National Planning Practice Guidance beta test website

Transcription

1 Royal Town Planning Institute 41 Botolph Lane London EC3R 8DL Tel +44 (0) Fax +44(0) Website: Patron HRH The Prince of Wales KG KT PC GCB 14 October 2013 Steve Quartermain Chief Planner DCLG Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Dear Steve National Planning Practice Guidance beta test website The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), a charity whose purposes is to develop the art and science of town planning for the benefit of the public, has over 23,000 members who work in the public, private, voluntary and education sectors. We welcome the opportunity to respond to the consultation on the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) and this letter conveys views on the overall content and useability of the guidance. We are pleased to see feedback contained in our February response to the Taylor Review on guidance being carried through into the NPPG, such as: A single portal for access to up-to-date guidance. The intention for a clear distinction between what is Government planning guidance (which should be followed), separate from good practice (which might be good to follow). Ensuring there is guidance on housing and employment land assessments, duty to cooperate, viability and flooding amongst others. An amnesty for studies or evidence collected previously so that they remain valid for a reasonable period of time. The draft NPPG states local and neighbourhood plans submitted before the finalised guidance is issued may rely on the previous guidance. We would recommend 1

2 some leeway with this general yardstick for planning proposals that are submitted during this time; and for dealing with future changes to guidance or published data sources referenced in the guidance. Our comments on particular areas of the guidance aim to prompt questions to ensure it works effectively in delivering sustainable development. Content of guidance Officials should be congratulated on producing this first cut, reviewing a wide range of guidance documents and summarising together in one place. This is a work in progress with a substantial amount of information stretching over many pages and will only properly be tested once it has been used for a period of time. We welcome the suggestion that it will be maintained and updated but this will require dedicated resource and commitment from Government. We would welcome the opportunity for a structured review in 6 or 12 months time at which point practitioners will have fully digested the guidance suite as a whole, understand how the guidance is working on the ground and be able to report back on where revisions would be valuable. We welcome the provision of guidance on neighbourhood planning and references to data sources for consistency in planning methods for housing and employment. We would recommend Government provides comprehensive data sources on all topics throughout the document and on all topics A number of comments in relation wording and interpretation on particular topics is contained in Appendix A to this letter, including: Further definition of a viability methodology. Clarification over the operation of the Duty to Cooperate as regards which local authorities would be considered within an appropriate catchment, and how the Duty can be satisfied for plans already in the system; and the operation of prematurity guidance. Detail on how updated housing data, projections, typology and affordability considerations should used in a pragmatic way. Consideration of further advice in relation to open space, design, town centres and parking; and existing advice on tourism and rural matters that are difficult to locate. Suggestions in a number of areas for additional advice on model forms, on applying building standards, aligning assessments, and simpler formatting for updating local plans to strengthen the operation of the NPPF outcomes and increase consistency of practice across the system. We consider a forward list and timetable for other areas of planning guidance to complete the review should be published forthwith. We note that guidance 2

3 on renewables and oil and shale gas will be included, but existing guidance on Travellers, waste management, Community Infrastructure Levy, Compulsory Purchase Orders is absent from the website. There is also no guidance on implementing key policy introduced in the NPPF on Garden Cities and new settlements. We would caution against a vacuum in any of these areas and would of course expect the sector to have time to comment on these additions when they are incorporated. Our recently published policy paper Delivering Large Scale Housing: Unlocking Schemes and Sites to Help Meet the UK s Housing Needs specifically recommends that local authorities should take a larger role in land assembly, for example by the use of existing powers of compulsory purchase. They must be empowered to do so, and one step to do this would be DCLG issuing clear guidance encouraging councils where developers are unable or unwilling to work together to deliver sustainable investment. We would again recommend that the DCLG Chief Planner should play the role of broker to ensure guidance from other departments or agencies does not contradict DCLG guidance or place unnecessary process burdens on the system. Confirmation of this role in the final guidance would be welcome. Useability and presentation We very much welcome the online format and style to improve access to planning matters for practitioners and communities, although we would suggest the website is presented in a way that the topics are subdivided into areas that are primarily intended to explain the planning system to the public and those offering more technical guidance to planning professionals and decision makers. Some of our members have suggested that every chapter of the final version would best be arranged related to plan making or decision taking as far as possible to give a comprehensive guide to the full planning process, or paralleling the NPPF s three parts achieving sustainable development, plan making and decision taking. The website does not make clear which documents contained in the annexes to the Taylor review report will be superseded and whether any UK wide documents are affected. We would recommend the creation of a definitive list of cancellations to assist the sector. Practitioners will have found it difficult to review the website without knowing whether some sources of assistance were remaining in place. The lack of meaningful numbering will make quoting in reports and appeals very difficult. We would recommend clear referencing, titles and paragraph numbering. This risks delay and confusion for applicants and appellants and possible difficulties for decision makers in taking the right information into account, and any changes to it. The oil and shale gas guidance issued by Government is an example that the rest of the guidance suite could follow. 3

