DCLG Consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy. February 2016

Transcription

1 DCLG Consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy February 2016 Introduction The National Trust is pleased to offer this response to the Government s consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy. We are Europe s largest conservation body with over 4 million members and an annual turnover of more than 450 million. Established over 115 years ago, our primary purpose is to promote the preservation of special places for the benefit of the nation. To achieve this aim we manage over 250,000 hectares of countryside, 3620 listed buildings, and more than 770 miles of coastline across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We own 57 villages and wholly or partly own six World Heritage Sites and manage 8% of registered historic parks and gardens. More than 100 million visits are made every year to the properties in our care. The National Trust is a major business as well as a charity. We own Europe s largest network of holiday cottages and gift shops, are a large-scale landlord and farming enterprise, and on occasion we also act as a developer, creating visitor facilities, converting farm buildings for business use and constructing housing with the ultimate aim of supporting our conservation work. As a major participant, the National Trust has championed a strong, effective land use planning system in England since the 1920s. We strongly believe that planning exists to serve the public s present and future interests. A robust system is the best way to guide good development to the right place and to ensure that poorly designed proposals and those in the wrong location don t get built. We believe that good planning is an essential tool for balancing a variety of land use interests in the pursuit of an overriding public one and for ensuring sustainable futures for the nation s special places. Our comments below relate to those consultation questions and related issues of most relevance to the National Trust. Housing, the planning system and the consultation process The National Trust recognises the need for more homes. But housing policy needs to address both supply and demand, including the operation of the market in land. The dysfunctional housing market is not the consequence of the planning system but an effective and integrated planning system should be part of the solution. It is the best means we have to ensure that new development is directed to the most sustainable locations, close to jobs and transport links, and avoiding unnecessary development on green spaces. When it works successfully, the planning process allows wellthought through development with input from communities and developers, and respects environmental limits. It is therefore important that local planning authorities have the resources to carry out that role. 1

2 The NPPF and the planning system more generally are not simply about easing the provision of housing, but are an essential for society to negotiate the competing demands of industry, a growing population and the provision of ecosystem services which underpin society and the economy. DCLG should not rush into changes to the NPPF, particularly bearing in mind that many areas still do not have a published local plan and the impact that significant changes could have on either existing plan or those close to publication. Given that planning and development departments have had the largest percentage cuts within local authorities in the last five years, it is difficult to see how further radical change can be effectively absorbed without either the quality of service provision declining or the provision of additional resources. We also have concerns about the consultation process. Whilst we welcomed the lengthening of the previous short consultation deadline we are concerned at the extent to which this is a fair consultation that enables stakeholders to make an informed and intelligent response. In particular, there is a limited level of detail for many of the proposals in the consultation whilst at the same time it is difficult to assess what these changes would mean given the wider changes that are being considered alongside this. These wider changes include Housing and Planning Bill Findings and recommendations from the panel on speeding up planning chaired by John Rhodes which has yet to report Rural planning review call for evidence Consultation on implementation on planning changes announced on 18 th February. We remain sceptical as to what extent respondents can consider how, for instance, the proposed changes affecting brownfield land in this consultation interact with the final version of the permission in principle clauses in the Housing and Planning Bill (still to be debated in Committee in the Lords) and the new consultation of 18 th February which sets out more detail of how the permission in principle operates, which we have not had time to consider before the final deadline for this consultation. If we and others cannot make a fully informed response to this consultation, this may also affect the ability of ministers and officials conscientiously to take into account the response to the consultation. As such, we recommend that DCLG consult later this year on the specific proposed changes to the NPPF once the responses to this consultation are considered. We have welcomed the positive engagement of officials so far but we feel that a formal consultation will be needed alongside this. Q3. Do you agree with the Government s definition of commuter hub? If not, what changes do you consider are required? When residential development is built close to public transport interchanges, the National Trust supports the principle that this should be at relatively high density. 2

