Conclusions and recommendations
The usual arrangement of listing conclusions and
recommendation in the order they occur in the report has not been
followed. Instead, in order to assist those reading and using
the report, the conclusions and recommendations are grouped into
categories starting with recommended revisions to the NPPF. A
few straddle more than one category and these conclusions and
recommendations have been placed in the first applicable category.
Revisions to the NPPF
1. We
recommend that the Government remove from the NPPF the statement
that the policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute
the Government's view of what sustainable development means in
practice. The definition on page 2 of the NPPF needs to stand
on its own. (Paragraph 13)
2. We recommend that
the Government amend paragraph 118 of the NPPF to state that any
loss of ancient woodland should be "wholly exceptional".
We further recommend that the Government initiate work with Natural
England and the Woodland Trust to establish whether more ancient
woodland could be designated as sites of special scientific interest
and to consider what the barriers to designation might be. (Paragraph
27)
3. We recommend that
the Government amend the NPPF to make clear to local authorities
that they should be looking to reduce the complexity and increase
the accessibility of their local plans. This should be accompanied
by guidance about the key elements plans should contain. We also
consider it incumbent upon planning inspectors to advise local
authorities at an early stage against producing excessively lengthy
plans. (Paragraph 32)
4. We recommend that
the Government amend the NPPF to include a section setting out
the expected responsibilities of developers. (Paragraph 42)
5. We recommend that
the Government strengthen the NPPF to make clear that, as a matter
of good practice, local authorities should review their local
plans regularly to ensure they are up-to-date. We further call
on the Government and the Planning Inspectorate to develop an
expedited process to ensure local authorities can carry out a
light touch review of all aspects of their plans. (Paragraph 43)
6. We recommend that
the Government amend the NPPF to make clear that all sites with
planning permission should be counted towards the five year supply
of housing land. (Paragraph 68)
7. We recommend that
the Government amend paragraph 89 of the NPPF to make clear that
development on sites allocated in an adopted neighbourhood plan,
and which has the approval of the local planning authority, does
not constitute inappropriate development for the purposes of the
green belt. In addition, where neighbourhood plans, ahead of the
local plan, make proposals to change the green belt, local authorities
should have a duty to consider them as part of the local plan
production process. (Paragraph 80)
8. We recommend that
the Government restore to the NPPF the policy on disaggregation,
so that local authorities are required to ask developers for evidence
of flexibility as to whether a proposed retail development can
be broken down into specific parts on separate sites. (Paragraph
85)
9. We recommend that
the Government remove from the NPPF the statement that needs for
retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses should
be met in full in the local plan. It would be more sensible to
say that councils should allocate sites to meet needs over the
first five years, with regular reviews to keep the supply of sites
up-to-date thereafter, taking into account the expectation of
considerable changes in retail habits. Such an approach would
help councils to keep their planning policies up to date with
the rapidly changing dynamics of the retail sector and town centre
environments. (Paragraph 90)
Additional practice guidance
10. We
recommend that the Government take appropriate steps to impress
publicly upon both the Planning Inspectorate and local authorities
the importance of giving equal weight to each of the three dimensions
of sustainable development, as required by the NPPF. Both the
Planning Inspectorate and local authorities, when they make their
decisions on planning applications, should set out clearly how
all three factors have been considered as part of the decision-making
process. (Paragraph 15)
11. We recommend that
the Government issue guidance reminding local authorities and
the Planning Inspectorate of the importance of timely infrastructure
provision to delivering sustainable development. In setting out
the reasons for approving development, decision-makers should
fully explain the consideration they have given to its impact
on infrastructure and explain how and where they expect the infrastructure
to be provided, and to what timetable. (Paragraph 16)
12. We recommend that
the Planning Inspectorate produce a document setting out lessons
learned from the examination of local plans since the launch of
the NPPF. (Paragraph 38)
13. We recommend that
the Government, by March 2015, issue clearer guidance on what
constitutes co-operation. (Paragraph 49)
14. We recommend that
the Government issue guidance making clear that assessments of
site viability should consider not only current prices and costs
but projections of prices and costs over the next five years.