4 Members have reported it is at times difficult to judge whether you have found everything there is to be found on topic; the design or neighbourhood planning chapters for example. It is also easy to get lost within the website, particularly when navigating between the NPPF and the guidance. We would recommend the number of click throughs is minimised and it is structured in a printable format as well. It would be unfortunate for community groups, not just developers or planning officers, to miss or misunderstand important guidance when not all the relevant text is presented on the same page or in a logical order. A re-structure and having paginated pdfs of each topic would be a way of making the guidance more transparent, strengthen its message and also allow it to be printed in a standard format on the occasions this could be highly beneficial at committee meetings, appeal inquiry or local hearing. As a minimum we would suggest each topic chapter has an improved contents page made up of a series of titles to describe clearly each subsection. Questions and answers per sub-section should be kept to a minimum so that no guidance appears hidden from view. We would therefore recommend that the structure of all sections is flattened as explained by the change log of 13 September with regards to the Before submitting an application section or in similar style to the Flood risk section which is set out in terms of one heading question, and one answer paragraph per webpage. A glossary, adding to the NPPF glossary if viewing online perhaps, and separately available for when the NPPG is in printed form should also be considered. The guidance is diluted in places by phrases and directions referring to best practice by others. We would strongly recommend either the pertinent guidance is summarised and incorporated into the Government version, or it remains silent and no reference is given. There are also anomalies in the links to guidance by other parts of Government. It would be useful for practitioners and the public if a list of all documents referenced in the guidance was listed on the website so it is transparent where planners and developers should look. For example the Natural Environment section links to Natural England, the Open Space chapter to Sport England s website rather than specific documents. Does this mean the whole of these websites are considered planning guidance issued on behalf of the Secretary of State? In line with Government s agenda for streamlining policy and guidance, we believe in the importance of a simple and direct way for the planning profession to access good practice advice. The RTPI therefore offers to continue working with other sector organisations to signpost up-to-date good practice, sign up to transparent and consistent ways of working, and produce joint practical guides on key issues as appropriate. 4

5 The Scotland Executive and the Welsh Government have provided funding for training to help the profession upskill when new guidance has been issued. Will a similar approach be taken for England? If you require further assistance or have any queries or points of clarification in relation to this response, please contact myself on , or Andrew Close on or andrew.close@rtpi.org.uk Yours sincerely Richard Blyth Head of Policy Practice & and Research Royal Town Planning Institute Cc: Jane Everton and Caroline Winter, DCLG 5

6 Appendix: National planning practice guidance RTPI topic responses Area of planning RTPI comment Viability We would re-iterate comments made in earlier responses on the guidance review. We consider it essential that DCLG sets out how it thinks viability of plans and sites is assessed in order to avoid each local plan examination and planning appeal having to adjudicate between methodologies. Referring to a range of sector led guidance on viability methodologies being widely available (ID ) does not do this. Duty to cooperate another (any?) authority to cooperate with if they fail to achieve The guidance appears to suggest that councils should look for agreement with their neighbours (ID ). There could be unintended consequences of additional burdens on travel, movement, schools and other resources if housing to meet the needs of a local population was only actively planned for at some considerable remove. Our view is that cooperation in terms of the local plan exercise needs to run in close alignment with cooperation on economic development, transport and social infrastructure provision. Prematurity Guidance for authorities at different stages of local plan production would also be useful to mitigate the risk of withdrawals of plans, and the knock on delays to sites being allocated for sustainable development. While intending to provide clarity on this issue, the guidance appears to differ from the NPPF policy and DCLG may wish to reference paragraph 216 and the established interpretation by the courts. It is for the decision maker to consider the weight to attach to a material consideration and if an emerging plan or policy is consistent with the NPPF (which the NPPF says they should be) then it could carry weight. Any new interpretation or new wording may well be contested at appeal or judicial review. Whatever approach is adopted in the final guidance, the practice should be consistent between local and neighbourhood plans. 6