3 This is an efficient use of land, promotes sustainability, and works with the grain of the market. There are tensions between the benefits of higher density near public transport interchanges and the benefits of other densities appropriate to a locality. The latter are critical to good planning and to helping nurture attractive places where people wish to live. There should therefore be no surprise that Local Plans take different approaches to density objectives (overall targets, objectives for specific sites, or siteby-site) as indicated in paragraph 13 of the consultation. The National Trust considers that this locally-led approach should remain the most appropriate. Nonetheless, we support the Government s intention to encourage densification in principle in specific circumstances close to public transport interchanges. The definition of commuter hub is unclear. Proposal (a) in paragraph 15 refers to a public transport interchange, whereas proposal (b) refers to a place. The two are different and the choice has significant implications for the intended policy as a whole. Taken literally, this could apply to any rail, tube or tram stop with an existing, or potential, service every 15 minutes or more. There is no additional definition of sustainability in this respect, and no exclusion for rural or designated areas. The Trust considers that commuter hubs should be defined through local plans so that they take account of current and potential usage and surrounding development potential, but without placing rural or sensitive historic areas at risk from inappropriate development. Q4. Do you have any further suggestions for proposals to support higher density development around commuter hubs through the planning system? The reference in paragraph 14 to encouraging development around new and existing commuter hubs implies that development around commuter hubs is to be encouraged per se, and at higher densities than in the general surroundings. If regarded as a presumption in favour of such development, this could represent a considerable threat to rural areas and other areas of landscape or historic interest that happen to be around stations. The National Trust considers that it should be a matter for local plans to define what stations are appropriate for surrounding development, and at what densities, rather than national policy, in order to ensure that proper consideration is given to sustainability and landscape or urban character. An option to encourage appropriate high density development would be to promote the established principles of Sustainable Residential Quality, which are sympathetic to high density development but recognising that high density has different interpretations in different types of places. 3

4 Q5. Do you agree that the Government should not introduce a minimum level of residential densities in national policy for areas around commuter hubs? If not, why not? The National Trust agrees that a minimum level of residential densities around commuter hubs should not be introduced in national policy, for the reasons outlined above. Q6. Do you consider that national planning policy should provide greater policy support for new settlements in meeting development needs? If not, why not? The lack of success of the Ecotowns initiative demonstrates the difficulties associated with planning and bringing forward new settlements. Whilst we support the proposal to provide a more supportive approach for new settlements within locally led plans, we consider that strengthening national policy over and above that already provided in paragraph 52 of the NPPF would be unrealistic in terms of increased delivery. Q7. Do you consider that it would be beneficial to strengthen policy on development of brownfield land for housing? If not, why not and are there any unintended impacts that we should take into account? As a general principle the National Trust welcomes the emphasis on prioritising brownfield land for development and the desire to increase the supply of small sites. The most appropriate means of using the planning system to support a higher rate of brownfield land reuse would be to constrain greenfield site development if and when brownfield land remains available in the same area. This would increase the incentive to bring back into use not only the relatively simple sites but also the more problematic ones. The most appropriate means for deciding which sites to allocate for housing, whether brownfield or greenfield, is the Local Plan. It is important to the integrity of the Local Plan process that so far as practicable development proceeds in line with its intentions. We do not consider that a wider presumption in favour of development of housing on brownfield land is consistent with this. We would however express caution against over-reliance on land in active employment or other commercial uses being considered appropriate for housing development. Whilst we accept the need to bring forward additional housing, and support a brownfield first approach, we do believe in good planning and consider that it is also important to ensure that sufficient employment land is available to provide jobs close to where people live. There is a danger that, without careful planning, an imbalance could develop in some areas between housing and employment provision, with knock-on effects such as people travelling further to work, or of a shortage of employment leading to pressure for the development of greenfield employment sites. At best, brownfield land represents new housing development in convenient places on under-utilised land. At worst, it simply becomes 4

