Formation of a “High Speed” Group obse… · Web view1.6There is no clear definition provided...

Planning Officers SocietyObservations on the draft National Planning Practice Guidance October 2013

Draft National Planning Practice GuidanceObservations by the Planning Officers Society

General observations1 The Society has supported the Lord Taylor review of practice guidance, and welcomes its

culmination in the publication of the concise and focused re-casting of guidance. The creation of a single place for all Government guidance is exceptionally helpful, as are the direct links within the text to relevant pieces of legislation and regulations. The web-based resource is accessible and generally easy to use, and has the signal virtue that it should be readily susceptible to updating as and when that becomes necessary.

2 It is anticipated that practitioners will find the web-based resource convenient much of the time. However, it should be recognised that there are many circumstances where the internet is not readily available eg in meetings, inquiries and examinations, and when travelling. CLG is therefore urged to complement the web-based guidance with pdf versions of each section, so that they can be held on laptops and notebooks and printed off for immediate access. These should show prominently the date when they were last updated. The references to the NPPF, Government websites and other hyperlinks can appear as footnotes in the printable version.

3 CLG should recognise that even if they leave the guidance in Web format, practitioners will print it off anyway. It must be better to have a secure version presented in the way CLG considers most appropriate, than for a wide variety of formats and styles to be in circulation.

4 It can be expected that the guidance will be need to be widely quoted in professional practice. This will be greatly assisted by adding paragraph numbers, which will enable practitioners to simply refer to the paragraph number rather than quote the relevant text in full (in the same way that the guidance does when referring to the NPPF). Paragraph numbers should be unique to each section of the guidance. CLG is advised not to re-number paragraphs where changes are made, but to simply leave a gap where a paragraph is removed or use suffixes (eg a, b c) where new paragraphs are added. This practice already applies to legislation, where practitioners are used to the occasional gap or added clause.

5 When reading some sections such as that on minerals, there are regular links to more detailed material or to other parts of the guidance. Whilst regular users of a particular section will become familiar with the structure, it could lead a newer user to be unaware of the full range of guidance relevant to a topic. It is therefore suggested that once the guidance is finalised, a site map should be added for each section to provide an immediate picture of the full content available on that subject. The present site map deals only with main headings and does not show all the levels within each section. An index of questions under each subject would also be helpful for the purposes of printing a subject index, and to ensure that all matters can be picked up under a particular subject when searching the guidance.

6 Some of the content appears to be aimed at non practitioners. However, this results in over-simplification which is actually potentially misleading. We would urge that the audience should be those who are involved in the planning system and that the content should be aimed at the professional practitioner. The place for simple advice aimed at the general public (as opposed to practice guidance) should be the Planning Portal.

7 We consider that there is a significant gap in the content of the guidance in that there is nothing on the Green Belt. Currently there is no guidance on how to go about a review of the Green Belt where it has been concluded that the exceptional circumstances exist to necessitate changes to its boundaries. Moreover, valuable content from Annex C of the former PPG2 is still required to provide guidance on the future of major development sites within the Green Belt.


8 It will be important that there are clear protocols for future changes to the guidance. Whilst the guidance needs to be kept up to date and consistent with any changes in national planning policy, there is a risk of creating uncertainty and difficulties to practitioners if parts of the guidance are revised ad hoc or unexpectedly. The Society therefore suggests that once the guidance has been “finalised” following the Beta period, it should only be revised from time to time, with proper prior consultation on any significant revisions. There should also be effective arrangements for publicising the fact that revisions are being made, including media publicity, Chief Planner’s letters and announcements on the CLG website and on the home page for the guidance itself. The facility for users to sign up for email alerts of changes is welcomed, but should not be the sole means of communicating that revisions are being made.

9 The guidance has been prepared to a timetable which has been demanding for both CLG and practitioners. Whilst the opportunity to comment on the Beta version is welcomed, it must be expected that as the guidance is applied in the full range of planning practice, it will become apparent that some parts are proving inadequately clear, ambiguous, or open to debate about interpretation. The Society therefore urges that there should be a review of the body of guidance in about a year, with the opportunity for interested parties to suggest revisions or clarifications.

10 Observations are now offered on separate sections of the draft guidance. In some cases the Society has comments on a section as a whole. These are set out before coming to specific observations, which are referenced by the headings within them.

11 For convenience of use, the observations on each section of the draft guidance starts a new page. Paragraph numbering is unique for the sections commented upon to assist reference.


1 Assessment of housing and economic development needsGeneral

1.1 The way the guidance on housing and economic development requirements has been brought together into a single section is considered unhelpful and unnecessary. Whilst both address requirements for development, they are specialist and distinctive areas of practice, and are likely to be dealt with by different people, whether within LPAs or consultancies. The approach makes the guidance excessively long for the separate uses, so any benefit in conciseness overall is outweighed by this. It also creates some scope for confusion. For example, guidance on how housing market areas and functional economic areas can be defined follow each other but set out different approaches. The approach interrupts the readability of the flow and rationale of the two elements of consideration.

