Agenda item

The Government launched a consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on the 2^nd of August 2024. Four key proposals to note are:

1) a change to the Standard Method for Calculating Housing Need;

2) alterations to national Green Belt policy;

3) proposals to increase planning application fees; and

4) proposed transitional arrangements for Local Plans;

The response has been drafted in the knowledge that the proposed changes are only being consulted on and its publication does not mean that the planning system or the NPPF has changed yet.

·         Councillor Julie Morris proposed an amendment that the 6 month time period listed in the response to Question 103 of the Government consultation, in reference to the potential wording for paragraph 226 of the NPPF, be increased to 1 year;

a. the emerging annual housing requirement83 in a local plan that reaches or has reached Regulation 19 (presubmission stage) on or before [publication date + 1 year 6 months] is no more than 200 dwellings below the published relevant Local Housing Need figure85;

b. the local plan is a Part 2 plan that does not introduce new strategic policies setting the housing requirement unless the relevant Local Plan Part 1 has been prepared applying the policies in this version of the Framework;

c. the local plan is or has been submitted for examination under Regulation 22 on or before [publication date + 1 year 6 months].

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Kieran Persand.

The Committee agreed the proposed amendment (4 for, 2 against, 2 abstaining, and the Chair not voting).

Following consideration, the Committee resolved to;

(6 for, 1 against, 1 abstaining, and the Chair not voting)

(1)      Note the contents of the consultation.

(2)      Approve the draft response (Appendix 1) or;

(3)      Agree amendments and authorise the Head of Place Development in consultation with the Chair of this Committee, to finalise and submit the response.

In the opinion of the Chief Executive and in accordance with the Paragraph 14.2 of Annex 4.6 of the Operating Framework (Overview, Audit and Scrutiny) the decision on this item is considered to be urgent and is not subject to call-in.

The Committee received the draft response to the Government consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The response has been drafted in the knowledge that the proposed changes are only being consulted on and its publication does not mean that the planning system or the NPPF has changed yet.

The following matters were considered:

a)            Tree Applications. A Member of the Committee raised that Tree Applications should be subject to a fee that recovers the Council’s costs, when it applies to Conservation areas and Tree Preservation Orders, and that this is something the Council should push Central Government for. The Member queried if this part of the response could be toughened up to highlight that the Council favours a fee structure that could recover costs fully. The Head of Place Development explained that there is an added financial responsibility already on owners of trees in conservation areas or that have TPOs, so the idea of not charging anything at all is to help with the added costs that other households don’t have to pay, when preparing those tree applications. The Head of Place Development explained that the response detailing that some of the standard rate should be paid, not the full rate, is to recognise the cost to the Council, rather than to impact the affected householder even more.  Another Member of the Committee raised that they also believed higher fees should be in place for Tree Applications, to take into account the time and expertise needed to deal with them.

b)            Standard Method. The Planning Policy Manager informed the Committee that the changes to the Standard Method are part of the Government consultation and the Council’s response strongly states that the Council does not agree with the proposed changes to the Standard Method. A Member of the Committee raised that they believe the local housing need is zero and expressed their disagreement with the housing number calculated by the Standard Method. The Member continued to state that the issue with housing targets and methodology was due to the Conservative Government. Another Member of the Committee responded to state that the Conservative Government got rid of mandatory targets and made them advisory. The Member continued to say that it is not the Conservative Government, but the Residents’ Association led Council who wish to build on the Greenbelt Land. Another Member of the Committee acknowledged the need for the right kind of housing in the borough but raised their concerns with the Standard Method and expressed a view that that the 2018 ONS figures portrayed a fairer picture of what could be achieved and aimed for.

c)            Climate Change. A Member of the Committee raised their disappointment at the lack of thrust towards climate change and renewables in the proposed changes.

d)            Thanks. A Member of the Committee commended the Officers for their work drafting the responses to the Government Consultation.

e)            Housing Need. A Member of the Committee disagreed with previous comments made about the local housing need being zero, and expressed their opinion that currently there is a great need for housing in the borough, and more importantly, affordable housing. The Member continued to express their disappointment and disagreement with the comments regarding the RA wanting to build on Greenbelt Land, and explained that this is not the case, but rather the Council is having to follow the Standard Method, as imposed by Central Government.

f)             Transitional arrangements. The Chair agreed withcomments submitted by the Liberal Democrats group, on the transitional arrangements referenced in question 103. The Chair explained that they also believe the time period proposed by the Government, will not be acceptable and is not realistic, when taking into the account the time it takes to see a Local Plan through to submission. The Planning Policy Manager informed Committee Members that the drafted response suggests that the transitional period be increased to 6 months instead of 1 month. The Planning Policy Manager acknowledged that some Members have expressed that the period should be longer.

·         Councillor Julie Morris proposed an amendment to the response to Question 103 of the Government consultation, in reference to the potential wording for paragraph 226 of the NPPF;

a. the emerging annual housing requirement83 in a local plan that reaches or has reached Regulation 19 (presubmission stage) on or before [publication date + 1 year] is no more than 200 dwellings below the published relevant Local Housing Need figure85;

b. the local plan is a Part 2 plan that does not introduce new strategic policies setting the housing requirement unless the relevant Local Plan Part 1 has been prepared applying the policies in this version of the Framework;

c. the local plan is or has been submitted for examination under Regulation 22 on or before [publication date + 1 year].

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Kieran Persand.

The Committee agreed the proposed amendment (4 for, 2 against, 2 abstaining, and the Chair not voting).

Following consideration, the Committee resolved to;

(6 for, 1 against, 1 abstaining, and the Chair not voting)

(1)      Note the contents of the consultation.

(2)      Approve the draft response (Appendix 1) or;

(3)      Agree amendments and authorise the Head of Place Development in consultation with the Chair of this Committee, to finalise and submit the response.