5 a redistribution of land uses resulting in further pressure for development in the countryside or in other unsuitable locations. The National Trust therefore recommends that substantial weight should be given to housing on brownfield land only where the local authority has previously identified a site as: suitable for housing; most appropriately used for housing; not of high environmental value; and consistent with the housing policies of the Local Plan. The effect of this approach would be to add weight to the National Land Use Database in directing housing to appropriate brownfield sites. We consider that would be beneficial. A similar benefit could be achieved by the local authority register of brownfield sites as proposed in the Housing and Planning Bill (currently Clauses ), if established on an equivalent footing. The safeguards we are seeking are not specified on the face of the Bill but are left for future Regulations and Guidance. Accommodating these would go a long way to promoting brownfield land redevelopment without unduly challenging environmental interests. There are considerable pressures in the market to develop greenfield sites in preference to brownfield, though those pressure will need to be addressed by mechanisms other than national planning policy. Furthermore, there are substantial economic deterrents to the development of certain brownfield sites in some areas. We would expect that addressing the economic limitations on brownfield site redevelopment, including incentives to house builders, would be a more fruitful course of action for securing a faster pace of brownfield land redevelopment for housing. It is important that there are adequate caveats and safeguards in respect of environmental features, valuable open spaces, the historic and archaeological importance of sites, and their settings. Local authorities could easily find themselves weighing the proposed presumption in favour of housing with other environmental constraints and economic and social considerations. The National Trust considers that the Government should focus its efforts on encouraging existing owners to part with surplus or near-surplus land and on encouraging developers to search for and acquire suitable brownfield sites. This could be incentivised, for example, through: tax breaks on stamp duty on small sites sold for housing; allowing vendors to retain the first year s New Homes Bonus on small sites sold between two fixed dates in the short term and commencing development on them within two years thereafter; 5

6 extending Government loans on preferential terms to small builders who acquire sites and commence development on them within two years (for whom financing land acquisition is often a particular challenge). However, the National Trust considers that contributions from brownfield sites towards CIL and affordable housing should not be compromised, as these are essential to make new developments work well. We consider that the types of measure listed above would be superior to blanket permissions in principle which could undermine the proper consideration of locally important environmental constraints on small site development. Q8. Do you consider that it would be beneficial to strengthen policy on development of small sites for housing? If not, why not? How could the change impact on the calculation of local planning authorities five-year land supply? Whilst the ambition to support small and medium-sized building companies is laudable, the National Trust is doubtful that introducing an effective presumption in favour of development on small sites will do much to support such companies, which will face considerable problems in terms of economies of scale compared to large companies. Though brownfield sites could offer increased opportunities for specialist developers, greenfield sites could easily be bought by volume housebuilders, particularly where adjoining sites have the potential to be amalgamated to form large sites. As stated in the consultation document, most Local Plans already include policies that support the development of small sites within policy boundaries or on suitable windfall or brownfield sites. The National Trust is however extremely concerned about the proposal to support development on small sites immediately adjacent to settlement boundaries. Many small towns, villages and even hamlets have defined settlement boundaries, and this policy would potentially open up for development all the land surrounding them. Settlement boundaries would then subsequently be extended to encompass such new development, leading to rapid outward expansion. Whilst this policy may well bring forward additional housing development land, it would mark a return to ad-hoc, unplanned development, thus seriously undermining the role of Local Plans and placing extensive areas of countryside at risk. This would be likely to provoke considerable public opposition. The Trust does not consider that the safeguards afforded by the NPPF in terms of the definition of sustainable development would be adequate, when part of that definition currently refers to approving development proposals that accord with the development plan. An alternative scenario might be that local planning authorities stop defining settlement boundaries for the smaller settlements in their areas in order to circumvent this policy, which could in fact further restrict the number of sites coming forward and therefore have a negative impact on housing delivery. 6

