Leadership Essentials:

Delivering Your Local Plan

Steve Barker - PAS

October 2014 www.pas.gov.uk

What is Planning Advisory Service

for?

“The Planning Advisory Service (PAS) is part

of the Local Government Association. The purpose of PAS is to support local planning authorities to provide effective and efficient planning services, to drive improvement in those services and to respond to and deliver changes in the planning system”

(Grant offer letter for 2014-15)

Key Facts

• Started in 2004

• Funded by DCLG

• 11 staff. Supplier framework. Peer community.

• Always subsidised. Mostly without charge.

• Non-judgemental. Not inspectors

• Respond to reform. Keep you current

• Support, promote, innovate

PAS 2013/14 impact assessment

results

1,890 responded to our surveys and the headline results are that PAS:• are worth using: 97% rated our service a good use of their

time

• remain relevant: 88% think we are and are getting even more so

• help people improve: 92% said we improved their ability to do their work

• have depth in the sector: 75% shared information they received from us.

• provide value for money: 88% felt our service was value for money.

PAS 1 to 1 plan making support• OAN and 5-year land supply

• project management for plan-making

• a review of your evidence base or your plan

• advice on community engagement

• advice on your sustainability appraisal

• councillor briefing on plan-making

• plan viability

• plan review

• strategic planning and the duty to co-ooperate

Objective

This programme is designed to help delegates to take an active leadership role in producing or updating their local plan, receiving advice on individual issues to be confident to produce a sound local plan. The course will look at the issues of Objectively Assessed Need and having a 5 year housing land supply and other challenges in producing a sound local plan.

The Agenda: day 1• Local Plan Issues & Challenges

- Steve Barker (PAS)

• Local Plan Production Issues:

Objectively Assessed Need

5 year housing land supply

Duty to cooperate

….- John Baker (Peter Brett Associates)

The Agenda: day 2Start: 9am (prompt)

Review of day 1 and follow up questions – Steve Barker (PAS)

PINS questions & discussion session– Keith Holland (PINS)

Lunch 1.00

Finish

Leadership Essentials:

Producing your Local Plan

John Baker

members’ workshops

dealing with

• housing requirement

• housing provision in local plans

• five years supply

• going forward

housing requirements are the driver

250,000 homes neededeach year

125,000 homes being provided

making provision in the plan

“ to boost significantly the supply of housing “

NPPF March 2012

“ Local planning authorities should...seek to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full,

objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing...

“

critical and unavoidable points

• local planning authority is responsible for identifying the housing requirement for its area, as part of the wider Housing Market Area

• the plan sets out the level of provision to be made• requirement and provision have to be rooted in

evidence• housing provision has to be part of an integrated plan• the provision made in the plan can be less than the

identified requirement, but the planning authority will have to provide substantive justification for this approach

five year supply and development management

• in the absence of a plan and / or a five year supply, the Council is prone to predatory planning applications

• the presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of the Framework means permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits

housing numbers for a planning authority

identify the housing supply

assess the housing requirement

can include from other local authority areas

need can be met in part from other local authority areas

establish the level of provision for the plan

test deliverability of the supply

plan provision is the basis for the five year supply calculation

approach to setting the housing requirement now established by combining demographic and economic scenarios

• if economic led requirement greater, take this

• if lower, use demographic led requirement

Demographic scenarios

Most credible - eg reflecting long term migration trend

Economic scenarios

Most credible - eg reflecting sectoralforecasts and committed strategy

the ghost of regional strategies

• use of previous regional strategy housing figures has been formally rejected by Inspectors

• local planning authorities have to produce their own figures using current evidence

• but the spatial strategy may be relevant – places didn’t move at abolition

The ‘duty to co-operate’ requires more than consultation with adjacent Councils and specified bodies. It requires a co-ordinated process for securing sustainable development and resolving strategic issues. From the evidence I have seen I consider that the Council’s approach to capture of ‘beyond the plan area implications’ falls short of fulfilling the ‘duty to co-operate’.

