North Yorkshire Council Planning Consultation Response Council Response to be provided in the consultation format

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

 

Question / Statement

North Yorkshire Council’s Response to the Consultation

Chapter 3 – Planning for the homes we need

 

Question 1: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made to paragraph 61?

Para 61 currently reads “The outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting-point for establishing a housing requirement”

 

The proposal to make it a mandatory starting point would provide some degree of clarity to local planning authorities around what the local housing requirement is. The standard Method was introduced to provide a baseline from which to establishing the plan’s housing requirement, and to reduce one the most protracted parts of local plan production.

 

We support the principle of mandatory targets, but they need to be evidence led.

 

But the reality is that, as the consultation already identifies, there are some significant constraints which will need to be factored in, in terms where new development can be located if plans are to satisfy other aspects of the NPPF and statutory requirements and duties around biodiversity, heritage and landscape. If they are unable to be factored in then this presents challenges at formal stages such as Habitats Regulations Assessment.

 

Having the LHN as set out in the standard method should be the starting point, but if robustly evidenced (and perhaps such evidence sources could be identified) that the figure needs to be lowered this should be made possible. Also in treating the outcome of the Standard Method as a starting point, if other authorities wish to exceed it then that is clearly within their ability to do so. Treating the housing need on a top-down basis, without the ability of being able to factor in local context and delivery is likely to be undeliverable and counter-productive.

 

We understand the need to make all efforts to allocate land in line with housing needs, and we are a pro-growth council, but it is equally about where is it best to locate that development in regards to complementing existing settlements, aligning growth with infrastructure and the roles of places within a local plan area and whether there is a functional economic relationship to larger settlements.

Question 2: Do you agree that we should remove reference to the use of alternative approaches to assessing housing need in paragraph 61 and the glossary of the NPPF?

Utilisation of a standard methodology to derive a baseline housing requirement is welcomed in principle as it has reduced the debates during EiP and at appeals regarding what the OAN should be.

 

If set at an appropriate level it also allows authorities to factor in additional drivers which allow the Plan Housing Requirement to meet those wider aspirations.

 

But it is a blunt tool which does not factor in local context and in the case of North Yorkshire creates a housing target which is unprecedented and we believe, based on evidence of completion rates, that is not deliverable, when using the proposed methodology in the consultation. We have been, and will continue to be, pro-growth.

 

Whilst not necessarily setting alternative approaches to the methodology- the methodology itself should be so designed to take into account some key constraints and allow Local Planning Authorities to justify with evidence why the LHN derived from the Standard Method is not achievable.

 

We have been given sight of the North York Moors National Park’s response to the consultation in which they partially agree and state that “Some areas will not be able to meet the full figure, and it would be clearer for national policy to set out the circumstances where a departure is justified. We would suggest:

“To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance. In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for. Where lower numbers in plans are set out these should be clearly justified by evidence on the nature of local constraints which will prevent delivery of that number, including National Parks, protected habitats and flood risk areas.”

 

We agree with this approach, but would also go further that the resulting figure, whilst taking into account key restraints is also being able to factor in those socio-economic drivers and result in a plan figure that is both deliverable- promotes growth in a sustainable way- and is able to respond to local key environmental constraints. This is discussed in more detail in question 19.

 

Question 3: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on the urban uplift by deleting paragraph 62?

Yes, we agree that paragraph 62 should be deleted in principle, but it is whether or not some form of urban uplift should still be considered or factored in.

 

The removal of the specific urban uplift has only impacted on the 20 largest authorities.  This is a concern if there is infrastructure needed to support that growth is not capable of being delivered.

 

We think that larger cities are the most sustainable locations and principal drivers for growth, rural areas and towns and villages are also able to support sustainable growth but at a different scale (including new settlements).

 

We feel that growth should be better shared to respond to those key principles- we are currently taking a significant proportion of the former urban uplift.

 

Question 4: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on character and density and delete paragraph 130?

No objections to the removal of this paragraph on the proviso that there is a recognition of the need to maximise efficient use of land and that an uplift in density is more focused on urban areas, but that it is done so in a way which is complementary to build character. Also, that the density is a consciously planned approach to the housing mix and layout to ensure that the resulting density still provides quality homes with high liveability, with national space standards, living space commensurate to occupancy, and wider amenity is fully considered around public and private spaces, and that it ultimately helps to contribute to healthy living environments.