1.2 It is appreciated that practitioners need to consider requirements for both housing and employment in their planning, and to appreciate the connections between them, but that could be dealt with by an introductory paragraph at the start of each section.

1.3 Re-casting as two separate sections of guidance would be straightforward using the existing text, and would not require any significant re-drafting. This observation applies similarly to the section on “Assessment of land availability”.

1.4 The use of the term “need” is considered misleading, because what the guidance is dealing with (other than when it comes to people in housing need) is actually about meeting aspirations and market demand. This perpetuates a confusion shown in this matter by the NPPF, which refers to requirement and need for housing interchangeably. The Society urges that the term “requirements” should be used, reserving the word “need” for where it deals with people who can only access suitable housing with financial assistance.

1.5 The observations which follow are related to the relevant headings in this section of the guidance.

What is the definition of need?1.6 There is no clear definition provided in relation to what is meant by need. As set out above it

is considered that the use of the word ‘requirement’ would be clearer. In doing so it would be helpful to then identify that this covers market housing and housing for those who are in housing need together with an appropriate definitions for each. We would suggest the following:

“Market Housing: Private housing for rent or for sale, where the price is set in the open market.Housing need: households and projected households who are unable to access suitable housing without financial assistance.”

1.7 It may also be appropriate in relation to housing need to provide a link to Sections 190-196 of the Housing Act 1996 which sets out the duties to persons found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness. Section 193 of the Act (as amended by Sections 148 and 149 of the Localism Act 2011) sets out the duties to persons with priority need who are not intentionally homeless.

1.8 It is recognised that in later parts of this section of the guidance that there has been an attempt to differentiate between the separate but linked elements of demand for market housing and the need for affordable housing. However, if using the phrase ‘affordable housing need’ is used then it would be helpful to define what is meant by ‘affordable housing’ within the context of housing need. The NPPF glossary provides a definition as follows:


“Affordable Housing: housing which is provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market.”

1.9 In addition, a hyperlink to the full ‘affordable housing’ definition set out in the glossary to the NPPF would be extremely helpful.

Can local planning authorities use a different methodology?1.10 The guidance does not actually set out a methodology. Rather it identifies considerations

which should be addressed, and indeed says in the second paragraph that there is no one methodological approach. It is suggested that this heading and text add nothing of meaning and should be removed.

What is a housing market area?1.11 This paragraph should also recognise that housing market areas can overlap.

With whom do local planning authorities need to work?1.12 There are several parts of the ‘Duty to Co-operate’ section of the guidance that are

particularly pertinent to the assessment of housing need. In particular

‘How will the Planning Inspectorate test a Local Plan where the evidence suggests that the local planning authority’s planning strategy cannot be delivered fully because it has been unable to secure the cooperation of another local planning authority?’ and;

‘If a local planning authority has adopted a Local Plan is it required to cooperate with another local planning authority that is bringing forward a plan?

1.13 It would be helpful to provide a link to these, either at this point or in the ‘What are the core outputs?’ part of this section.

How often are the projections updated?1.14 Recognising that a significant amount of work is undertaken which flows from the projections

it would be helpful to provide some guidance as to when would be a reasonable time to draw a line in updating during the course of the development of a local plan. The consequences of not doing so could result in delays in local plan production, and providing a proper framework within which to bring forward housing and other development as soon as possible.

How should the needs for all types of housing be addressed?1.15 This part of the guidance makes reference to Housing for older people. Some of the older

persons housing referred to may be classified as a residential institution (Class C2) as opposed to a dwelling house (Class C3). Consequently, some C2 uses cater for the needs for part of the likely current and future population. The guidance could helpfully make it clear that C2 uses of this type ‘count’ in terms of housing both in terms of housing sites and in the calculation of 5 year housing land supply and housing delivery.


2 Assessment of land availabilityGeneral

2.1 The way the guidance on assessing the supply of housing and employment land has been brought together is considered unhelpful. Whilst both address the assessment of supply, they are specialist and distinctive areas of practice, and require different methodologies. They are likely to be dealt with by different people, whether within LPAs or consultancies, so there is little or no benefit in bringing them together. The approach makes the guidance excessively long for the separate uses, so any benefit in conciseness overall is outweighed by this. It also creates some scope for confusion.

2.2 Re-casting as two separate sections of guidance would be reasonably straightforward using the existing text, and would not require any significant re-drafting. This observation applies similarly to the section “Housing and economic development needs”.

2.3 The ordering within this section is not always logical and is therefore unhelpful, in that material on housing deliverability and developability follows the methodology, under “Stage 5: Final evidence base”. Making clear what these terms mean is a prerequisite to being able to carry out a meaningful assessment. We recommend that these sections are moved to set out the principles of deliverability and developability before coming to the methodology.