7 Housing As part of the data sources quoted, the toolkit set up by the sector would be a useful addition to include in the guidance. We would recommend the guidance considers how often plan makers should make an upward adjustment to housing provision in response to worsening affordability ratios, without prompting ongoing revisions to plans at considerable cost to councils. One answer would be at the next comprehensive plan review usually on a 5 year cycle. The guidance could point to other responses to poor ratios, not just extra housing land release. Our members have also suggested the provision of an index to readily identify where relevant guidance may be found on key topics, particularly those that appear in several different sections or sub-sections. Guidance on the 5 year housing supply straddles at least two sections, Assessing Housing and Economic Development Needs and Assessing Land Availability. We would welcome further clarity around updating of population projections with an option of a cut off point after which local authorities utilise the data available and progress a local plan accordingly. Otherwise decisions on when to submit a plan could be continually deferred by regularly adjusted figures. Any changes to methodology should be trailed sufficiently far in advance for practitioners to make provision in gathering evidence. Some classes of development such as residential institutions (classified as C2 use) for older persons makes a contribution to meeting overall housing need, and we would support counting this type of housing in the calculation of 5 year land supply and housing delivery. The guidance should be amended. Climate change/ housing standards There is no guidance to support the implementation of policy introduced in the NPPF at paragraph 52 on new settlements and Garden City principles. We note that guidance re-iterates the advice to not repeat or duplicate national policy in a local plan. To avoid time consuming revisions of local plans, we would suggest an approach that: Describes any new standards in the context of replaced codes allowing existing local policies that reference old terminology, but ask for comparable improvements, to continue to operate; In the future consider the basic standard operating as a material consideration, not requiring inclusion in plan. Higher standards may require adoption and testing through the plan. 7

8 Environmental assessments/ Climate change Rural matters Local plans & supplementary planning documents (SPDs) Whatever system of standards is introduced we hope this will operate in a way that does not put additional burdens on plan making. In policy topics where much evidence is required such as affordable housing, it remains the case thresholds are revised (downwards) at application stage through negotiations over scheme viability. This could happen with environmental policies without a regulatory approach being in place. Reflecting on some current practical matters with EIA, not just case law, in the guidance as drafted would aid practitioners who deal with environmental assessments on a regular basis and make the assessment process quicker and more effective. Linking consultation requirements and stages to the consultation and pre-decision section could also be useful in this regard. Our members questioned whether guidance on climate change risk assessments is a requirement at the local level. To mitigate the potential additional resource implications for local authorities and developers, we would suggest the guidance considers how this assessment could combine with, and is proportionate in relation to, EIA or SEA processes. The NPPF integrates the rural environment into a series of policy areas but the guidance concentrates only on housing. Matters which are geographically distinct from urban areas such as community provision, agricultural issues and rural business needs seem absent. NPPF paragraph 153 asks each local authority to produce a local plan for its area. DCLG may wish to consider guidance for local authorities presenting policies all in the one place (on document) as far as is practical. This would tackle confusion where communities and developers often need to look in a series of partly superseded documents. The guidance could support councils in reviewing parts of their plan more directly, advising them to use a format that inserts new policies (via a short development plan document) into the same local plan. This practical solution would save time and money in producing and printing the original and revising document and having to read and compare both. Local authorities could also be advised to use their website to provide a comprehensive edited version. The guidance should also be clear that issues that have not been considered in a plan review should not be re-opened at examination, unless fundamental to the plan as a whole. 8