 

Even if para.130 is deleted, reference to the character of urban areas would be useful when devising density standards

Question 5: Do you agree that the focus of design codes should move towards supporting spatial visions in local plans and areas that provide the greatest opportunities for change such as greater density, in particular the development of large new communities?

Yes, the ability to focus on design considerations where development is focused is welcomed. It allows the ability to look at context, local distinctiveness and place-shaping by looking at the wider design and layout considerations and factoring in how places are to be accessed, used, and the wider community, green and blue infrastructure which may be needed to support that development.

 

Design codes at district level are also useful, but they should also not be too detailed/prescriptive. More detail can be provided in areas of identified growth, but the codes provide a useful tool on unexpected windfall and smaller sites in other areas. 

Question 6: Do you agree that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be amended as proposed?

Yes, we agree in principle. It will be helpful to support quality place-making in a time of transition before our new plan is adopted. We welcome the clarification that if the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged that it is only on the basis of land supply, and that other polices in the local plan would continue to have full weight. 

 

But we would seek further clarification on policies around supply is it just the numbers or - does this extend to spatial distribution strategies to ensure that the general principles of the distribution of development can still be taken into account, so allowing windfall sites to be in accordance with the proposed settlement hierarchy or general distribution of development? If by supply, it combines the two, this is a concern because it could lead to a dilution of spatial approach and unsustainable locations for development.

 

It is within the footnote reference to location is made, but the footnote refers to overall number and/or allocation of land, and the allocation of land clearly has a spatial dimension.

 

It is suggested that whether it would be possible to have a similar approach for employment and infrastructure development as the tilted balance does not apply to them- but again- there would need to be a focus on the amount of supply.

 

 

Question 7: Do you agree that all local planning authorities should be required to continually demonstrate 5 years of specific, deliverable sites for decision making purposes, regardless of plan status?

No objections to the reinstatement of the need to the requirement to demonstrate on a rolling basis a 5-year land supply as a principle. Whilst it places some resource requirements on authorities, Local Planning Authorities should be aware of their land supply position on an annual basis to understand how sites are rolling out and what are the completion rates on both market and affordable housing. 

 

Employment land is already subject to the annual reporting in the Authority Monitoring Report, but it is not considered necessary to report on that on a rolling 5-year supply.

 

However, the 4-year supply position was helpful to LPAs with plans in advanced stages as it is often the case that such authorities may have a lower land supply available at that time.

 

North Yorkshire has c.15,000 permissioned dwellings and another c.15,000 dwellings in the form of allocations identified in a local plan. There is an acknowledgment there is a lag time for building schemes out (the larger the scheme- the longer the roll-out) and so if there is a supply of sites which exceeds the LHN over 5 years that is not a concern. But sites could be phased within the local plan to show how the sites are rolled out over the plan period (and beyond in some instances).

 

There is a desire to see if measures can be introduced to ensure that ‘land banking’ is reduced, by changing the definition of when housing development is lawfully commenced (and so not having extant permissions which languish for years) or setting out in a legal agreement when a scheme is expected to reach a key stage in the construction process by. This would be useful for smaller schemes which can be important for boosting supply in the short to medium term and cumulatively can made a good contribution to delivery too, with often less lead in times for their roll-out.

Question 8: Do you agree with our proposal to remove wording on national planning guidance in paragraph 77 of the current NPPF?

Para 77 sets out that previous oversupply can be used to set against upcoming supply.

 

The removal of this would simply revert LPAs back to the position previously taken, which was there was no ability to take into account oversupply. 

 

We have no objections to the removal of this wording- as part of being positive around housing delivery.

 

Whilst there has been some oversupply of affordable homes in some areas- that is not a function of overall oversupply- which is what is being measured as part of the land supply position.

Question 9: Do you agree that all local planning authorities should be required to add a 5% buffer to their 5-year housing land supply calculations?

An additional 5% land supply buffer is considered to be a reasonable buffer. The 20% is considered to be not necessarily the solution it seeks to be- if completions are dwindling this is not always the result of land supply and rather than a 20% land supply buffer being the solution there could be other routes needed to drive forward housing delivery

Question 10: If yes, do you agree that 5% is an appropriate buffer, or should it be a different figure?

5% is an appropriate buffer. There is a significant body of evidence required to demonstrate sites are deliverable and developable with an indication of expected roll out required as part of the evidence base for site selection.

Question 11: Do you agree with the removal of policy on Annual Position Statements?

No objections to the deletion of this- as it would be demonstrated through the 5-year land supply position. The fact that it hasn’t been used significantly is because there are other mechanisms to do it.

Question 12: Do you agree that the NPPF should be amended to further support effective co-operation on cross boundary and strategic planning matters?

Agree in principle, but it is important to have recognition for those authorities in a transition- we are in the preparation of the largest local plan in the country after reorganisation and there is a CMA with an impending spatial development strategy.

 

Development of a Strategic Spatial Plan- whilst helpful to the LPAs in the longer term as a key steer for the approach does not help plan-making in the short to medium term unless clear transitional arrangements are put in place and then plans which are adopted are then under immediate review.

 

We are concerned about the fact that we are preparing a 20 year plan in the knowledge that it is the intention to introduce an additional tier of strategic spatial planning covering ‘functional economic areas’ within the next five years- this brings yet more uncertainty- as this will be coming in when our plan is likely to be at an advanced stage of production.

 

But we welcome the principle of cross-boundary working and working on strategic spatial development strategies.

Question 13: Should the tests of soundness be amended to better assess the soundness of strategic scale plans or proposals?

Not considered necessary. The tests of soundness can be applied to any scale of plan it is the evidence base which underpins this which can be challenging to prepare, as it not only has it to be proportional to evidencing the planned approach, but the evidence base is increasingly used in technical areas (landscape/ecology/flood risk for example) to provide evidence s.78 appeals and other planning applications. 

Question 14: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

No.

Chapter 4 – A new Standard Method for assessing housing needs

 

Question 15: Do you agree that Planning Practice Guidance should be amended to specify that the appropriate baseline for the standard method is housing stock rather than the latest household projections?

Potentially. See response to Q19 for this as the components of the proposed Standard Method cannot be considered in isolation but should be considered in light of the output requirement.

 

(This and the following two questions all ask about the acceptability of using housing stock, affordability ratios and earnings in the calculation of the Standard Method.

 

There is logic to each of these, however, you cannot ignore the outcome of the newly revised formula and must consider it holistically and more importantly understand the outputs.)

 

 

 

 

Question 16: Do you agree that using the workplace-based median house price to median earnings ratio, averaged over the most recent 3 year period for which data is available to adjust the standard method’s baseline, is appropriate?

We do not agree. Please see response to Q19 for this as the components of the proposed Standard Method cannot be considered in isolation but should be considered in light of the output requirement. We consider that there is a poor correlation between house price to earnings ratio and the supply of new homes. We have delivered way in excess of our current standard method, but house prices have not correspondingly fallen.

Question 17: Do you agree that affordability is given an appropriate weighting within the proposed standard method?

No- we do not agree. See response to Q19 for this as the components of the proposed Standard Method cannot be considered in isolation but should be considered in light of the output requirement.

 

 

In addition to the comments under Q19, it is agreed that affordability should be given weight, however, the uplift factored in due to the affordability ratio does not simply translate into the same uplift in affordable housing delivery on the ground but simply a greater number of market homes.

 

Simply building more homes (or proposing to do so through the Standard Method) is unlikely to lower house prices (history has shown that to be the case) and make market housing more affordable.

 

Too much weight is being given to house price ratios.

Question 18: Do you consider the standard method should factor in evidence on rental affordability? If so, do you have any suggestions for how this could be incorporated into the model?

Yes in principle. To incorporate the percentage of rental properties as factor may indicate the prevalence of rental rates so we would cautiously support this, and welcome exploration of this as an approach.

 

But if the Private Rented Sector is factored in- then there is a need to understand the implications of that in the affordability ratios. For example, a lack of market housing in a given area (such as estate village) may skew the sales values due to the low numbers, whereas the rental rates are likely to be competitive, and more affordable. 