2.4 We also suggest that material on the 5-year land supply and under or over delivery of housing would best be the subject of a separate section of guidance.

2.5 The observations which follow relate to those parts of this section dealing with housing land availability. No comment is offered on employment land supply.

What constitutes a ‘deliverable site’ in the context of housing policy?2.6 As noted above, it is proposed that this material should be moved to fall before the

methodology. The matter of how planning authorities assess when sites could be developed and the delivery rates are key aspects of the methodology, so we have suggested a new paragraph to provide advice on this which covers similar ground to the latter part of this sub-section (see paragraph 2.14 of these observations). It is suggested that this sub-section should end following “Local planning authorities will need to provide robust, up--to-date evidence to support the deliverability of sites, ensuring that their judgements on deliverability are clearly and transparently set out.”

Before the flow chart2.7 It will be helpful to add a new main heading “The methodology”.

Flow chart2.8 The flow chart at Stage 2 should add a step “Assess the timescale and rate of development

for each site”. This point is developed further in relation to Stage 2 below. (paragraph number 2.14 of these observations).

Stage1What geographical area should the assessment cover?

2.9 The first sentence is only relevant to housing land availability, and does not cover employment land (in the event that CLG decides that the two aspects should remain within one section of guidance).

Who should work with plan makers?2.10 The primary purpose of partnership working on a SHLAA is to ensure that it is realistic about

the deliverability of sites, and in particular the rate and timescale when development could be


brought forward. It follows that the key partners in the process should be house builders and local property agents, who are not referred to in the text as it stands. The corollary is that local communities, partner organisations, and LEPs are unlikely to have much of value to input, so they would best be omitted.

What site/broad location size should be considered for assessment?2.11 Whilst a threshold size of 5 dwellings will be appropriate for many LPAs, it is considered too

low for larger authorities, which to make the SHLAA process manageable more commonly work to 0.4 ha.

What types of sites and sources of data should be used?2.12 In the table, the reference to “sites in rural locations” should be removed, because sites not

appropriately related to a town or village will not constitute sustainable development. If the intention here is to cover the possibility of potential new settlements, that terminology should be used.

Stage 2What factors should be considered when assessing the suitability of sites/broad locations for development?

2.13 The existing SHLAA guidance does not make it clear that sites in unsustainable locations, such as open countryside and land adjacent to small villages is generally unsuitable for housing because it would not constitute sustainable development. This can lead to quite unsuitable sites being included within SHLAAs and presenting a distorted picture of the realistic supply situation.

2.14 To deal with this point, it is suggested that an additional bullet point should be added as the first bullet the 5th paragraph under this heading, as follows -

“whether development of the site would constitute sustainable development”

At the end of Stage 22.15 The existing SHLAA guidance has been shown to contain a significant gap because it does

not cover how to assess when the development of a site is feasible, or at what rate. This omission has carried forward into the condensed guidance. It is suggested that the following is inserted at the end of Stage 2 as it currently stands -

“How should the timescale and rate of development be assessed and presented?The planning authority should use the information on suitability, availability, achievability and constraints to assess the timescale within which each site is capable of development. This may include indicative lead-in times and build-out rates for the development of different scales of sites. The build-out rates should take account of the different capacities of local builders and volume builders. On the largest sites allowance should be made for several house builders to be involved. The advice of house builders and local agents will be important in assessing lead-in times and build-out rates.”

Whilst the housing supply information will need to parallel the 1-5, 6-10 and 11-15 periods to be used in presenting housing proposals in local plans, it will be advantageous to present the supply for each site by year rather than 5-year period, because this will give a more accurate picture and facilitate updating and rolling forward the data.”


Stage 3How should a windfall allowance be determined in relation to housing?

2.16 Paragraph 48 of the NPPF does not specifically exclude the inclusion of windfall sites within the years 6-10 and 11- 15, but rather is silent on the matter. The draft guidance as it stands therefore effectively changes policy without a proper consultation on the change.

2.17 Windfalls can provide an important part of the supply of housing in many local authority areas. By their nature, they are generally too small to be identified in SHLAAs or allocated in local plans. However, they can provide a constant flow of homes coming forward over the local plan period. This can be particularly important in highly constrained areas where all or most greenfield land is in the Green Belt and/or within a designated area such as a National Park or AoNB. At the other extreme of scale, windfalls are the main component of housing supply in Greater London.

2.18 Moreover, in some areas windfalls can be critical in maintaining a supply when also relying on larger sites which may take time to start delivering homes.

2.19 If windfalls are not included, their cumulative effect on infrastructure capacity cannot be taken into account when the effect of development on infrastructure is a key issue for many local communities. We are therefore not clear what the benefits are to the proper planning of an area by excluding them and we would recommend that this part of the guidance is amended to remove the limitation of windfalls to the first 5 years.