Kirklees Plan Inspector April 2013

duty to cooperate

agreeing to avoid anything difficult does not meet the spirit of the duty to cooperate

-

local authorities addressing the strategic issues of the functional area of which they are part, in their own local plans

-

soundness test

- far more demanding

- addressing unmet housing requirements from neighbouring authorities is part of a ‘positively prepared plan’

unless met the local plan Examination cannot proceed-straightforward - constructive, ongoing engagement

legal test

-

identifying provision for the plan

• capacity of the area has to be comprehensively and thoroughly assessed

• the plan – and hence the housing supply – has to be deliverable

• understanding of infrastructure requirements and funding

• critical to engage with developers

• short and long term provision

housing supply for inclusion in the plan

• completions

• commitments (permissions)

• sites within identified settlements assessed in the SHLAA

• sites beyond settlement boundaries allocated or as ‘broad locations’

• small sites allowance (or windfalls)

Having identified the full objectively assessed needs figure the decision maker must then consider the impact of the other policies set out in the NPPF. The Green Belt policy is not an outright prohibition on development in the Green Belt. Rather it is a prohibition on inappropriate development in the absence of very special circumstances. It is entirely circular to argue that there are no very special circumstances based on objectively assessed but unfulfilled need that can justify development in the Green Belt by reference to a figure that has been arrived at under a revoked policy which was arrived at taking account of the need to avoid development in the Green Belt.

Hunston Properties – High Court Decision September 2013

changes to Green Belt

• national planning policy has always provided for change to the Green Belt to be made through development plans

• the case for change exists in any case where the development requirement exceeds what can be satisfactorily and confidently delivered within the urban areas, and green field land will be needed, some of which is Green Belt. This need constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances’

• Green Belt is not sacrosanct

deliverability

• the plan should be deliverable over its plan period• local authorities should identify and update annually a

supply of specific deliverable sites to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements

• deliverable means available now, offers a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within 5 years, and in particular that development of the site is viable

• this emphasis is forcing plans to identify smaller, easily deliverable sites in strong market areas, rather than complex regeneration areas or strategic sites with long lead times

critical role of viability

• identified infrastructure requirements

• payments due under CIL and s106

• effect of plan policies, such as affordable housing and sustainable construction

sites have to be viable (capable of providing competitive return) when all costs and values taken into account, including:

all of which should be dealt with in a good plan through common use of viability evidence

five year supply

• Framework requires plan to identify a five year supply to be sound

• supply for next five years to make up any backlog and shortfall (‘Sedgefield’ method)

• NPPG confirms this as preferred practice to address the spirit of the Framework

• supply to be found is 5 years of provision plus 5% or 20% for flexibility

Under-provision that has accrued against previous development plan target

backlog

OAN period

Plan period

Backlog

Current year

Under-provision that has accrued in this plan period

shortfall

OAN period

Shortfall

Plan period

Current year

5 year supply calculation

5 year land

supply target 5 Annual

target

Deliverable

supplyAnnual target

Supply in years

5 year land

supply target

Deliverable

supplySurplus/deficit

Plan requirement

for 5 years

Robust

figure/years in

plan x 5

Shortfall/Surplus

Completions

compared to

requirement in

plan period

Buffer

5% or 20%

depending on

persistent under-

delivery

5 year land

supply target

OAN 15,000 over 15 years in under-providing authority

Year 1: 5000 +Shortfall (0) + buffer (20%) = 6000

Year 1-5: 4000 completions

Year 6: 5000 + Shortfall (1000) + buffer (20%) = 7200

The aim of having a supply this great is not to get 7200 dwellings built but hopefully to get somewhere near 6000 built.

The requirement remains as per the OAN for years 1 - 10 (ie 4000 built + 6000 = 10,000).

example

these issues don’t go away if ignored

in the absence of a plan

• five year supply is the critical argument

• without a plan the requirement to meet is likely to be the latest household projection

• any backlog, shortfall and flexibility allowance all to be added to the supply to be found

• availability, viability, lead times and sales rates are all questions for deliverability of claimed supply

in the absence of a plan

• policies in plan that are out of date (by not addressing current housing requirements for instance) are not given weight by Inspectors

• the critical example is a site

beyond the defined

development boundary of a

settlement

going forward

- strategy, proposals and policies based in compelling evidence

- may consider a stepped approach to planned provsion

putting a plan in place

in the meantime.....

use of Interim Housing Statements

• a possible approach

• a good tactic or a distraction?