7 If Government is intent on proceeding with this policy amendment, it should at the very least be amended to refer to settlements rather than settlement boundaries, to allow local planning authorities the opportunity to define settlement in more sustainable terms and so reduce the risk of inappropriate development around small villages and hamlets. The National Trust suggests that a preferable approach would be to encourage local authorities to allocate small sites in their local plans or by including appropriate sites within settlement boundaries. This would enable authorities to decide by how much each settlement could grow, and in what form, allowing greater potential to reflect historic patterns of settlement growth. This could also be achieved with an eye to environmental and other planning issues in a way which could not be done on an ad hoc basis. It could specifically aim to achieve the release of small sites. It would need to be accompanied by a stipulation that settlements which did not already have boundaries would not need to have them specified, thereby protecting the smallest settlements everywhere from incursions of small developments. Q9. Do you agree with the Government proposal to define a small site as a site of less than 10 units? If not, what other definition do you consider is appropriate, and why? The National Trust agrees with the definition of a small site as being a site of less than 10 units, but considers that without adequate control/qualification, small sites would easily be amalgamated to form large sites. Q10. Do you consider that national planning policy should set out that local planning authorities should put in place a specific positive local policy for assessing applications for development on small sites not allocated in the Local Plan? Most Local Plans already include policies against which applications for development on small sites not allocated in the Local Plan are assessed. These are helpful as they give landowners and developers a strong indication of where development may or may not be permitted. Within settlement boundaries it is appropriate for such policies to be worded positively, however outside settlement boundaries this would lead to the difficulties described under Q9 above. It would be preferable to encourage local authorities to bring forward additional small sites through their local plans, which would protect the integrity of the local plan and reinforce intended patterns of development. It would also give small and medium-sized builders the required certainty in terms of a presumption in favour of development. Local authorities need the flexibility to resist schemes which for example overdevelop sites (a concern of the Government clearly expressed in respect of building on gardens), are of poor design, or fail to take adequate account of other legitimate interests. It is difficult to see how further positive Local Plan policies might help. The objective presented by the Government is quite properly focused on promoting brownfield site redevelopment, so the Trust sees no case for intervention. 7

8 Q11. We would welcome your views on how best to implement the housing delivery test, and in particular: What do you consider should be the baseline against which to monitor delivery of new housing? The National Trust supports the Government s concern to see that land allocated in Local Plans is brought forward promptly for development. This involves owners, land developers and house builders bringing forward proposals in line with the allocations, local authorities permitting acceptable schemes, and house builders taking up the permissions. Paragraph 27 of the consultation reports on the annual supply of 200,000 plots allocated in England, which substantially exceeds current rates of house building. This is before all authorities have up-to-date Local Plans, which will result in this figure being raised significantly. The paragraph also reports that planning permission was granted in the year to June 2015 for 242,000 new dwellings, which is at or above the rate needed to satisfy housing needs. Also, evidence from the Local Government Association published on 7 January 2016 showed that there were planning permissions for 475,000 homes which had been granted but were waiting to be fully built. The starting point for comment is therefore that, across the country as a whole, delivery of houses is falling short of the numbers which the planning system is encouraging. This is not the case in every authority, but there are already clear policies in the NPPF by which the Government is addressing insufficient allocations and insufficient planning permissions.. Likewise, the Government has already asked local planning authorities to address all the actions raised in paragraph 29 of the consultation. The National Trust believes that the baseline against which to monitor the delivery of new housing should be the relevant Local Plan period, so that under-delivery in respect of a Local Plan s housing allocations and policies can be taken into account when reviewing the Local Plan. The baseline figure would be the Local Authority s estimate of the potential housing delivery of their Local Plan allocations and policies, which should be stated in the Local Plan. It would not be practical to assess, and compensate for, a lesser period unless a formal mid-term review of a Local Plan was to take place. The consultation document is unclear in terms of the suggested period over which delivery of new housing would be monitored, and under-delivery compensated for; paragraph 31 refers to the assessment taking place over a two year period, whereas paragraph 32 talks about action being taken where there is under-delivery over a sustained period. Assessing under-delivery over a two year period is illogical when planning permissions last for three years. It is also too short a time to factor in market fluctuations. 8