What is the starting point for the 5-year housing supply?2.20 Whilst the 5-year supply and under-supply are relevant to the assessment of housing supply,

it is also a key issue for local plan preparation and development management decision taking. The Society therefore considers it would be best dealt with in a separate section of its own. If this is not accepted, it would sit best under the section of the guidance on local plans. We have suggested changes to this part of the guidance. Please see section 5 of these observations.

How should local planning authorities deal with past under-supply?2.21 Please see paragraph 2.19 above.


3 Duty to CooperateGeneral

3.1 The Society does not consider that the duty to cooperate is a satisfactory replacement for an effective system of strategic planning. It considers that it is already clear that the difficulties which arise in securing cooperation between LPAs which have different interests, priorities and political control are a serious barrier to progress in plan making.

3.2 However, the Society recognises that the duty is a fact of life, and that LPAs need to make the best of it. We therefore welcome this guidance for that fact that it provides practical guidance on a key matter where there has hitherto been nothing definitive from CLG. We particularly welcome the guidance on what a local planning authority can do where cooperation is not forthcoming from another. and how to proceed where plans are out of sync with each other.

3.3 We have a number of detailed observations, which are presented by the headings used in the guidance.

What is the duty to cooperate and what does it require?3.4 This sub-section as drafted gives the impression that the duty to cooperate applies in all

cases, whereas it applies only to “sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas” including infrastructure. This is so fundamental that it ought to be made clear at the outset.

3.5 There is a later sub-section headed “When is an issue a strategic matter on which cooperation is required?” which makes matters clear. It is suggested that that sub-section should be moved to immediately follow this one.

How does the duty to cooperate relate to the Local Plan test of soundness?3.6 The second paragraph under this heading deals with both the duty to cooperate and the

soundness test, whereas it would be clearer as two paragraphs.. It is suggested that the second sentence should revised slightly and added to so as to make it clear that if the Inspector finds that the duty has not been complied with the examination ends there. We suggest it reads:

“If the duty has not complied with the Inspector will recommend that the local plan is not adopted,, and the examination will be taken no further”.

3.7 The paragraph should end there, and a new paragraph begin with “the examination will also test whether the local plan is sound”.

3.8 The third paragraph uses the term “joint working”. This term has rather a specialist meaning because of the legal provision for joint plans, so to remove any ambiguity tit is suggested that it is changed to “cooperative working”.

Does the duty to cooperate require additional consultation beyond existing statutory consultees?

3.9 The first sentence here refers to the duty in terms of consultation, which is misleading, whereas the second sentence correctly makes it clear that cooperation goes beyond consultation. It is suggested that the first sentence can simply be omitted.

When is an issue a strategic matter on which cooperation is required?3.10 Please see the point made at paragraph 3.5 above.


How can two or more local planning authorities cooperate on local plan preparation in order to comply with the duty?

3.11 The second and third paragraphs under this heading are particularly welcomed.

If local planning authorities want to agree a joint planning strategy but are at different stages of plan preparation, what should they do?

3.12 This too is particularly welcome for the clarity it provides as to what will be expected of LPAs.

Does the duty to cooperate require local planning authorities to reach agreement about the planning strategy before they submit their local plans for examination?

3.13 By contrast, this sub-section is not well drafted and is potentially misleading. It is appreciated that it seeks to make clear that there may be circumstances where an LPA cannot secure agreement, but that is not the impression it gives. It is suggested that it is replace by something along these lines:

“It is desirable that local planning authorities should be able to show agreement on planning strategy with relevant planning authorities and/or other organisations when they submit their plans, however this is not an absolute requirement. The important matter is to show that the plan is effective in relation to strategic matters before it is submitted for examination.”

3.14 It is also suggested that the sub-section headed “What should a local planning authority do if it is reliant on another local planning authority that will not cooperate?” should be brought forward to immediately follow.

How will the duty to cooperate be considered at the local plan examination?3.15 There is a crucial issue that the duty to cooperate must be met before a local plan is

submitted, so it is suggested that the text here spells this out even more clearly, by amending the first part of the second paragraph as follows:

“The duty applies to the actions taken by local planning authorities in preparing local plans, and must be complied with before a local plan is submitted for examination. It cannot be corrected retrospectively, ie after submission. An Inspector finding that the duty has not been complied with ......”

What should a local planning authority do if it is reliant on another local planning authority that will not cooperate?

3.16 It is suggested above that this sub-section should be moved to follow that dealing with reaching agreement on strategy. As to the content, this is particularly welcome for the clarity it provides.

3.17 Similarly the remainder of this section is greatly welcomed for the clarity it provides.


4 Local Plans4.1 The Society welcomes this section of the guidance. It brings together established principles

concisely and generally clearly. Our observations on this section of guidance are presented by reference to headings it uses.

