Everyday for the next 38 days we will be providing a link to our responses to the Government's Housing White Paper; here is our reply to Question 1...
Do you agree with the proposals to:
a) Make clear in the National Planning Policy Framework that the key strategic policies that each local planning authority should maintain are those set out currently at paragraph 156 of the Framework, with an additional requirement to plan for the allocations needed to deliver the area’s housing requirement.
RCA Regeneration support the principle that the strategic policies detailed within paragraph 156 of the Framework should be set out within development plan documents. Furthermore, we are supportive of the principle of requiring Local Planning Authorities to allocate sites needed to deliver their housing requirement.
However, there is a fundamental concern with such an approach that is linked to paragraph 157 of the Framework. This paragraph requires local planning authorities to draw up a plan over an appropriate time scale “…preferably a 15-year time horizon”. From the outset of the plan, a 15-year time horizon is satisfactory. However, during that period, it may be the case that new evidence becomes available that should supersede the previous evidence base to the adopted plan. An example of such evidence is associated with housing need and household projections. Household projections are notoriously difficult to accurately predict over the longer-term. This is because there are a high number of variables involved in the process. During the lifetime of a plan, updated evidence may demonstrate that housing need in a locality has increased or decreased following local and national changes in the economy, migration, affordability and population demographic changes (to name a few).
In order to ensure that plans are responsive to changes in the evidence base, paragraph 156 (or 157 as per the concern in the paragraph below) should introduce a mandatory review period for plans. This will ensure that plans are continually up-to-date.
Without the above review mechanism, local plans run the real risk of being out-of-date during their plan period. It is recognised that the Framework references the need for plans to “be kept up to date”. However, without a specific timeframe for any review, there is no certainty that local plans will adequately reflect housing needs. This approach will also assist in planning the longer term work programme for policy teams allowing them to become more resilient and perhaps better resourced.
Alongside introducing the requirement to allocate sites to meet housing needs, it is also considered necessary to allocate ‘reserve sites’ to provide adequate flexibility. Reserve sites are considered necessary for two reasons. Firstly, allocations within local plans are made on the best available information at that time. However, further investigation at application may identify that the site is undeliverable or that the anticipated quantum of deliverable development cannot be achieved. An appropriate level of reserve sites would allow for this shortfall to be met in a timely manner. This could shorten the time needed to search for new sites with a ‘reservoir’ of tested sites subject to a ‘development restraint policy’.
It is also partly considered that reserve sites are necessary where a local plan’s housing delivery strategy is dependent on windfall sites. The quantum of housing deliverable from reserve sites should mirror the scale of anticipated growth from windfall sites. This will provide greater flexibility during (for instance) periods of structural economic change.
b) Use regulations to allows Spatial Development Strategies to allocate strategic sites, where these strategies require unanimous agreement of the members of the combined authority?
While the rationale behind Spatial Development Strategies is noted, there remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding such documents. As such, clarification is required on a number of matters.
First of all, it is uncertain as to whether such documents would form part of the statutory development plan; and therefore be afforded the requisite weight under s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in the determination of planning applications and appeals.
We consider that an effective Spatial Development Strategy must form part of the statutory development plan. If it were merely a material consideration, then the relevant local authorities would not be duty bound to follow such policy. If such documents were merely material considerations in the planning process then this would be a sizeable missed opportunity to ensure that appropriate levels of housing is delivered.
Importantly, clarification is required over what happens if there is not unanimous agreement between all members of combined authority (because currently a ‘duty to cooperate in not a ‘duty to agree’). An example of this is with the West Midlands combined authority. Birmingham City Council is currently unable to meet its substantial housing needs within its own administrative boundary. For logical and robust planning reasons, a significant proportion of the unmet housing need must be delivered in neighbouring authorities. However, largely for political reasons, the neighbouring authorities do not unanimously support this approach. The White Paper is silent on what the happens in such a scenario which is extremely unhelpful.
To overcome the above, Spatial Development Strategies should be advanced if there is majority support within the Combined Authority to do so. At this stage, the Spatial Development Strategy should proceed to independent Examination in Public; headed by a Senior Planning Inspector as is customary with a development plan.
