A report by the Assistant Director Policy and Corporate summarising proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and providing committee members with the opportunity to feed in to the Council’s response to the consultation.
133
Councillor Jowers (in respect of his Vice-Chairmanship of Essex County Council and his substitute membership of Essex County Council’s Development and Regulation Committee) declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7(5).
The Committee considered a report by the Assistant Director Policy and Corporate summarising proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and providing committee members with the opportunity to feed in to the Council’s response to the consultation.
Laura Chase, Planning Policy Manager, presented the report and, together with Karen Syrett, Planning and Housing Manager responded to members questions. She explained that the deadline for responses was 10 May 2018 and the Portfolio Holder for Business and Culture had agreed to consider individual comments from Local Plan Committee members submitted to him after the meeting but no later than 12 April 2018.
It was explained that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had published draft revisions to the NPPF on 5 March 2018, together with a report which summarised the changes proposed and highlighted the questions asked in the consultation. The Planning Policy Manager confirmed that the consultation would not affect Colchester’s draft Local Plan schedule.
The proposed changes to the framework, the first since the original version had been issued in 2012, included matters from the previous policy consultations and planning policy changes including the NPPF consultation in 2015, the Housing White Paper, Planning and Affordable Housing for Build to Rent, Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places, changes to planning policy implemented through Written Ministerial Statements, changes reflecting the effect of case law on the interpretation of planning policy and textual improvements to increase coherence and reduce duplication.
The consultation sought views on further changes to planning policy including those announced in the 2017 Budget. A number of supporting documents, government responses, and further consultations had also been published, including:
• Supporting Housing Delivery through Developer Contributions: consultation;
• Draft Planning Practice Guidance for Viability;
• Housing Delivery Test: draft measurement rule book;
• Government responses to the Housing White Paper and the Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places consultations; and
• Section 106 Planning Obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy in England, 2016 to 2017: report of study.
The NPPF was now set in 17 topic-based chapters which provided an overview of the planning framework and the relevance of different policies.
The review focused on ways to improve delivery to reach the Government’s 300,000 homes per year target and how to increase affordable housing provision. The standardised methodology for calculating local housing need developed by the Local Plans Expert Group had been included, together with policies regarding design, densification, affordable home ownership expectations, the housing delivery test, making the most of town centre sites and small sites. A new proposed policy allowed the development of exception sites to provide entry-level housing for first-time buyers and renters.
Plans had been strengthened and provided with an even greater role, further underlining the Government’s intention for the English planning system to be a plan-led one, with a focus on strategic policies. The plan-making chapter reflected previous announcements and/or changes, such as for local plan policies to be reviewed ‘at least once every five years’ as well as proposed revisions to the tests of soundness. The duty to co-operate would be bolstered by a requirement for the preparation of statements of common ground, documenting the cross boundary issues to be addressed, and progress in dealing with them.
The proposals clarified that when development proposals accorded ‘with all the relevant policies in an up-to-date development plan’ there would be no need to submit a viability assessment. Furthermore, there was a fundamental shift towards focusing viability assessments at the plan-making stage rather than the decision-making stage, but with the local plan setting out where further (publically available) viability assessments might be required at planning application stage.
The objectives of the proposed reform were to provide more clarity and certainty around how developer contributions work, improve their relationship with market signals and changes through time, improve transparency, accelerate development, and allow the introduction of a Strategic Infrastructure Tariff by combined authorities. Proposals included the simplification of the process for reviewing Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedules, lifting section 106 pooling restrictions, allowing CIL charging schedules to be set based on existing use of land, and for setting developer contributions nationally, which would not be negotiated. A separate consultation on supporting housing delivery through developer contributions had been launched alongside the NPPF consultation to deal with these proposed changes.
It was proposed that policies should look at least ten years ahead in allocating sites to meet the need for town centre uses but not necessarily over the entire plan period, in view of the difficulties of longer term forecasting. The changes proposed to the sequential test for main town centre uses would allow out-of-centre sites to be considered only if town centre or edge-of-centre locations were not available, or not expected to become available ‘within a reasonable period’, acknowledging that a suitable town centre site might be in the development pipeline. Whilst the requirement for office development outside of town centres to undertake and submit an impact assessment was proposed to be removed.