• status?

• policy or evidence?

• essentially a means of the local planning authority taking control of the housing numbers to be used for calculation of five year supply ahead of up to date plan

• for discussion .....

one message

compelling evidence provides planning control

Leadership Essentials:

Producing your Local Plan

John Baker

members’ workshops

coffee

Green Belt and Local Plans

John Baker

dealing with

• origins and intentions

• Green Belt in modern planning

• reviewing Green Belt

• dealing with community interests

origins of Green BeltIn 1580 Queen Elizabeth 1 ordered a three mile wide belt around London to stop the plague

A great city and a cluster of towns, all separated by a rural belt, so that inhabitants have the benefit of both town and country

- Ebenezer Howard, Garden Cities of Tomorrow, 1902

origins and intentions1938 London Regional Planning Committee proposed the Metropolitan Green Belt around London

1955 MHLG Circular Green Belts

a) To check further growth For a large built-up area;

b) To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; or

c) To preserve the special character of a town

The Minister accordingly recommends Planning Authorities to consider establishing a Green Belt wherever this is desirable in order:

Wherever practicable, a Green Belt should be several miles wide so as to ensure an appreciable rural zone all round the built up area concerned.

• 14 separate areas of Green Belt

• about 1,639,540 hectares

• about 13 percent of the land area of England

• slight increase in area between 2007 and 2011

• many parts of Green Belt now subject to review through plans

current extent of Green Belt in England

examples

interesting variation

classic Green Belt

the purposes of including land in Green Belt

• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas

• to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another

• to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

• to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

• to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

NPPF 2012

current relevance of Green Belt - positive

• urban fringe is a valuable resource

• nearest opportunity for outdoor recreation to large numbers of people in urban areas - if publicly accessible

• increasingly valuable for food and energy production near to users

• should be positively managed

• multi-functional community forests - excellent example of positive initiative

much of the ‘urban fringe’ is designated as Green Belt

current relevance of Green Belt - negative

• places cannot remain unchanged yet meet modern needs and expectations

• we are under-providing housing to critical levels

• the presence of Green Belt inhibits rational decision processes about the location of development

• most Green Belt was established 40 or more years ago and has not been objectively considered since

• Green Belt drawn ‘several miles wide’ around London

• entirely arbitrary boundary in relation to Chelmsford - part in, part out

• hence restrictive policy influencing planning for Chelmsford which has no connection to the place

an example of the effect of Green Belt on planning decisions

relationship of Green Belt with modern development plans

• Green Belt was conceived in a time without development plans

• previously Green Belt was created - and changed - in two stages - ‘general extent’ in the strategic plan, boundaries defined in the local plan

• now only local plans to deal with Green Belt change

• Local Plans - ‘positively prepared’ can make changes to the Green Belt, where ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist

• Local Plans should take the opportunity to see that if there is Green Belt that it is appropriate now

Green Belt and sustainable development

• ‘any person or body engaged in the preparation of LDDs must exercise the function with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development’ (2004 Planning Act)

• reporting on the environmental implications of reasonable alternatives is a statutory requirement of plan making

• the most sustainable locations for development may be in the Green Belt

• when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development

changes to Green Belt

• national planning policy has always provided for change to the Green Belt to be made through development plans

• the case for change exists in any case where the development requirement exceeds what can be satisfactorily and confidently delivered within the urban areas, and green field land will be needed, some of which is Green Belt. This need constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances’

• Green Belt is not sacrosanct

Having identified the full objectively assessed needs figure the decision maker must then consider the impact of the other policies set out in the NPPF. The Green Belt policy is not an outright prohibition on development in the Green Belt. Rather it is a prohibition on inappropriate development in the absence of very special circumstances. It is entirely circular to argue that there are no very special circumstances based on objectively assessed but unfulfilled need that can justify development in the Green Belt by reference to a figure that has been arrived at under a revoked policy which was arrived at taking account of the need to avoid development in the Green Belt.

Hunston Properties – High Court Decision September 2013

housing provision – not the only strategic issue, but

the big one!

