Agenda item

Draft National Planning Policy Framework

Meeting of Local Plan Working Group, Monday, 3 October 2011 4.30 pm (Item 5.)

National planning policy, in the form of Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and their predecessors the Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG) is extensive. It is proposed that this will be replaced by a single, succinct document the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Consultation on the draft framework began on the 25^th July 2011 and will end on 17^th October 2011. The purpose of this report is to inform Members of the content of the draft framework and ask them to consider a potential response to the consultation from the Council.

Minutes:

Members considered a report that informed them of the content of the Government’s draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). A presentation was given on the proposed planning reforms.

It was noted that consultation on the draft framework had begun on 25 July 2011 and would end on 17 October 2011. Cabinet would be considering the Council’s response on 4 October 2011.

Members noted the draft response to the consultation statement, as detailed in Annex C of the report, and were asked to consider whether or not they wished to recommend to Cabinet that the proposed response be amended prior to its submission to the Department of Communities and Local Government.

Members made the following general comments in respect of the NPPF:

· Whilst accepting that there was a need to make national policy more concise and accessible, concerns were expressed that the proposed simplification of planning law had gone too far.

· There would be an unfair balance in terms of the interests of developers and local communities.

· The use of the term “sustainable development” is not adequately defined.

· Concerns were expressed regarding the non-inclusion of a ‘brownfield first’ target.

· Undesignated assets had not been afforded a sufficient level of protection, for example areas of open green space.

· The framework did not provide sufficient control of advertising.

· It was imperative that transitional arrangements were in place to cover the gap between the new NPPF being in place and the adoption of Local Plans particularly given that PINS have been instructed to begin implementing the NPPF.

· The framework had contradictory elements. Whilst there was recognition of Neighbourhood Plans, there were statements in respect of a presumption in favour of development.

· More needed to be done to ensure that there was an adequate supply of affordable housing.

Members recommended that the issues of Brownfield First and a clearer requirement on affordable housing be specifically reflected within the “General Comments” of the Council’s response to the draft NPPF, and other comments picked up in the appropriate section of the text. It was also requested that the introductory “General” issues section be amended to read “Headline”. They also recommended that the following amendments be made to the wording of the response in Annex C:

Reference	Members’ comments
General comment (iii)	Delete the second sentence. Add text specifically about the importance of transitional arrangements to allow LAs and York in particular to get up to date plans in place.
General comment (iv)	More detail required regarding SPDs playing a key role and usually having a financial impact. This should not be precluded, provided that the financial burdens are taken account of in the overall assessment of the plan’s viability testing.
General comment (v)	Need to be more explicit as to what is being referred to eg local green space.
2(b) para 48	Clarify what is meant by ‘positively prepared’ test of soundness.
5(a)	Recommend that this be amended to read “Disagree”, as there would be more uncertainty for business in terms of interpretation unless issues in respect of the oversimplification were addressed.
6(a)	Recommend that this be amended to read “strongly disagree”. The importance of sequential testing was stressed.
7(a)	Recommend that this be amended to read “strongly disagree”.
8(a)	More detailed comments should be included. The Council should provide a response on this issue as siting of communication infrastructure is a key issue for York.
10(a)	Recommend that this be amended to read “disagree” to reflect concerns raised, including issues in respect of affordable housing and windfalls.
14(g)	Recommend that this be amended to read “strongly disagree”.
15(a)	Recommend that this be amended to read “strongly disagree”.

RESOLVED: That, subject to the amendments detailed above, Cabinet be recommended to approve the response to the consultation.

REASON: So that representation can be made in an appropriate timescale on the NPPF.

Supporting documents: