HC 1526 Communities and Local Government CommitteeWritten evidence from the Local Government Group (LG Group)
1. Introduction
1.1 The Local Government Group (LG Group) is here to support, promote and improve local government. We will fight local government’s corner and support councils through challenging times by making the case for greater devolution, helping councils tackle their challenges and assisting them to deliver better value for money services. www.local.qov.uk
1.2 This written evidence submission has been agreed by the LG Group’s Environment and Housing Programme Board. The Environment and Housing Programme Board has responsibility for LG Group activity in the area of the sustainability of the environment, including issues of planning, waste and housing.
2. Summary
2.1 The LG Group has long argued for reform of national planning policy guidance and a radical reduction to the volume, complexity and prescription of the current system.
2.2 We applaud central government for simplifying, removing prescription and making planning more locally responsive.
2.3 We welcome the National Planning Policy Framework’s (NPPF) focus away from centralised guidance onto clear, up-to-date and well-evidenced local plans developed by Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), that respond positively to opportunities for sustainable growth, wealth generation and employment.
2.4 Local plans are the only valid way to deal with the risks and opportunities ahead. They are crucial to ensuring people are engaged and consulted on the future of their communities and therefore to gaining support and acceptance of development locally.
2.5 We support the emphasis placed on LPAs collaborating with each other, and with other public bodies including county councils and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), to understand and plan for the wider economic and housing market areas of which they are a part.
2.6 The LG Group is very clear that the final NPPF should replace all existing national planning guidance, as far as possible. Government should make clear what, if any other statutory guidance is required or intended to sit under the final framework. Where there is strong consensus around the need for some common approach amongst stakeholders, then we believe the appropriate sector groups working together can help decide what appropriate “guidance” is.
2.7 In terms of planning for growth, Local authorities also share the ambition of delivering high-quality new housing and development for their areas. It is clear that the top down regionally imposed targets have failed to deliver. To deliver new development it is essential that the funding for infrastructure and consideration of the wider social, economic outcomes are identified and secured. This will only happen if LPAs have sufficient local leverage.
2.8 We are concerned that the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) are not given equal weight throughout the remainder of the draft and overall the framework is undermined by heavy weighting towards the financial viability of new development.
2.9 The final NPPF must ensure that the three pillars of sustainable development as set out at the beginning of the draft (paragraph 11) are equally balanced throughout the whole document so that councils can achieve environmental and social benefits for their communities as well as economic outcomes.
2.10 The LG Group is keen to ensure that the final drafting of the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” (“the Presumption”) and “viability” sections gives better protection for local discretion by local decision makers.
2.11 At present the drafting of “the presumption” is undermined by heavy weighting towards ensuring that new development is financially viable. There is less recognition throughout the draft that to ensure such development is sustainable, sometimes additional costs will have to be borne by the development. It is essential that only true sustainability is approved, and the final NPPF needs to make clear that sustainability must always trump the need to reduce costs to ensure viability, not the other way round.
2.12 The core planning principles in final framework should also include an explicit and unequivocal reference to localism and the discretion this gives to local communities. The purpose being to encourage the delivery of developments that satisfy local as well as national needs, and control the effects of development that work against those needs and wants.
2.13 Coupled with this, there is often a widespread desire for local communities to have more of a say on the sustainability of their shopping parades, district town centres and high streets. The vitality of these places depends on local areas having access to the necessary tools to shape their locality in a way that reflect local needs and priorities. Reform to the planning policy landscape must better allow this.
2.14 Finally, it is clearly vitally important that councils have a realistic chance of getting up-to-date plans in place before “the presumption” comes into force. The process and timescales for having plans approved or certified in conformity with the NPPF must be simple and streamlined. The final framework must ensure there is space for localism and innovation.
2.15 The LG Group is working closely with the Coalition Government ministers and officials and key stakeholders to ensure this NPPF genuinely promotes local choice and flexibility.
3. Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others, including investors and developers?
3.1 The LG Group has supported the production of a clear and concise framework that boils over 2,500 pages of planning policy, circulars, guidance notes and statements, into less than 60 efficient and concise pages.
3.2 We believe a simple national core framework offers many advantage to individuals, neighbourhoods, LPAs and developers, in terms of better transparency and comprehension.
3.3 The draft document’s brevity and lack of detailed guidance has alarmed some commentators, however the LG Group has welcomed the focus away from centralised guidance onto Local Plans developed by LPAs.
3.4 We also welcome the emphasis placed on LPAs collaborating with each other, and with other public bodies, including county councils and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to understand and plan for the wider economic and housing market areas which they are part of.
3.5 There is clearly a case for an effective policy framework to be put into place to deliver high quality development (and associated infrastructure) in the right location, at the right time, to meet local demand. However, the final drafting of the section “on significantly increasing supply of housing” will need to be clearer, in order to deliver on this. For example, the wording of paragraph 109 in particular “additional allowance of at least 20%”, has caused some concern amongst our membership particularly those with recently adopted plans, as this could potentially render current local authority projections out of date. There must be a clear and transparent sequence on exactly when and how this additional allowance comes into play.
3.6 We believe that where there is strong and specific consensus around the need for common approach amongst stakeholders, then appropriate sector groups working together should define and lead any “guidance” on that approach. The LG Group is already involved in various working groups on common approaches and sector assistance.
3.7 To respond to this of supporting viable growth and high standards in home building, the LG Group, Planning Officers Society (POS) and House Builders Federation (HBF) have collaborated on the Local Housing Standards and Delivery Group (LHSDG). This group will seek to establish a voluntary framework to help local authorities to fulfil their obligations under the new NPPF and to simplify housing standards where possible. The work streams will draw on the experience of a mix of organisations from public and private sector.
3.8 Councils will also be required to consider gypsy and traveller site provision in drawing up their local plans. The LG Group and Planning Advisory Service (PAS) are developing a support programme aimed at helping councils find locally acceptable approaches to this.
3.9 The final aim of each these programmes is to look for particular collaborative approaches and/or methodologies that could be acknowledged (but not explicitly insisted on) by central government as good practice because of the way it has been produced. To successfully take this agenda forward it is essential that central government clarifies:
(i)
(ii)
4. Does the NPPF give local communities sufficient power over the planning decisions?
4.1 In terms of sufficient local power over planning decisions, the LG Group would register concern in two key areas:
(i)
(ii)
4.2 Understanding “sustainable development”
4.2.1 As a sensible starting point, we are pleased to see the definition of sustainable development within the draft NPPF, based on definition within Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1), which itself is based on the internationally accepted Bruntland Commission definition.
4.2.2 With the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and additional requirements of the Planning Act 2008, this has developed into sustainable development that recognises that economic growth, social welfare and environmental issues are linked and must be addressed together.
4.2.3 LPAs have vast experience of embedding such principles into their own plan-making. Tools such as the Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) help LPAs gauge the likely environmental, social and economic impacts of particular proposals. This process is integral to local authority plan-making and remains an important part of the local plan evidence base.
4.2.4 In terms of planning for growth, we would expect local authorities to be very positive about well-conceived development that bring employment and growth opportunities and only exceptionally would raise any objection. We also recognise that the imperative to get the economy on its feet and it is important that planning responds positively to growth opportunities.
4.2.5 The final NPPF must ensure that the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) as drafted at the beginning of the draft (paragraph 11) are equally balanced throughout the whole document so that councils can achieve environmental and social benefits for their communities as well as economic outcomes.
4.2.6 LPAs must retain reasonable leverage to make decisions and secure multiple benefits based on locally determined sustainable development priorities. This is important to the long term success and sustainability of places and to making development acceptable to local communities.
4.3 Understanding “the presumption”
4.3.1 At least as important as defining sustainable development is understanding what is meant by “the presumption”.
4.3.2 The draft expects each local plan to reflect “the presumption” (paragraph 110), however a binding presumption which does not give room for local discretion by local decision makers, does not sit comfortably with localism.
4.3.3 What central government must not do, is set “the presumption” in such a way that it enables developer to argue that their proposals should go through even if they are not compliant with the local plan; or objectors to challenge proposals which are.
4.3.4 Our support for the principle for “the presumption” in the draft NPPF is therefore qualified by three important caveats:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
4.3.5 This is important to the long term success and sustainability of places and to making development acceptable to local communities.
4.4 Understanding “viability”
4.4.1 Another area for concern is around the wording of the viability sections. Taking paragraphs 39 and 70 together, the current definition appears to solely address the question of whether development is viable for the developer.
4.4.2 We believe that this would be self-defeating. It is right therefore LPAs retain reasonable leverage to secure realistic contributions from developers to fund infrastructure and deliver the benefits need to make a scheme viable for the local community. Moreover, especially in circumstances where only a limited supply of land for development is available, LPAs will need to ensure an appropriate level of affordable housing is included in development.
4.4.3 Furthermore, failing to properly address issues such as carbon reduction, the resilience of new development to extreme weather, overstressed infrastructure or the ability to reflect the needs of specific community groups (eg homeless, Black Minority Ethnic, first-time buyers, people with disabilities, older people, gypsy and traveller, key workers etc) will simply impose wider costs on society. The final NPPF should not provide a means for developers to avoid reasonable contributions to addressing these issues.
4.4.4 We call for a shift of emphasis in the final framework, where if technical feasibility and “acceptable returns” are genuine obstacles, then the onus should be on the development applicant to provide evidence in a form that can be tested by the LPA. The key point is that the sustainability of new development should not be subject to being “negotiated away”. In this sense viability must work both ways.
5. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed?
5.1 It is important for the NPPF to establish certain principles and to address key topics from the national perspective, and we therefore support the inclusion of the core planning principles.
5.2 The real test is whether or not the document as a whole sufficiently enables LPAs to incorporate these principles into their local plan and decisions, whilst also reflecting local circumstances, needs and priorities.
5.3 As highlighted earlier, the LG Group is keen to ensure that the final drafting of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and viability sections gives better protection for local discretion by local decision makers.
5.4 Without explicit safeguards within the document, this runs the risk of rendering many of the principles unworkable in practice. The core planning principles in final framework should include an explicit and unequivocal reference to localism and the discretion this gives to local communities. The purpose being to encourage the delivery of developments that satisfy local as well as national needs, and control the effects of development that work against those needs and wants.
6. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments?
6.1 We would not expect the NPPF to contain spatial guidance, but would instead support the National Policy Statements (NPS) remaining in place for linear and non-linear national infrastructure.
6.2 We expect the final NPPF to adequately explain the relationship to the planning system of the various NPS on major infrastructure. This would also state that local plans would need to take full account of those NPS where relevant.
7. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning?
7.1 The “duty to cooperate” mooted in the Localism Bill is given a very strong emphasis in the draft NPPF.
7.2 The LG Group acknowledges that some issues—waste, energy, infrastructure, housing, flooding—are just too big to be dealt with one authority. We therefore support the emphasis placed on LPAs collaborating, with each other, and with other public bodies including county councils and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), to understand and plan for the wider economic and housing market areas of which they are a part.
7.3 However we do not believe that government needs to prescribe in national legislation or guidance the exact processes to be adopted by Local Planning Authorities, beyond these broader outcome-based principles.
7.4 We are aware that some local authorities and the Planning Officers Society (POS) would prefer stronger requirements, but this is not the corporate view of the LG Group.
7.5 There are numerous examples of councils working together across areas to plan for strategic priorities. For example Shared commissioning of an evidence base, cross-boundary strategic housing market assessments (SHMA), aligned core strategies, Joint core strategies, Joint planning unit (JPUs), Planning Committee for example and combined waste plans.
7.6 The LG Group is working with councillors and senior officers through our Leadership Academies and other mechanisms to encourage authorities to cooperate in a manner that works locally and develop strategic plans that provide clarity and certainty for investment.
7.7 LG Group are delivering a series of regional events for councillors elected in 2011, centred on the Localism agenda. This is part of the LG Group’s core offer to councils on member development, in partnership with the regional employers’ organisations and regional local government organisations.
7.8 The LG Group is already involved in various working groups on common approaches and sector assistance!
7.9 We believe that where there is strong and specific consensus around the need for common approach amongst stakeholders, then appropriate sector groups working together should define and lead any “guidance” on that approach.
7.10 For example, the LG Group, Planning Advisory Service (PAS), together with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA). CIPFA have developed a no-profit, no-cross subsidy model of planning fee calculation will allow local authorities to share information and bench mark to drive performance standards.
8. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based?
8.1 Much of what is contained in the NPPF is based on current (but more concisely expressed) national planning policy. Looked at this way, perhaps the most important outcome is whether or not the document as a whole sufficiently enables LPAs to incorporate these principles into their local plan and decisions, whilst also reflecting local circumstances, needs and priorities.
8.2 As highlighted earlier, the LG Group is keen to ensure that the final drafting of “the presumption” in favour of sustainable development and viability gives better protection for local discretion by local decision makers.
8.3 This is why the LG Group has stressed it is vitally important that councils have a realistic chance of getting up-to-date plans in place before “the presumption” comes into force. The process and timescales for having plans approved or certified in conformity with the NPPF must be simple and streamlined.
Other Areas
9. Promoting the vitality and viability of town centres
9.1 The draft NPPF requires local planning policies to be positive and promote competitive town centre environment (paragraph 76) and retains the sequential test for retail and leisure use.
9.2 LG Group are keen to ensure that that the final framework taken as a whole does not water that down that LPAs discretion on this issue, as this could lead to an increase in stand-alone retail developments at the expense of our shopping parades high streets and district town centres.
9.3 Various local authorities have highlighted the problem of over saturation of a particular kind of store in their locality, and have specifically cited the limited tools available to shape their area in accordance with the wishes of local people. This can hamper the High Streets’ offer, creating clone towns with reduced capacity to compete with out-of-town shopping centres and supermarkets that are increasing the array of products they offer.
9.4 Liverpool, Hackney, Oxford City and Islington Councils all submitted proposals under the Sustainable Communities Act
9.5 Local authorities need greater powers to develop competitive High Street economies offering a mix of popular brands and independent stores in a way that reflects local need. A key localist principle is that local areas should have the tools available to shape their locality to reflect needs and priorities of residents and businesses.
9.6 The LG Group and the Planning Officers Society (POS) have proposed that the government could support councils to respond to local concerns through amendments to existing tools to make them more usable and through the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework. Specifically, we propose that the government should seek to enact change through the following mechanisms:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
10. Transition
10.1 The draft gives a strong hints that LPAs may be at risk if their local plan is not in conformity with the NPPF and suggests that local authorities may wish to seek a certificate of conformity with NPPF (paragraph 26).
10.2 The LG Group strongly believe transition arrangements should be viewed in the context of allowing LPAs a reasonable chance to get a plan in place or revise existing plans to bring them up-to-date. Creating a whole new tier of inspection bureaucracy that bottlenecks delivery is counter-productive for everyone.
10.3 We are concerned that many local authorities will be under extreme pressure to have local plans in place, and this in turn will place major burdens on Planning Inspectorate (PINs) at a time when the system will be being “tested” by developers and also under pressure to deliver on the “Planning Guarantee”.
10.4 There are many ways this could develop. For example:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
10.5 In any scenario, we must ensure the future transition is simple and straightforward, it should not mean having to slow down or start again. The LG Group is working with key partners on developing some practical and proportionate solutions on how to achieve this.
October 2011