9 What should constitute significant under-delivery, and over what time period? There is no further need to specify what constitutes under-delivery. Inspectors hearing the Examinations of Local Plans are already required to assess whether there has been persistent under-delivery of housing against policy, and to reflect this in decisions on land allocations in new Local Plans. This is a blunt instrument because it assumes that under-delivery was the fault of the planning system locally, whereas in recent years under-delivery has largely been due to the recession and demand-side problems. The Government s focus should instead be on finding ways to enable the house building industry to construct more homes. What steps do you think should be taken in response to significant under-delivery? Attention needs to be directed at the strategic level to the operation of the housing market, the sufficiency of sub-market housing provision against needs in that sector, the control of land prices, the financing of access to private housing, the structure of the house building industry, and the perception of housing as an investment rather than a place to live. There could be a policy presumption against the renewal of planning permissions, or, in the case of larger sites, a requirement for a phasing agreement whereby planning permission would be revoked if the permitted housing is not delivered. Alternatively, a mechanism could be introduced whereby a developer or landowner would face a financial penalty in cases of non or under-delivery unless there are proven economic or technical reasons why development has not gone ahead. A realism test could be applied to sites allocated in Local Plans: promoters of sites could be required to make a commitment to their development, with significant financial penalties for non-adherence; this would avoid the adoption of Local Plans where either there is little likelihood that builders have the capacity to start development or development would be significantly postponed. The proposal to compensate for under-delivery by identifying additional sites would not be a quick-fix, either in terms of reviewing their Local Plans, or, more particularly, by proposing new settlements. In the short term there are additional difficulties to be faced in terms of materials and especially labour shortages, and the sheer practical difficulties of expanding house building businesses at a speed which can increase output to the rate which the Government would like. How do you see this approach working when the housing policies in the Local Plan are not up-to-date? The priority should be to get up-to-date Local Plans in place. There is a shortage of planning officers and research staff with skills in population forecasting and the 9

10 monitoring of housing land supply and housing completions. Many local authorities have reduced or ceased undertaking such work. County Councils used to undertake such monitoring work and use the information to inform their Structure Plan housing allocations, which took under-delivery into account. This then fed down into Local Plans. Much of this activity has now ceased and the specialist staff have retired or otherwise left the profession. The National Trust is therefore concerned that the necessary skills and resources do not exist in many local planning authorities. Even where they do exist, the work that would be entailed in undertaking housing delivery monitoring would be likely to distract policy planners from progressing their Local Plans, so exacerbating the problem. Q12. What would be the impact of a housing delivery test on development activity? Due to the difficulties and complexities outlined above involved in monitoring and compensating for under-delivery, The National Trust considers that there would be a negative impact on development activity. The Trust considers that the problem is not that existing land allocations are somehow not realistic, but that house builders are either unable or unwilling to take up those opportunities. We consider that no further change is needed to the planning system. All the changes hinted at in paragraph 33 of the consultation raise false hopes and divert attention from the real issues in the housing market. In planning terms they would end up allowing builders to cherry pick sites even more than they do at present. Q13. What evidence would you suggest could be used to justify retention of land for commercial or similar use? Should there be a fixed time limit on land retention for commercial use? As a general comment, and relating to the point made in our answer to Q7 above, there is a danger that brownfield development simply leads to a redistribution of land uses, with the most lucrative (i.e. generally residential development) squeezing out the less lucrative. The knock-on effects could cause an increasing division and distance between employment and residential land uses, leading to increased commuting, less opportunity for the synergies and benefits that develop between colocating businesses, loss of historic commercial land uses and businesses, a change in the grain of urban areas and, ultimately, pressure for greenfield commercial and employment land to replace the loss of brownfield sites. Q17. Should rural exception sites be used to deliver starter homes in rural areas? If so, should local planning authorities have the flexibility to require local connection tests? The National Trust is comfortable with the arrangements for building housing for social rent in perpetuity on rural exceptions sites in places where permission would not normally be granted (NPPF paragraph 54), and for similar housing on a small 10