The guidance should state that assessments should be transparent,
that is 'open-book', so that the developers' finances in relation
to the specific site are open to scrutiny, and consider developers'
own projections for future viability. In addition, the Government
should work with local authorities and the house building industry
to agree the wording of new guidance setting out a standard approach
to determining viability. (Paragraph 67)
15. We recommend that
the Government work with local government and the house building
industry to revise its guidance on strategic housing market assessments
and produce an agreed methodology. Inspectors should then be required
to test SHMAs against this methodology. (Paragraph 70)
Consultation and gathering of further information
16. We
recommend that the Government consult on options to allow for
the partial adoption of local plans, if necessary through a change
in statute. In the meantime, the Planning Inspectorate should
do what it can within the existing framework to ensure local authorities
do not find themselves in the frustrating position of having their
plans found unsound-especially if earlier advice from planning
inspectors could have stopped this happening. In particular, inspectors
should give councils as much advice and support as possible during
the early stages of plan production. Moreover, while the action
taken by the inspector in the case of the Dacorum local plan was
determined by local circumstances, nevertheless inspectors should
be encouraged to learn from this example and consider the potential
for innovative and flexible approaches that will enable councils
to get their plans adopted, even if the need for an early review
is identified. (Paragraph 37)
17. We recommend that,
before the end of the parliament, the Government start consultation
on proposals to place a statutory requirement on councils to have
an adopted local plan in place within three years of the legislation
coming into force. At the same time, the Government should consult
on possible penalties for local authorities that fail to comply
with the requirement. One option would be to restrict at the end
of the three year period the payment of the New Homes Bonus to
housing built on sites allocated in an adopted local plan. Once
a statutory requirement is in place, the Government should ensure
that the Planning Inspectorate has sufficient resources so delays
do not occur while councils wait to have their plans examined.
(Paragraph 40)
18. We recommend that,
as part of the consultation on local plans proposed above, the
Government consult on options for incentivising local authorities
to meet the duty to co-operate
and where they fail to co-operate what penalties they may incur.
It should consider whether there are particular
grants that could be linked to co-operation, whilst recognising
that there might be difficulties identifying who in fact was responsible
for the failure to co-operate. (Paragraph 45)
19. We recommend that
the Government examine measures to encourage local authorities
to group together to produce joint core strategies. With the Planning
Inspectorate, the Government should consider drawing councils'
attention to examples of good practice. (Paragraph 47)
20. We recommend that
the Government consult on how the relationship between neighbourhood
plans and local plans could be clarified. The consultation should
include the option that neighbourhood plans should not be adopted
until an adopted local plan is in place. (Paragraph 56)
21. We recommend that
the Government take steps to gather data about the operation of
the sequential test and the extent to which planning policies,
both local and national, are giving sufficient protection to town
centres. We invite the Government to set out the data it has gathered
in its response to our report.
(Paragraph 84)
22. We recommend that
the Government commission research into changing retail dynamics
as they relate to planning policy. It should aim to commission
this research by the end of the parliament, and to publish it
by the end of 2015. We further recommend that the next Government,
by the end of 2015, launch a consultation on how the NPPF should
be amended to bring it up to date with modern retail habits. (Paragraph
88)
23. We recommend that
the Government expand its consultation on land availability data
to cover a set of data that can be used to monitor the overall
effectiveness of the NPPF. It should set out what it sees as the
principal aims of the NPPF, and for each of these aims propose
a small data set to be collected from local authorities and collated
nationally. Once a clear set of data has been agreed upon, it
should be updated annually. (Paragraph 95)
Wider recommendations to the Government and the Planning
Inspectorate
24. We
recommend that the Government revoke its decision to limit to
five the number of planning obligations that can contribute to
a single piece of infrastructure until the proposed 2015 review
of the Community Infrastructure Levy has taken place. In the meantime,
local authorities should have a free choice between the use of
the Community Infrastructure Levy and section 106 agreements for
the funding of infrastructure. (Paragraph 20)
25. The Secretary
of State has the power to recover planning appeals relating to
wind energy projects, and to determine them in accordance with
Government policy. We found no evidence to suggest that he was
doing otherwise. We do, however, consider that he could make decisions
faster, in line with his own expressed views about the importance
of reducing planning delays. Investors will be deterred if wind
energy projects continue to spend upwards of two years in the
planning system. We recommend that the Government take appropriate
steps to speed up the process of taking decisions on recovered
planning appeals. If necessary, it should allocate more resources
to the team supporting the Secretary of State on planning decisions.
(Paragraph 25)
26. We recommend that
the Government place a duty on combined authorities to co-ordinate
the production of a joint core strategy for the area they cover.