What should a local plan contain?4.2 The final section of the first paragraph of this section should refer to a proposals map, not a

policies map. This is the term used in Regulations. The same error appears again later in the fifth paragraph under the heading “How detailed should a local plan be?”.

How is a local plan produced?4.3 The third paragraph under this heading refers to publication as if it was a consultation, which

it is not. It is the formal opportunity to make representations to be heard at the examination. This stage cannot replace proper consultation on the emerging plan, so the text as it strands could lead to misunderstanding. It is suggested that the reference here to consultation is removed.

What happens if the Inspector has significant concerns about a submitted Local Plan before the hearings begin?

4.4 The third paragraph says that the Inspector may exceptionally suspend the examination to allow the LPA to do more work. The reality is that this has become the rule rather than the exception. It is recognised that this may be a temporary situation as LPAs adapt to the realities of the duty to cooperate and objective assessment of development requirements. However, even when this matter has settled down, it must be better to persevere with plans to make them sound, including use of adjournment, rather than more plans being found unsound. We therefore urge that the reference to adjournment being exceptional should be removed.

What if modifications are required to make a draft plan sound?4.5 The second paragraph of this sub-section deals with a particularly problematical issue, and it

is considered that that fuller guidance is needed. We are also of the view that the draft guidance as it stands is flawed. Because the issue has only recently come to prominence, it will be helpful to provide some context before coming onto suggested changes.

4.6 As noted above, adjournment is now used extensively to give LPAs the opportunity to do further work and bring forward suggested modifications for consideration of the Inspector. This carries a very real risk for the LPA. They could find that having taken elected members and others along with them and expended considerable time and resources on additional work, they will then be advised by the Inspector or legal adviser that the scale of the suggested modifications would make the plan so materially different from the plan submitted that in effect it would not be the same plan. In that situation it would not be safe to take the plan as modified forward, and the LPA would have to be advised that the plan be withdrawn. LPAs need to be warned by the guidance so that they are fully aware of this risk.

4.7 The draft guidance refers to “a virtual re-writing of the draft local plan”. It is considered that this significantly overstates the extent of change which would lead to the conclusion that a plan would be so changed that it would no longer be the same plan as submitted. We understand that this is a matter of fact and degree, and will turn on the materiality of the modifications proposed. As an example, to fully meet objectively assessed development requirements might require large new housing allocations, but might not require other significant changes. Thus the plan would not require a virtual re-write, but could nevertheless be so materially changed as to not be the same plan.


4.8 We suggest that the paragraph is amended to read as follows:

“Local planning authorities should be aware that there is a point at which modifications would so change a plan that it would no longer be the same plan as submitted. This is a matter of fact and degree, and the materiality of the modifications. Were this situation to be reached, it would not be safe to continue to take the plan including the modifications through to a decision on the examination. The Inspector would be likely to suggest that the local planning authority withdraws the plan. Exceptionally under section 21 (9A) of the P&CPC .........”

What happens if a local plan is found not to be unsound?4.9 This sub-section treats considerations of legal compliance and soundness in the same

manner, which is unhelpful and potentially misleading. It is suggested that it is changed as follows:

amend the heading to “What happens if a local plan is found to be not legally compliant or unsound?

begin with a paragraph which makes it clear that if a plan is found not to be legally compliant it cannot be taken through examination, and the Inspector will recommend its withdrawal, with a link to the sub-section on the guidance on the duty to cooperate headed “How will the duty to cooperate be considered at local plan examination?

go on to the existing text, but with reference to “the duty to cooperate or other basic procedural requirements” removed


5 5-year supply of land for housing5.1 The Society considers that the importance of the 5-year supply, and the fact that it relates to

several other parts sections of the guidance means that it warrants a section in itself. We propose that material in the section on “Assessment of land availability” would be dealt with here, somewhat amended. In the event that CLG is not persuaded that 5-year supply warrants a section to itself, the best location would be towards the end of the “Local plans” section.

5.2 On the matter of under-supply, it is unrealistic to imply that work with neighbours under the duty to cooperate will commonly assist in swelling short term supply. It is more likely to help in meeting longer term requirements as supply within the LPA area begins to run out.

5.3 The following is suggested. Original text from the section on “Assessment of land availability” appears in plain text, and suggested changed text in italics.

“How should the requirement for the 5-year supply be set?Planning authorities should use the housing requirements in their adopted development plans, provided these plans are up-to-date and based on an objective assessment of housing requirement. It should be borne in mind that adopted plans based on revoked regional strategies may not adequately reflect current requirements.

Where there is no adopted development plan, the requirement should generally be based upon the emerging local plan, since that should take account of both a current objective assessment of requirements and evidence upon any major constraints upon development within the local planning authority’s area (such as tight local authority boundaries, the Green Belt or an AoNB).

How should the supply be assessed?Where there is an adopted development plan the land supply should be taken from the plan, taking account of any subsequent updating of the assessment of availability (SHLAA). Where there is no adopted development plan, the planning authority should use the information provided by the SHLAA.

How should planning authorities deal with past under-supply?Local planning authorities should aim to deal with and under-supply within the first five years of the plan period where possible. Where there is no adopted development plan they should normally add the under-supply to the calculated 5-year requirement. Where the under-supply cannot be met in the first five years, the planning authority will need to be able to demonstrate that it has positive proposals to make up the under-supply as soon as possible. This may include work with neighbouring LPAs under the duty to cooperate.”


6 Minerals6.1 The point is made in the general comments at the start of these observations that the need to

drill down to subordinate pages or other material makes this section of the guidance particularly difficult to use, and there is a need for a full site map so that the user can satisfy themself that they have not missed anything significant.

6.2 The guidance refers throughout to the “minerals planning authority”, whereas the term used in legislation is “mineral planning authority”. For accuracy the correct term should be used.

6.3 The comments which follow refer to the headings in this section of the guidance.

What are minerals resources and why is planning permission required?6.4 The third paragraph does not scan - it appears that there are some words missing.

What is the role of the district council, as the local planning authority, in safeguarding minerals?

6.5 This would read more logically if the second and third bullet points were transposed. The second bullet point as it stands should emphasise that LPAs should determine planning applications in accordance with development policy on minerals safeguarding. They should also take account of the views of the mineral planning authority on particular cases.

Why should mineral planning authorities safeguard potential storage, handling and transport sites?

6.6 The heading refers to sites other than for mineral working but the second bullet refers to mineral extraction, making it unclear whether this section is referring to storage, handling and transport facilities at mineral working sites or in general.

6.7 Generally, except where they are located at quarries or at aggregate wharves or railheads, facilities and sites for storage, handling and transport of minerals will be district matters (in two-tier areas) which will make safeguarding of them by mineral planning authorities difficult.

6.8 The meaning of the final sentence is unclear; it should be rewritten.

How should mineral planning authorities identify locations for minerals development?6.9 The distinction in bullet 1 between specific or “strategic” sites where ‘the proposal is likely to

be acceptable in planning terms’ and bullet 2 preferred areas where planning permission might reasonably be anticipated is not sufficiently clear.

6.10 The reference in the second paragraph to co-operation with other authorities seems to sit oddly in this section and would benefit from explanation or perhaps relocation to an earlier point in the guidance.

Why should minerals planning authorities seek to designate specific sites as a priority?

6.11 The words ‘and local communities’ in the second sentence is misleading and should be deleted, since local communities have no power to ‘explicitly rule out other sites’.

How and when are the details of any significant environmental impacts best addressed?

6.12 The statement that nearly all mineral planning applications will be accompanied by an Environmental Statement is incorrect. The majority of mineral planning applications are for relatively minor developments that do not require Environmental Impact Assessment. It


could be that this statement is meant to refer to applications for new mineral working, in which case it should be reworded.

What are the environmental issues of minerals working that should be addressed by minerals planning authorities?

6.13 The reason for the inclusion of ‘geological structure’ as an environmental issue is unclear and no further detail is provided to assist the user.

What issues are for the minerals planning authority to address and what should be left to other regulatory regimes?

6.14 This section does not address the issue of overlap between the planning and other regulatory regimes and how this overlap should be addressed. Whilst this is more particularly an issue for waste planning applications, it can also be an issue for mineral planning applications.

What are the possible forms of afteruse following mineral extraction?6.15 The last paragraph deals with afteruse as if it is solely a matter to be addressed in relation to

individual planning applications, which does not fit with the policy in paragraph 143 of the NPPF which makes it clear that this is a matter which should be addressed in minerals plans.

Is planning permission required for any forms of afteruse?6.16 This says that applications for afteruse will usually be determined by the mineral planning

authority. However, experience is that this is usually only the case where the restoration of a mineral working site may be prejudiced by the proposed afteruse development. Otherwise it will be the district council which deals with afteruse applications.

What is the Managed Aggregate Supply system?6.17 The last paragraph overestimates the role of the landbank in the consideration of whether to

review the local plan. Rather, it is the landbank plus remaining planned provision that is an indicator of whether there is still adequate provision in the plan and whether it needs to be reviewed.

Can Minerals Planning Authorities simply use figures apportioned from the sub-national guidelines by the Aggregate Working Party as a substitute for Local Aggregate Assessments?

6.18 This question implies that the Aggregate Working Party can/does “apportion” figures from the sub-national guidelines to individual mineral planning authorities. This is not correct and is contrary to the bottom-up approach to planning for aggregates through Local Aggregate Assessments required by the NPPF. It may be that the intention is to say that if there are pre-existing apportionment figures from the former RSS, MPAs may choose to rely on them provided that can be justified. The matter should be re-visited.

What is the role of the National Aggregates Co-ordinating Group?6.19 The last two headings here are duplicates of headings in Section 9 ‘What are Aggregate

Working Parties’. These matters do not relate to the National Aggregates Co-ordinating Group and should not be included here

What are aggregate landbanks?6.20 The second paragraph overestimates the role of the landbank in the consideration of whether

to review the local plan. The principal use of the landbank is as a development management tool, to assess the need for additional aggregate mineral reserves to be permitted when a planning application for further mineral working is being considered. It is the landbank plus remaining planned provision that is an indicator of whether there is still adequate provision in the plan and whether it needs to be reviewed.


How and when do I calculate aggregate landbanks?6.21 It is not entirely clear what figure should be used as the basis for calculating aggregate

landbanks, although this section seems to saying it is the provision level figure in the latest Local Aggregate Assessment. This contrasts with the clear steer in “Guidance on the Managed Aggregate Supply System”, October 2012 (paragraph 24) which says the landbank should be based on the past 10 years average sales.

How should mineral planning authorities plan for industrial minerals?6.22 There are individual sections on calculating landbanks for cement raw materials and silica

sand, but not for brick clay. This significant omission should be rectified. A section should be added to clarify the landbank situation in relation to new and existing capital installations at brickworks.

Annex A: Flowchart and Forms6.23 It seems that the “Yes” and “No” arrows from below “Planning authority determines

conditions” are wrongly assigned.


7 Neighbourhood planning7.1 The Society is pleased to see guidance on neighbourhood planning. However, the way it is

structured presents the user with real difficulties. Unlike other sections of the guidance, much of the material has to be accessed as sub-levels of the main pages, which makes it difficult to navigate. It is possible to know that guidance exists but to have great difficulty finding it.

7.2 There is a fault in the structure of this section in that on the entry page, to click “What is the community planning process?” leads one only to what are described as seven key stages. Whereas if one clicks there on “designating a neighbourhood area (and if appropriate a neighbourhood forum)” this discloses that there is considerably more material under that heading.

7.3 Moreover, some material is in unexpected places, for example the questions “What if a local planning authority is also intending to allocate sites in the same neighbourhood area?” and “Can a neighbourhood plan allocate additional or alternative sites to those in a local plan?” are found under “What is the role of the wider community in neighbourhood planning?” which is not about the relationship between the two types of plan.

7.4 It is suggested that all the guidance on neighbourhood planning as such should be on the main pages, with sub-levels used only for connections to other matters such as sustainability appraisal and prematurity. Separate sections are also desirable to cover guidance on the technical process of preparing a neighbourhood plan (as against the procedural processes); and on the relationship between the content of a neighbourhood plan and that of the local plan.

7.5 Our comments are presented by the relevant headings in this section.

How should local planning authorities work together when cross boundary neighbourhood planning is proposed?

76 This is a good common sense approach, and whilst one would hope it did not need to be made clear, we welcome its inclusion.

What could be considerations when deciding the boundaries of a neighbourhood area?

7.7 The considerations listed are welcome suggestions for ideas on boundaries for the neighbourhood area. However, the suggestion of the population size of electoral ward for a neighbourhood area as an initial benchmark for an appropriate size is perhaps over stating the case. Given that Parish and Town Councils will tend to use their own boundaries, and the varying density and grain of the urban areas which constitute the unparished neighbourhoods, a suggested population size seems to be inappropriate. The other considerations listed are more relevant. It is the purpose of the plan in relation to the considerations set out that should support the definition of the area, rather than an administrative convenience for the Local Authority.

What if a local planning authority is also intending to allocate sites in the same neighbourhood area?

7.8 As noted above, this is found in an unexpected place, and it would be better to have a main heading dealing with the relationship between a NDP and the local plan. The advice here does not really answer the question. If the answer is that the LPA should not do so, but seek agreement with the qualifying body so that the need does not arise, it should say so.

Can a neighbourhood plan allocate additional or alternative sites to those in a local plan?

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/what-is-the-neighbourhood-planning-process/what-is-the-role-of-the-wider-community-in-neighbourhood-planning/

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/what-is-the-neighbourhood-planning-process/what-is-the-process-for-designating-a-neighbourhood-area/


7.9 This is helpful advice.

7.10 On the matter of conflict between the local plan and a neighbourhood plan, the final sentence reflects the legal situation. However, there is an issue which will arise where there is an adopted neighbourhood plan and the LPA is reviewing the local plan. Some guidance is desirable to advise LPAs on how they should deal with this situation, and in particular too deal with the possibility that the reviewed local plan could effectively over-rule the neighbourhood plan.

7.11 The section “Can a Neighbourhood Plan come forward before an up to date Local Plan?” reinforces this point.

Should a neighbourhood plan consider infrastructure?7.12 This paragraph can be read as meaning that a qualifying body may choose not to consider

infrastructure. This is surely not the intention and should be revised - or better still simply omitted, since the next two questions cover what is needed.

What happens in a business area if residents and businesses voting in referendums do not agree?

7.13 The advice regarding the LPA setting out decision making criteria prior to such an instance is particularly valuable.

What are the basic conditions that a draft neighbourhood plan or Order must meet if it is to proceed?

7.14 The manner in which this is drafted implies that conditions 2 and 3 apply to neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development orders. This is not the case and is reinforced by a later link. (S38C Localism Act removes these conditions as they apply to an NDP at (5) (d) in removing the following parts of Para 8 of Schedule 4B : (2) (b) and (c) (3) to (5).

What is a Community Right to Build Order and what can it do?7.15 It would be valuable for the term ‘small scale development’ to be defined in this instance.

What is a community organisation?7.16 The link here does not seem to send the reader to the correct reference.


8 Strategic environmental assessment and sustainability appraisal8.1 The Society has only a few comments on this section, which are dealt with by headings

within the section.

Do supplementary planning documents require a sustainability appraisal or strategic environmental assessment?

8.2 Whilst the advice here is not contested, it would be helpful to add at the end of the first paragraph:

“If the local planning authority is not sure whether a strategic environmental assessment is required, a scoping assessment can be helpful in making the judgement”.

Does a neighbourhood plan require a sustainability appraisal?8.3 The clear statement here is welcomed, since it is a matter of some confusion amongst the

public and profession.

Does a neighbourhood plan require a strategic environmental assessment?8.4 Again, the guidance here is helpful.

Who is responsible for ensuring that the strategic environmental assessment requirements have been met?

8.5 The way this is framed is misleading, because of course it is the responsibility of the qualifying body itself to ensure that it conforms with EU Regulations, as is made clear in the section on neighbourhood planning. The function of the LPA is to satisfy itself that the qualifying body has met the requirements.


9 Travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking

9.1 Currently there are four documents which are regularly referred to in transport planning and transport development management: Manual for Streets 1 and 2, PPG13 and “Guidance on transport assessments”. It is not clear from the website whether the guidance will replace all of these, or whether the Manual for Streets will remain in force.

9.2 There is helpful guidance within the current “Guidance on transport assessments” which is not carried forward into the draft guidance, for example:

the indicative thresholds of developments which would warrant a transport assessment or travel statement

in setting out the information which should be included in transport assessments and statements it omits reference to the need to analyse the actual impact of the development related trips

9.3 There are several references to not “unfairly penalising” drivers, but there is no definition or guidance as to what may be deemed “unfair”.

9.4 Under the sub-heading “What information should be included in Transport Assessments and Statements?” the final bullet refers to “measures to mitigate the residual impacts of development”. This terminology is unhelpful and understates the potential impact from a development. The residual impact is the impact after allowing for the effect of mitigation, not before. It is suggested that the word “residual” is simply removed.

9.5 There is no definition or guidance on what constitutes a “severe” impact as referred to in paragraph 32 of the NPPF. This is one of the most often and hotly debated aspects of the NPPF in transport planning circles and at public inquiries and examinations. The opportunity should be taken to rectify this.


10 Viability10.1 This section of the guidance is generally clear and helpful. The Society has a few comments

which are set out by reference to headings in this section of the guidance.

What does the NPPF expect on viability in planning?10.2 The first sentence misquotes the NPPF. It should read “..... the sites and scale of

development proposed in the plan .....”

What are the underlying principles for understanding viability in planning?10.3 In the fourth paragraph the reference to masterplans does not follow naturally from the

preceding text, so one wonders whether it has be put where it was intended. There is also the matter of how a “masterplan approach” would fit in with plan preparation, since a masterplan would presumably be separate from the plan itself.

Should every site be tested?10.4 The third paragraph under this heading is a little weak in how it treats key sites, by saying

that more detailed assessment of such sites may be helpful. We suggest that this paragraph is amended to make it consistent with the CIL statutory guidance, as follows:

“Assessing the viability of plans does not require individual testing of every site or assurance that individual sites are viable: site typologies may be used to determine viability at policy level. Assessment of samples of sites may be helpful to support evidence. The focus should be in particular on strategic sites on which the relevant plan relies.”

How should costs be considered in plan-making?10.5 The first paragraph omits reference to the factor which will often have the biggest impact

upon costs, ie affordable housing. It is suggested that this addressed by saying “This can include costs imposed through affordable housing policies, national and local standards, local policies ......”

Formation of a “High Speed” Group obse… · Web view1.6There is no clear definition provided...

Documents

Transcript of Formation of a “High Speed” Group obse… · Web view1.6There is no clear definition provided...