make this point >>> complete Q6 of the response form!

There a many other points I could add, but if you are still awake, you can always contact me if you are interested…

The link to the consultation and response form is here:
 
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-revised-national-planning-policy-framework