11 scale in Green Belts for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan (NPPF paragraph 89). The Trust does however have concerns in relation to the definition of starter home and therefore opposes this proposal. This is not founded on the mechanism for release (a Neighbourhood Plan would be acceptable), nor on the size of the scheme (small scale is appropriate, provided the maximum is specified in policy at about 10 dwellings), nor that it may be in Green Belt (which is no different from NPPF paragraph 89). Rather it is founded on the proposal to build private housing. After five years, Starter Homes will be general market housing, and the Trust takes a far longer perspective than that. The policy would simply encourage proposals to come forward repeatedly over time, contrary to the planned pattern of development promoted through Local Plans. There would be no truly affordable homes supplied, let alone in perpetuity. The historic emphasis of these exceptional housing developments has been on the release by benign landowners of land for community needs on a not-for-profit (or very low profit) basis, expecting that this would be a permanent contribution to local needs. The proposal to allow Starter Homes in rural areas would change the dynamic for land releases. In high value areas, including much Green Belt, there would be a more tangible profit to be made even allowing for the 20% subsidy to the occupant. This would raise the prospect of more landowners volunteering their land (and increasing the challenge to the Local Plan). The emphasis would quickly change from meeting local community needs, though that would of course continue to be claimed, to meeting the income objectives of the vendor. This is no basis for making exceptions to established planning policy and Local Plans. If Government proceeds with a policy presumption in favour of housing development on small sites adjacent to settlement boundaries as put forward in paragraph 24 of the consultation document, the concept of exception sites will be meaningless since sites adjoining settlements will acquire development value. Q18. Are there any other policy approaches to delivering starter homes in rural areas that you would support? A preferable approach would be to create a new Use Class for starter homes to retain them as (relatively) affordable housing in the long term. Q19. Should local communities have the opportunity to allocate sites for small scale starter home developments in their Green Belt through neighbourhood plans? This would be a logical component of neighbourhood plans, subject to appropriate controls on affordability in the longer term for example through a new use class as suggested above. However, in our view there is no justification to allow private house building contrary to green belt policy (or contrary to established rural policy in respect of exceptions sites). 11

12 Q20. Should planning policy be amended to allow redevelopment of brownfield sites for starter homes through a more flexible approach to assessing the impact on openness? The distinction between substantial and less than substantial harm to openness is difficult to apply accurately. It is currently a consideration when evaluating prospective harm to listed buildings, parks and gardens (NPPF paragraphs ), where a body of experience, appeal decisions and case law is still building up. The Trust sees no need to apply this difficult policy approach also to openness of the Green Belt for what appears to be such little likely community housing benefit. Aside from the safeguards, it is not clear what scale of housing development might be achieved by the policy relaxation proposed. Taking as a starting point the hectares of brownfield land in the Green Belt viable for starter homes development and not on open land noted in paragraph 54, there is a reasonable possibility that much of this could allowably be redeveloped under existing policy which permits the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. (paragraph 89 6 th indent). However, we are unclear about the scale of the impact of the weakening the limitation to allow development where there would be a less than substantial impact on openness. A detailed assessment of returns from the National Land Use Database might give pointers to this. 1 Q22. What are your views on the assumptions and data sources set out in this document to estimate the impact of the proposed changes? Is there any other evidence which you think we need to consider? AONBs The National Trust would like to take the opportunity of this consultation to raise a concern with regard to the implementation of planning policy in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs). The distinctive character and natural beauty of AONBs make them some of the most beautiful and cherished landscapes in England. The Government s commitment to protect AONBs is clear, but recent research conducted by the National Trust found some problems with how safeguards to prevent inappropriate development are being implemented. This report and associated research is available at We see no need to amend the NPPF policies in relation to AONBs, but our report suggests ways that practice can now be improved, including a series of tests for decision-makers to apply in AONB cases, which are also supported by the National Association for AONBs, We suggest that the Government includes these tests, or a 1 This is a tricky issue: a small scale of potential impact could imply either that there is no real problem and the change in policy should be allowed, or that there would be insufficient benefit to justify changing a longestablished planning principle. 12

13 version of them, in planning practice guidance. This we believe would help address the challenges with the implementation of existing policy in some of England s finest landscapes that our research uncovered. 13