250,000 homes neededeach year

125,000 homes being provided

• as a strategic policy, Green Belt should be assessed by local authorities collectively

• does a neighbouring authority’s non Green Belt land prevail over local Green Belt?

duty to cooperate‘Local planning authorities should work collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries are properly coordinated and clearly reflected in individual Local Plans’

safeguarded land

• the framework requires the planning authority to ‘satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period’

• ‘where necessary identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer term development needs strategy well beyond the plan period’

• another requirement of a Green Belt review - but how much safeguarded land?

Green Belt reviews

• must be undertaken comprehensively

• must include an assessment of the contribution keeping land open makes to the 5 purposes of Green Belt

• to justify use for development through the Local Plan assessment needs to take account of sustainability issues - such as accessibility and environment assets

• need to identify safeguarded land not needed in this plan period

use of the five purposes in reviewing Green Belt

to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas

• a restrictive policy to prevent something being unrestricted

• other planning mechanisms do this in any case• what does sprawl mean?• has it the meaning now it had in the 1930’s when

Green Belt was conceived?• is development that is planned positively through a

Local Plan, and well designed with good masterplanning, sprawl?

to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another

• should this purpose be used in relation to small settlements near to towns?

• subject to what it relates too, probably the most locationally specific of the purposes

• is the identity of a settlement really determined by the distance to another town?

• what about the character of the place and of the land in between?

to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

• presumably all Green Belt does this, making the purpose difficult to use to distinguish the contribution of different areas

• is there a difference between urban fringe and open countryside?

to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

• relates to very few settlements in practice

• In most towns there is already more recent development between the historic core and the countryside between the edge of the town

to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

• the amount of land with in urban areas that could be developed will already have been factored in before identifying Green Belt land

• if Green Belt achieves this purpose, all Green Belt does to the same extent

land might be favoured for development in an assessment against Green Belt purposes if..

• it would effectively be ‘infill’

• the development would be well contained by the landscape - with rising land for instance

• there would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements

• a strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between ‘town’ and ‘country’

combining the results of different assessments

• are all purposes treated as equally important?

• some assessments assess land according to number of purposes affected, some according to effect on ‘most significant’ purpose

• assessment against Green Belt purposes to be combined with assessment according to other issues

• should plans identify for development the most sustainable locations, unless outweighed by effect on the overall integrity of the Green Belt?

example of assessment of Green Belt

Woking Green Belt

Woking Green Belt

typical urban fringe

a positive resource

open countryside

constraints

Excluded Land and Assessment Parcels

dealing with Green Belt change

• Green Belt is very controversial, and hugely misunderstood

• Green Belt has to be considered in the context of proper planning for the whole community and for sustainable development

• avoid allowing a special, mythical status to Green Belt – set alongside such as use of agricultural land, increasing risk of flooding and effect on valuable landscapes in deciding where development is to be provided

• its about informed debate and leadership

Green Belt and Local Plans

John Baker

The Agenda: day 2

Review of day 1 and follow up questions – Steve Barker (PAS)

PINS questions & discussion session– Keith Holland (PINS)

Lunch 1.00

Finish

Planning inspectorate:

Questions & discussions

• Keith Holland - PINS

Introductions

• Name, authority & position

• Present stage of production of your local plan

• Target publication date

• 3 key issues

What will you do when you

return to your authority?

PAS 1 to 1 plan making support• OAN and 5-year land supply

• project management for plan-making

• a review of your evidence base or your plan

• advice on community engagement

• advice on your sustainability appraisal

• councillor briefing on plan-making

• plan viability

• plan review

• strategic planning and the duty to co-ooperate

Forthcoming PAS events• Plan making & updating - 1 to 1 support

• Supporting Neighbourhoods

• Planning Quality Framework

• S106 obligations and CIL

• Viability training

• Duty to cooperate

• Leadership Essentials Plan Production

• Economic & Financial Impact of Planning

View www.pas.gov.uk/events for details.

Two things to do before 10am tomorrow:

1. Sign up for the PAS Bulletin.

2. Follow us on Twitter.

(Both accessible from our homepage.)

Please leave your badges

The support doesn’t end

now: