Planning Reform and the NPPF Development Management workshop Alice Lester May - July

NPPF “The NPPF is a framework for local decision making and it is for councils to make a judgement on its interpretation” Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Planning Minister (20 April 2012)

What has gone: NPPF replaces: 21 PPS/PPGs 9 MPS/MPGs ( minerals) 2 circulars( incl 05/05) 11 chief planning officer letters

That leaves… PPS 10 ( waste) 5 MPGs National and regional aggregates guidance 32 circulars 54 chief planning officer letters

and ●Existing PPG and PPS practice guides ●A range of other best practice documents ●…all subject to review but extant for the time being (so you may want to make sure you have an electronic copy of anything useful!) ●Plus …12 National Infrastructure Policy Statements

plus A new separate policy statement for planning for gypsy and travellers ( replacing circulars 01/06 and 04/07) A new NPPF technical document covering mineral and flood risk issues previously part of MPS/PPS s

And the RSSs Quote from a SoS appeal statement on 20 June callins/pdf/ pdf callins/pdf/ pdf “The Secretary of State considers that the revocation of Regional Strategies has come a step closer following the enactment of the Localism Act on 15 November However, until such time as the Yorkshire and Humber Plan is formally revoked by Order, he has attributed limited weight to the proposed revocation in determining this application”

The NPPF fundamentals Do you plan positively? Are your decisions in line with the 3 dimensions, the 5 positive improvements sought and the 12 core planning principles? Are you making decisions in accordance with NPPF?

3 dimensions : economic, social and environmental. These dimensions are ‘mutually dependent ‘– ‘… to achieve sustainable development economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system..’ (para 8)

5 positive improvements (para 9) easier for jobs to be created net gain for nature better design improving conditions for people to work rest and play widening the choice of high quality homes

12 core principles (para 17) incl. Creative proactive High quality design and amenity Conserve natural and historic assets Reuse brownfield land Mixed use development

What’s in it for developers? Pro-growth: “significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth” (para 19) Pro-housing: –Policies not up to date if cannot demonstrate 5-year supply of deliverable sites (para 47) –LPAs to approve changes from B uses to residential uses (para 51) –Approve alternative uses where no reasonable prospect of allocated employment use (para 22) Positive decision-making, solutions-oriented

What specific policies have changed? Not as much as we might have expected from the draft, but still some significant changes, including: ●Viability ● Housing ● Greenbelt

Housing 5 year land supply plus 5 % or 20% buffer Windfall sites – can be included in calculating housing supply (provided consistent and reliable supply) Affordable Housing definition in glossary a condensed version of that in PPS3 (see Government response to DCLG Select Committee) Conversion to housing from commercial use should normally be approved provided no ‘strong economic reasons’ why not (para 51)

Green belts and green spaces ●Strong political pressure to maintain existing greenbelts (ref footnote 9), and main substance of PPG2 remains ●Gypsies and Travellers sites are now ‘inappropriate’ in the Green Belt (G&T Policy) ●Some more flexibility within greenbelts for infill, replacing/extending buildings and local transport infrastructure, plus ‘Community Right to Build’ schemes ●New local green space designation – same development status as greenbelts

Employment/town centres ●Offices back as part of the town centre test ●LPAs should require applications for town centre uses to be located in town centres ●Sequential test ‘only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered ●Employment sites can be maintained unless there is ‘no reasonable prospect’ of development for that purpose (para 22)

Design and viability ●Quite a strong emphasis on design including reference to design review process ●Much stronger emphasis on viability

S106 obligations NPPF replaces 05/05 You should take into account changes to market conditions over time. Legal test brought in by CIL regs now policy test: - Necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms - Directly related to the development; - and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

We are still in a development plan* led system Unless material considerations indicate otherwise * includes local plans, neighbourhood plans and the London plan, and as defined in section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (Regional strategies remain part of the development plan until they are abolished by order using powers taken in the Localism Act)

The presumption - decision making (para 14 & 197) In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development Approve proposals that accord with the development plan (and quickly) Where the plan is absent, silent or out of date, grant pp unless……..

Unless….. impact would demonstrably and significantly outweigh the benefits when assessed against Framework as a whole specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined (119) UNLESS material considerations indicate otherwise (footnote 10 to para 14)

The NPPF is a material consideration You must consider it when determining an application It needs to be looked at as a whole document

Transitional arrangement ●2004 Act Adopted plans given full weight for one year, as long as only ‘limited conflict’ with NPPF (para 214) ●Saved policies/old adopted plans still the plan, due weight according to degree of consistency with Framework (para 215) ●Emerging plan policies given weight relative to level of objections and conflict with NPPF (para 216)

A degree of conflict Do the policies you are basing your decisions on have a: degree of conflict with the NPPF (as a whole) a limited conflict or do they have more than a limited conflict If they have more than a limited conflict - determine in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development

What does this mean in reality? Determine in accordance with the development plan unless…. Consider your development plan policies first are they in line with NPPF? – yes – fine – no – consider the NPPF policies as a material consideration; –do the NPPF policies indicate a different decision?

What is meant by out of date? Objectively assessed need - If a developer has compelling evidence that there is a need for the development – he will complain that your policy is out of date.

NPPF as a material consideration Guidelines not tramways ( Wakefield MDC ex Pearl Assurance plc [1997]) LPA should observe NPPF “and depart from [it] if there are clear reasons that should be stated” Must be properly understood (subject to Wednesbury irrationality) it is up to LPA to give NPPF policy whatever weight it thinks fit (Tesco Stores Ltd v SoSoE(1995))

Other material considerations Prematurity –scale of development? –stage of plan?

And these Emerging plans (NPPF: para 216) (emerging neighbourhood plans?) Other material considerations Plus Still need to determine applications in accordance with EU requirements and requirements under other acts.

What has changed from a DM perspective? LPAs should : approach decision making in a positive way; Look for solutions rather than problems In considering varying s106 obligations -take account of changes in market conditions -be flexible to prevent development stalling Localism: -Take local circumstances into account -Encourage applicant to engage with local community before submitting their application -refuse permission where application conflicts with neighbourhood plan.

Get involved in the NPPF checklist Are your policies in compliance or not?

How does this affect your current workload? Submitted applications –Addendum reports to show conformity with NPPF –No need for further consultation (case by case) Applications with resolution to grant –Unless material change no need to return to committee –Update reasons confirmed via delegated report Refused Applications on Appeal –Review if based on pre-2004 policies or tension between Local Plan and NPPF principles

Conclusions NPPF – all things to all people Development plan still supreme NPPF is a material consideration, a strong steer but not a straight jacket LPAs must have -Regards to NPPF -Provide clear and cogent reasons for disregarding any NPPF policy -properly understand the policy to avoid challenge -take a positive approach Review current applications against the NPPF

Discussion What approach are you taking? What changes have you had to make? How are you ensuring consistent advice and decision taking? What difference have the reforms made to Members approach? What do you think you should be doing but haven’t?

Useful links ●PAS NPPF self assessment checklist: ●Government Response to DCLG Select Committee Report on NPPF andbuilding/nppfresponse

Contact PAS Web: phone