(Paragraph 48)
27. It is important
that neighbourhood planning does not become the preserve of the
middle class. We recommend that the Government take steps to promote
and support neighbourhood planning in all areas, particularly
those with significant levels of deprivation. It should ensure
that some of the £23 million funding for neighbourhood planning
is targeted at encouraging take-up and building capacity in more
deprived communities. (Paragraph 51)
28. We recommend that
the Department for Communities and Local Government establish
a fund to enable the remediation of brownfield sites. It should
set out a prospectus for how this fund will operate. (Paragraph
74)
29. We recommend that
the Government revoke the permitted development rights allowing
change from classes A1 and A2 to C3. (Paragraph 92)
Matters for local government
30. Local
authorities should be particularly mindful of the need to support
infrastructure requirements identified in adopted neighbourhood
plans. We strongly encourage parish and town councils and neighbourhood
forums that have an adopted neighbourhood plan to request from
their local planning authorities a share of infrastructure proceeds
from section 106 agreements, where the Community Infrastructure
Levy is not in place. We encourage local planning authorities
to give full consideration to such requests. (Paragraph 19)
31. The NPPF provisions
on the natural environment have an important role to play in ensuring
sustainable development is delivered. Local authorities are missing
an opportunity if they do not set out a clear vision for the biodiversity
of their area. Moreover, if they do not set out clear policies
in respect of the environmental aspects of sustainable development,
it may be harder to resist the economic aspects taking a more
dominant role. We strongly encourage all local authorities to
make the natural environment an important theme in their local
plans. To do so, smaller authorities may need to tap into ecological
skills available elsewhere, be it in other local authorities or
the Planning Advisory Service. (Paragraph 26)
32. For a plan-led
system to work, plans need to be in place. The NPPF cannot be
truly successful until every local authority has an adopted, up-to-date
local plan. Unfortunately, progress in getting local plans adopted
remains far too slow. (Paragraph 28)
33. We understand
the financial pressures councils are under, but we would contend
that planning is a fundamental responsibility of councils and
therefore they should treat planning as a front line service and
not see it as an easy target for spending reductions. In particular,
it is vital to the future sustainability of our villages, towns
and cities, that councils ensure resources are channelled not
only into development control but also into proactive plan making.
We further encourage all councils to put in place strategies and
policies to promote the development of planning skills and to
retain experienced staff. (Paragraph 31)
34. We call on local
government (including parish and town councils), the development
and property industries and the voluntary sector to work together
to produce a new 'planning users' concordat' setting out the respective
responsibilities of each group. (Paragraph 42)
35. We emphasise that
it is vital to the success of the NPPF that all local planning
authorities have in place an adopted, up-to-date local plan. Councils
that fail to produce a plan surrender their ability to influence
the future development of their local areas. Moreover, they leave
their communities exposed to the kind of speculative development
about which we have heard so many concerns. The Government should
take the steps we propose to encourage swift and effective plan
making. We emphasise, however, that the onus to get plans in place
should be squarely on local authorities themselves. Councils without
a plan are letting their communities down.
(Paragraph 57)
36. We encourage all
councils, as part of the local planning process, to review the
size and boundaries of their green belts. They should then make
any necessary adjustments in their local plan. The rigorous requirements
of public consultation, examination by an inspector and adoption
by the council will ensure that any changes have been subject
to thorough consideration. (Paragraph 79)
37. We do not propose
the inclusion in the NPPF of a needs test for development control
purposes. Nevertheless, it is important that local authorities
thoroughly assess and set out the need for retail development
as part of the local planning process.
(Paragraph 86)
38. It is important
that councils, in their local plans, recognise the changing nature
of retail in England. In particular, they should take care not
to preserve primary retail areas that are too large for modern
needs. (Paragraph 89)
General conclusions
39. It
is still early days for the NPPF. Given it represented a major
consolidation of planning policy, it will doubtless take several
years to 'bed in' fully. We have considered the concerns raised
with us about its operation. Many are significant and need to
be tackled, but they point to the need for adjustment, rather
than a complete overhaul of the NPPF. It would be ill-advised
at such an early stage to consider tearing up the document and
starting again. (Paragraph 9)
40. We are supportive
of neighbourhood plans, and commend those communities who have
got, or are working to get, a neighbourhood plan adopted. (Paragraph
50)
41. Nothing could
do more to undermine confidence in neighbourhood planning than
for a view to pervade that neighbourhood plans are being ignored
in planning decisions. (Paragraph 52)
42. Instead of objecting
to policies in neighbourhood plans, house builders and developers
should be working with communities to ensure that development
meets local needs. (Paragraph 53)
43. We welcome the
Government's decision to consult on making land availability data
more accessible. Data about the future availability of land are
not, however, enough on their own. We also need to understand
where development in recent years has taken place. In particular,
the absence of recent data about town centre and out-of-town development
and the proportion of homes built on brownfield land is making
it difficult to assess how successful the Government's policies
have been and how they may need to change. This creates a risk
that the Government will be making future policy decisions 'in
the dark'. (Paragraph 94)
| 