9 We flag whether further consideration could be given as to whether SPDs can be used to introduce new policies (when reading the 2012 local plan regulations) so long as this does not conflict with the development plan. Could the guidance allow local authorities some flexibility to ensure local priorities and the operation of the NPPF is implemented in this way. SPDs can be an asset in taking a proactive approach in areas of change, allowing communities a voice in masterplanning of sites while also providing the developer a framework for quicker decisions on proposals. Time consuming revisions to local plans which adversely affect developers would thus be avoided. The 2012 regulations define what policies are to be part of the development plan as a safeguard. There seems to be inconsistency regarding the way the NPPF expects the presumption in favour to be reflected in local plans (via a model policy suggested by the Planning Inspectorate) whereas the guidance states the general rule that national policies should not be repeated or re-iterated. Retaining this rule of non-duplication of policy would make plans clearer in our view. Neighbourhood planning Town centres & parking (incl. travel plans) Members consider that this section has a complex series of links. Navigation would be improved by separating the guidance into more sub-sections in the contents page, and reduce the need for click throughs. Our members have suggested guidance on producing a retail strategy could also consider whether to include the impact of internet sales. The guidance does not seem to clarify where a locally set impact assessment threshold (below the figures stated in the NPPF) should be set out. We would suggest, based on the findings of a retail study, adoption as part of an SPD should be sufficient. Design We would recommend a balance is struck between guidance promoting additional car spaces with well planned town centres that attract users on all modes, and the importance of good urban design. High streets function for shoppers, visitors and businesses - as places to meet, socialise and do business - as well as being transport corridors. We would also recommend that guidance on travel plans and car parking recognises a balanced approach to attain the wider sustainable outcomes (on which the guidance is based), such as reducing traffic impacts and greenhouse gases. This chapter would benefit from further editing, with 3 sections and then a series of questions underneath from which further terminology can only be found with further click throughs. It would be a shame that diagrams and visuals which has been highly useful in conveying guidance in the past (i.e. the Government endorsed publication By Design ) will be lost in this 9

10 updated version. We would suggest a pruning of jargon and/or the provision of an illustrated glossary to assist private and public sector practitioners when negotiating proposals between themselves and discussing proposals with local residents. Or will By Design be retained? Landscape and open space Tourism matters Guidance on what is poor design, which NPPF para 64 states should be refused, and guidance on what good design can mitigate energy efficient buildings or infrastructure that is not compatible (visually?) with its surroundings, as stated in NPPF para 65, is missing from the beta version. This are areas which will generate much debate, and potential delay and frustration, to the public, applicants and practitioners. References to landscape character assessments should be complemented by the equivalent consideration of townscape character assessments. This would warrant a link to the design section. Our members also flagged up the Defra guide to valuing ecosystems services, and whether this is considered guidance. We would urge DCLG to discuss with other government departments what aspects of guidance are clearly incorporated into the final version, and what is not, and therefore not required planning guidance. We would recommend a methodology or further guidance should be included on how to assess open space needs. The guidance focuses on sport and recreation only (ID ). Helpful typologies and definitions from current guidance, such as the PPG17 companion guide, which provide a structure for local plans and a sound basis for discussions on planning proposals will be lost. The guidance states in ID 2b : Local planning authorities may also want to consider guidance and best practice produced by the tourism sector. What documents are endorsed? This runs counter to the approach adopted for the rest of this review, and we would recommend statements within these documents should be included into the website or left out and not considered Government guidance. Confusingly at this point, the guidance also states councils should have regard to non-planning guidance from other government departments? Our members queried what becomes of the existing Government good practice guide; advice on clarifying the sequential approach (especially when dealing with roadside and rural hotels), staff accommodation at holiday parks, and seasonal holiday use which would be useful aspects to consider re-instating. 10

11 Model forms: conditions, prior approvals etc Technical points with the workings of the website The production of an up-to-date national set of conditions will be useful for planners and applicants to ensure clear and appropriate use. The guidance also contained model enforcement forms. Similarly the Planning Inspectorate provides a model presumption in favour policy, although the guidance advises national policies do not need to be repeated or reiterated. We would suggest DCLG investigates offering model forms for other part of the system in the interests of consistency of process and speed of decisions (ID ): Tables 2 and 3 are not listed in the Consultation chapter contents. This important information should be easily signposted. (ID ): Clicking on the link to find out what Prior Approval means, redirects the user to ID : Is planning permission required to rent out a private residential parking space? (ID 18a ): A glossary or further editing is suggested to ensure clarity for the various audiences as neither local list or Outstanding universal value are defined in the historic environment section (ID ): This paragraph should be moved into the heading on design review, to make more sense earlier in the text. (ID ) Move to help introduce the section on design codes, to make more sense earlier in the text. (ID ) The link on the word consultation has been mis-labelled. It refers to the consultation on national building standards, but instead takes the reader through to the NPPG consultation and pre-decision matters page. 11