Consultation on the revised draft NPPF extended to 10 May and the government’s intention was to produce a final version before the summer. The intention was also to consult on further planning reforms, particularly around new permitted development rights for upwards extensions, as well as around more effective ways of bringing agricultural land forward for housing. The transition period for plan-making would be six months following publication. However, there were no proposed transitional arrangements for either the amendments to the soundness test or for the introduction of statements of common ground as it was considered that the Housing White Paper, and other consultations, had provided enough time for local authorities to recognise the direction of travel and prepare for these potential future changes to the revised NPPF.
The Planning Policy Manager confirmed that the response to the consultation was likely to include comments in relation to the reference to Garden Community principles having been dropped and also in relation to viability and developer contributions.
Rosie Pearson addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(3). She was making representations in relation to the views of the Campaign Against Urban Sprawl in Essex (CAUSE) on what the consultation would mean for the Colchester and North Essex Garden Community project. She considered there were positive changes including a platform for local people to influence changes in their local communities, a situation which she felt hadn’t been the case currently in Colchester. She also welcomed proposals that strategic matters would be dealt with rather than deferred, provision for stricter rules on statements of common ground, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) being encouraged more strongly with a request that this be considered again for Colchester and she referred to examples of infrastructure being delivered elsewhere by means of CIL, such as in Bristol and Norwich. She also welcomed brownfield land being given more priority. The main area of concern for CAUSE was the new Objectively Assessed Needs (OAN) housing formula which she considered would punish Colchester as it would not help affordability and Colchester would continue to grow at an increasing rate. She asked the Committee to consider again the benefits available through the adoption of a CIL as an approach to deliver infrastructure, whether the brownfield land register would be looked at again, including a call for sites particularly in relation to the village locations, and whether the Council’s response to the consultation would include a robust argument against the OAN formula proposed and how will the Committee ensure that local people’s views are listened to and taken into account.
The Chairman responded by explaining that the Committee had considered the issues relating to a CIL a number of times but had not yet progressed to this option pending more information from the Government as to what it intends to do in relation to CIL and Section 106 agreements. He was of the view that currently more benefits could be obtained through the use of Section 106 agreements. He also referred to Colchester’s very good record in relation to the use of brownfield sites for development, the challenge now being that such sites were now in short supply. The Council had already compiled a brownfield sites register which had included a call for sites and the register was open to the submission of suggested sites from the public for inclusion in the future. He was aware that members of CAUSE did not feel their views had been listened to but he referred to previous consultation exercises, the duration of which had been extended, to enable the public to submit more comments. He also referred to information he had provided at the last meeting of the Committee, setting out the numbers of houses which were planned to be delivered in Colchester and in the neighbouring local authority areas and the timescales attached to that delivery.
Karen Syrett, Planning and Housing Manager, explained that CIL was still included in Colchester’s Local Development Scheme and, as such, could be progressed if it proved to be more viable than the use of Section 106 agreements. She confirmed that, when there was more certainty from the Government, then the matter could be considered again by the Committee. She was aware of funds being made available for infrastructure delivery in Bristol and Norwich but was of the view that it was not clear whether they had been delivered through CIL or Section 106 agreements. She further explained that of the total £6 billion combined financial contribution delivered through CIL and Section agreements in 2016-17, £5 billion of that had been through Section 106 agreements and she confirmed that any consideration of CIL would be in conjunction with the continued use of Section 106 agreements. She explained that the brownfield sites register had included a call for sites on two previous occasions, however, it was an open register and requests for sites to be included could be made at any time. She confirmed that the Council’s response to the consultation would include an objection to the housing methodology if it recommended the same approach as the previous consultation. She went on to welcome the recent recognition of the Council’s current housing target of 920 homes per year, as well as the affordable element of that, by a planning inspector.
Councillor Graham referred to misconceptions in social media which had referred to 42,000 homes being built in Colchester and explained that the 42,000 homes were to be delivered in the whole of North Essex, not just Colchester.
David Cooper addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(3). He referred to the NPPF consultation as well as many other consultations being undertaken by the government and considered this made it very difficult for members of the public to understand the planning process. He hoped that consultees would be listened to and co-operated with. He called for a multi-way consultation and meetings between consultees and the Council for a public discussion. He welcomed the NPPF consultation in terms of proposals for more houses on exception sites which would assist first time buyers and renters. He considered this may be of interest in Mersea. He noted the new NPPF would not be applicable to the draft Local Plan currently under review but asked whether it would apply to Neighbourhood Plans which were being developed in West Mersea. He referred to continuing concerns about two sites being identified in the draft Local Plan for development in Mersea, each with up to 100 dwellings, which he considered did not comply with the NPPF principles of making ‘effective use of land’ and asked why this hadn’t been consolidated to just one site.
The Planning and Housing Manager explained that, until the new NPPF had been adopted, in whatever form, it would not apply to the Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plans. She confirmed that the Local Plan had been submitted to the inspector so no changes to its contents, such as the number of sites identified in Mersea, were being proposed.
Councillor Jowers agreed with the comments made by Mr Cooper in relation to the inclusion of two sites in Mersea, which he regretted. However, he considered the total number of houses needed to be seen as a commitment such that 200 dwellings was a maximum which would not be exceeded.
Councillor Barber sought clarification on the benefits or otherwise of CIL and asked whether it would be possible for more information to be provided to the Committee in the future. He also advocated the support of businesses in rural areas and regretted the use of the term unsustainable as he wished to see local employment measures encouraged. He also asked for clarification on the Strategic Infrastructure Levy and voiced his concerns about the removal of references to the Garden Community principles in the consultation document.
The Planning Policy Manager explained that CIL was a tariff which applied to all development and, as such, one of its benefits was that it applied to small scale developments. It did provide for the pooling of contributions for large scale infrastructure, rather than each development only mitigating its own impact. However, once the Levy was set then the contributions were required to be paid which may be at the expense of the delivery of affordable housing when this element remains to be negotiated. She referred to a potential national standard for affordable housing which would be seen as a benefit as this element would then be a known front-loaded expectation of the developers. She went on to confirm that there were no unsustainable settlements in Colchester, as all settlements had been designated either other settlements or less sustainable. There was provision in local policies and the current and new NPPF for development in these villages, predominantly through rural exception sites.
The Planning Policy Manager explained that the Strategic Infrastructure Levy in London was the tariff to fund Crossrail.
Vincent Pearce, Planning Projects Specialist, explained that for communities with an adopted Neighbourhood Plan, there was a further benefit of CIL in terms the amount that community can take out of the financial contributions. He also reported that Colchester had managed £300m of planning gain through the Section 106 agreement system which had delivered significant benefits for the people of Colchester.
Councillor Barlow suggested, in the light of the growing number of consultations and changes to the legislation, the response to the consultation needed to include a request for stability within the planning regime, particularly if the government wished to move to plan based development.
Councillor Jowers recollected that the Committee had previously been on the verge of launching CIL but it had not been implemented when it was emerged that the Levy in Chelmsford was lower than that proposed for Colchester. He acknowledged that local authorities were able to use a combination of CIL and Section 106 agreements and recollected that on an average sized house the levy would amount to £15k to £19k whilst the actual amount required to provide all necessary infrastructure was £39k per house. He was therefore of the view that Section 106 provided more flexibility than CIL. He acknowledged the advantage of being able to pool CIL contributions and that CIL was often better in relation to larger scale schemes but he agreed that more information needed to be provided by government before the committee should consider it again.
Councillor Fox welcomed the report and the consistency of comments from the contributors. He referred to the dropping of the references to Garden Community principles in the consultation document and was hopeful that the draft Local Plan, including the joint garden community proposals would shortly receive the support of the planning inspector.