To ensure that Spatial Development Strategies are appropriate, their scope should be limited to strategic matters that are not limited to arbitrarily drawn administrative boundaries namely issues around housing, employment and infrastructure. Issues relating to retail, leisure, green infrastructure and community facilities should be dealt with at the local level. The reason for this is that such types of development are largely dependent upon the agreed housing figures from the Spatial Development Strategy. In contrast, housing, employment and infrastructure provision are cross-boundary issues insofar as people travel to different areas in order to access employment opportunities. Focusing Spatial Development Strategies on strategic multi-authority issues will ensure that their production is not unduly time-consuming.
Speaking of which, timing is also a critical issue. In the West Midlands, a number of local planning authorities have adopted Local Plans / Core Strategies in place. However, should the West Midlands Combined Authority adopted a Spatial Development Strategy in the future, it may require neighbouring local planning authorities to revisit their adopted plans. As such, upon adoption of the Spatial Development Strategy, all local plan authorities within the combined authority must undertake a review of their plan. The reviews must incorporate the requirements and outputs arising from the Spatial Development Strategy. Currently, a number of adopted development plans merely state that a review of the plan will be undertaken in the future. However, no timeframes or indicators are contained within the documents. If the West Midlands Spatial Development Strategy identifies that various local planning authorities must meet unmet housing needs from elsewhere then there must be a mechanism for ensuring that these needs get met. As things stand, there is no requirement for this to happen. Instead, it would require examination during the application and, most likely, appeal process.
This above issue illustrates and reinforces our point regarding a mandatory review process for development plans.
c) Revise the National Planning Policy Framework to tighten the definition of what evidence is required to support a ‘sound’ plan.
We do not support this change of wording to the Framework. This question is understood to focus on allowing Councils to promote ‘an’ appropriate strategy rather than ‘the most’ appropriate strategy (as currently required by paragraph 182 of the Framework). It is very easy for a local planning authority to contend that their plan is based on ‘an’ appropriate strategy. For example, a rural authority may contend that having no new homes over the plan period is ‘an’ appropriate strategy insofar as it will ensure no loss of green fields on the edge of settlements. While this is an extreme example, it would clearly not be ‘the most’ appropriate strategy.
The importance of securing ‘the most’ appropriate strategy ensures that the plan maximises its contribution to the achievement of sustainable development; which itself is the fundamental requirement of the planning system. Merely accepting ‘an’ appropriate would fail to achieve the fullest contribution to sustainable development, resulting in plans that do very little for those in housing need, employment generation or the coordination of community benefits.
The methodology for achieving ‘the most’ appropriate strategy is straightforward; albeit one that is repeatedly overlooked. It is the role of the Sustainability Appraisal to detail the key objectives and associated appraisal questions. Once these objectives and appraisal questions are fixed (after appropriate consultation), it is a relatively straightforward process to assess what is ‘the most’ appropriate strategy. If greater weight is given to Sustainability Appraisals in the plan making function (as well as at Examination stage), then this ensures that the ‘most appropriate’ strategy is ultimately adopted. Correct processes are already in place to ensure this. As such, in our view, it is not necessary to amend or alter the wording of the Framework.
Furthermore, paragraph 182 requires ‘the most’ appropriate strategy against reasonable alternatives. As such, if the Sustainability Appraisal process indicates that a strategy is not reasonable then it does not need to be considered further.
Alongside the above, the overall approach is assessing ‘soundness’ of plans is well-understood in the planning system. While paragraph 182 of the Framework details the most recent policies concerning soundness, they closely mirror those contained within Planning Policy Statement 12 (2008). The improvements to testing ‘soundness’ introduced by PPS12 and carried forward in the Framework have led to a more efficient and effective process. The process ensures that interested parties are adequately represented throughout the plan-making process. To alter this would create risks. Firstly, if there is risk about inadequate representation or a ‘dumbing down’ of work required to assess soundness then question marks arise over compliance with the Aarhus Convention. As this Convention is separate to the membership of the European Union, it is unaffected by ‘Brexit’. Secondly, alterations to the tests of soundness run the risk of creating uncertainty by amending a well-understood practice. Increased uncertainty is not conducive for business planning and, parties feel aggrieved through a perceived lack of involvement, this can lead to increased legal challenge.
Based on the above we do not support the idea of revising the Framework to amend any aspect of the ‘soundness’ process.