 

The planning system is, for the most part, unable to control whether a property is rented or owned unless it is defined in the s.106 regarding affordable housing mix, it is important that S106 transfer value is carefully managed given the increasing reluctance of social housing providers to increase stock following the volatility of markets over recent years. This could lead to some properties remaining vacant; possible issues linked to over demand and undersupply or over reliance on other markets to fill a needed gap.

 

Question 19: Do you have any additional comments on the proposed method for assessing housing needs?

The response to this question encompasses those from Q15-17 and deals with the overall implications of the new Standard Method for housing delivery in the North Yorkshire Council planning area. The proposed method and resulting outcome for North Yorkshire raises significant concerns resulting from the 4232 homes figure for annual delivery.

 

The issue with the Standard Method is not the individual components but the impact of all when combined on a select number of authorities, including North Yorkshire.

 

The method for assessing housing need is in some ways too simplistic and does not allow for the nuances of an area or, more importantly, ‘the ability to deliver’ the outcome (housing target) to be factored in.

 

The outcome for North Yorkshire is a figure over 200% of the former Standard Method. Whilst there is no disagreement that the former figure was too low the numerical increase is potentially unrealistic and ultimately damaging to the principle of the plan-led system.

 

The Council supports a growth agenda, but one that is shown to be deliverable and sustainable.

 

Housing rates in former districts and boroughs have not been artificially lowered, phased or netted off- so that when looking at the actual rate of housing delivery, those peaks of delivery reflects the market’s capacity: many former areas of North Yorkshire have simply not been able to deliver levels of housing at the rates this standard method figure would seek to achieve. This means that even if we allocated the land there is no realistic prospect of the housing development industry building to those levels.

 

The former housing target in the combined local plans was 2315 (circa 67% above the current SM) and actual delivery typically above that. Average delivery over the previous 10-year period has been 2832 with a peak of 3368.

 

The proposed figure of 4232 has never been achieved in the highest years of growth and sustaining that figure appears to be an unrealistic target that would immediately result in the council not having a 5-yr supply, running counter to the plan-led system which the current Government continue to support.

 

Can housebuilders actually deliver this level of housing? What are the implications on the supply chain for building materials and the required workforce? Typical delivery rates on larger sites historically have been in the region of 30-50 per annum with higher levels when affordable homes are delivered – but typically not more than 60 dpa. This would require in the region of 70-100 large sites consistently delivering across NY which is unprecedented – though it is noted that this can be supplemented by smaller and windfall elements. With such a significant uplift in housing number requirements there would potentially be a knock-on significant impact for the amount of mineral required from North Yorkshire quarries above the levels in the current Minerals and Waste Joint Plan.

 

Whilst a top-down approach eliminates debate over the housing number, in circumstances where the attributed figure is so out of kilter with local knowledge, current infrastructure and former delivery rates, actual need should be determined locally through evidence based SHMAs and HEDNAs. This evidence is more nuanced and consider local factors including specific areas of need, housing market areas, employment growth etc.

 

In addition to information set out on previous delivery rates the following sets out a number of other factors that should be considered in addition to the formula – a number of these will set out why we consider the proposed figure to be potentially unrealistic and require re-consideration.

 

In-Migration – there is a significant disconnect between the actual (historic) rate of in-migration and the levels that would be required to support the proposed 4232 dpa. Annual in-migration has averaged at 4500 persons and peaked at 8500 persons in 2020/21. To deliver 4232 dpa would require a sustained period of in-migration of 11,000-12,000 persons per annum. It is not considered that this is a realistic assumption to sustain that level of housing delivery.

 

The Local Economy (Job Creation) - again there is a significant disconnect between employment forecasts and the housing number. The Council is growth focussed; however, the latest econometric forecasts propose job growth over the plan period in the region of 10,000 jobs (Source: Experian). Whilst we accept a margin of error, and that actual job creation can be over and above forecasts, the level of job creation required to balance housing growth proposed would have to be in the region of 95,000 jobs. This represents an 800% increase over forecasts and appears an unrealistic expectation in respect of economic growth.

 

Infrastructure Issues – North Yorkshire, being predominantly rural in character for large parts of the area, does not have a fully connected geography, coupled with a dispersed pattern of development and large areas of protected areas (National Parks and National Landscapes). There are significant infrastructure constraints within many parts of the plan area, which need to be fully understood and addressed (over time) in order to unlock the significant levels of growth potentially allocated to North Yorkshire.