The Planning and Housing Manager confirmed that the Council had sought advice as to why the Garden Communities principles had been removed from the consultation document and she confirmed that the quality and design aspects of the draft have been considered to be of predominant importance at a local level, whilst references to national standards had been removed. However because the Council’s draft Local Plan included its own principles in relation to the Garden Communities then these would prevail.
Councillor Chapman asked about the proposed requirement for 20% of housing to be on half an hectare or less, presumably to encourage development in villages and whether this provision would be welcomed in the Council’s response. He also asked whether there was any references to social housing in the document.
The Planning and Housing Manager confirmed she had not found anything specifically on social housing, more in terms of local authorities being innovative and to look at opportunities to increase social housing through rural exception sites and, as Colchester had done in the past, using local planning policies to deliver some market housing as part of an affordable housing development. She confirmed the intention to include a response to the consultation in relation to small sites.
Councillor A. Ellis commented that he found it difficult to differentiate the changes to the original NPPF proposed in the consultation document and speculated whether a version highlighting the changes was available. He indicated that he would welcome the adoption of a CIL if it meant that Colchester could take a more holistic approach to infrastructure delivery. He was aware that Chelmsford had adopted CIL but that the contributions had decreased from the levels achieved under a Section 106 agreement regime. He suggested that it would be helpful for committee members to be advised of neighbouring authorities who had adopted CIL and to what extent the change had affected the total financial contributions achieved. He questioned the 10% target level for affordable homes contained in the consultation document, given this was considerably below the 30% target identified by Colchester in the new Local Plan. He referred to the proposal regarding entry level homes that would be offered for discounted sale or affordable rent and queried that definition of affordable was being used. In terms of development in rural areas, he highlighted a clause within the document which supported the sub-division of existing residential property. He was also of the view, in relation to planning policies in rural areas being responsive to local circumstances and housing developments reflecting local needs, that this should also extend to local wishes. He also considered that the document made it patently clear that a Local Plan would, in future, only have a life of five years.
The Planning Policy Manager agreed to send a copy of a track changes version of the consultation document to Councillor Ellis and other members of the Committee, if this would be helpful.
The Planning and Housing Manager confirmed that the consultation did include a reference to the expectation of affordable housing levels being higher than 10%. The definition of affordable housing was set out in the document as being at least 20% below local market rents.
Councillor Barber asked the Committee to consider having an in depth discussion about CIL in the new municipal year at which time the Government may have made its position more clearly.
Councillor Jowers asked whether the size of a village was applicable in relation to the development of exception sites in rural areas and queried the reference in the document to more effective ways to bring agricultural land forward for development which seemed to indicate an unwelcome relaxation of planning law. He also sought clarification on the viability assessment obligation on the part of developers and whether this was proposed to be a requirement for developers prior to development. He commented on the reference to areas defined as heritage coast and asked why Colchester had not taken the opportunity to look at this before now. He also mentioned planning policy for travellers sites and the need to initiate discussions with neighbouring authorities in order to agree a county wide solution sooner rather than later. He also asked for it to be made absolutely clear the distinction between green belt and green field.
The Planning and Housing Manager confirmed that the government was looking to introduce more viability testing at the plan making stage, rather than on individual applications, with a view to speeding up the application process. Also where viability discussions did take place, the detail of these could be made public. She agreed to look into the heritage coastline issue and confirmed that Roger Hirst, as Essex Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner was leading discussions on the traveller site issue and the transit site issue.
RESOLVED that –
(i) The consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework be noted and the points raised as part of the Committee’s discussions on the matter, together with any individual comments submitted direct to the Portfolio Holder for Business and Culture by Committee members prior to 12 April 2018, be considered for inclusion in Colchester Borough Council’s response to the consultation, which would subsequently be finalised by means of a Portfolio Holder Report prior to submission to Government.
(ii) That arrangements be made in the new municipal year for a training session on the issue of Community Infrastructure Levy – its benefits or otherwise and an invitation be extended to all councillors to attend.