 

Constraints and sensitivities

Regarding international biodiversity sites, and Habitat Regulations Assessment. Whilst detailed work on this will start soon, we are concerned how this proposed level of housing growth (with aligned infrastructure and complementary economic development) will significantly adversely impact on our Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Ramsar Sites that are within North Yorkshire, or within identified impact zones. Based on Habitats Regulations Assessment work to date, on previous local plans, the significant increase in recreational pressure, and acid deposition is a significant concern in terms of diffuse impacts, and there is likely to be more direct impacts on aquatic habitats. How would the Local Planning Authority be able to avoid or mitigate these concerns given that due to the scale of north Yorkshire, the impacts on those designated areas would be felt beyond our local plan area and could not be mitigated by seeking other authorities to meet our unmet need.

 

The Council has sizable areas of land subject to national level landscape designations- two national parks three National Landscapes (and a further candidate AONB). These represent either areas outside of our planning jurisdiction or areas subject to significant landscape sensitivity (including needing to consider their setting). But the standard method currently adds the properties within these areas into our housing land supply calculation. We think this does raise our housing figures to undeliverable levels and that one option would be to remove housing from these areas from the baseline housing stock.

 

Whilst the consultation mentions the ability to factor in hard constraints (which could be specified in the NPPF as they are not currently in) when determining the housing requirement, this has not been translated clearly into the NPPF and we would welcome that it does, as we feel that we need to able to take account of these key constraints/sensitivities. This could be reflected in NPPF paragraph 67, which already refers to the potential for higher requirements.

 

North Yorkshire has a wealth of natural and cultural assets that have contributed to making it a very desirable place in which to live, invest in and visit. This is one of the reasons why property prices, despite increased delivery, have not dropped.  A rise in housing delivery is also likely to result in a further rise in the incoming retired. North Yorkshire already has a higher percentage of people over 65 than the national average and this places additional pressure on council services. It also results in pockets of high levels of second home ownership and properties used as holiday lets. This takes properties out of the housing supply- and whilst is unlikely to affect affordability, it reduces availability. It also has wider social and community impacts for the communities with high incidence of second home ownership- in terms of reduced demand for services. Second homes and dwellings used as holiday lets remain not controlled through the planning system.  

 

We believe that there is likely to be no one-size fits all answer when it comes to a formula to achieve the Government’s stated ambition of 1.5m homes over a 5-yr period that translates into delivery on the ground as currently envisaged by the Standard Method approach.

 

Whilst it may be that this formula provides an appropriate level of housing for many authorities, there are clearly anomalies or outliers where proposed targets do not reflect in any realistic way the established forecasts on migration and job creation (see above), historical delivery rates over an extended period or the ability to significantly increase delivery over a short period of time. We consider that North Yorkshire (and indeed a small number of other large authorities with large rural areas, and indeed large areas of national parks/protected landscapes have seen a significant rise in their local housing need figure.

 

In terms of having a housing requirement in excess of 4000 homes per annum and being not a major urban area North Yorkshire is one of three authorities (Buckinghamshire/ Cornwall). We also see the single highest average annual net addition outside of urban authorities. We represent one of the ‘outliers’, and we think a response is needed to deal with these outliers, and it may involve applying some form of dampener, or a floor of reduction in some areas.

 

For these reasons, the Council do not support the revised Standard Method for calculating housing need and submit the above comments highlighting the significant disconnect between realistic and supported growth and the arbitrary figure that the new formula provides, but suggest that there are additional means to derive at a housing requirement which is pro-growth, sustainable and deliverable.

 

We would also welcome to understand the outcome of consultation undertaken last year on the proposals to bring second and holiday home ownership and holiday lets in residential (C3) use classes into a new use class. Whilst not universally experienced, in some of our communities the presence of high levels of second homes and holiday lets is reducing availability of housing for those who wish to live in them, can drive up prices, and also presents a significant social sustainability issue for particular communities through lack of use of community services and facilities- resulting in their closure/retraction.

 



 

Chapter 5 – Brownfield, grey belt and the Green Belt

 

Question 20: Do you agree that we should make the proposed change set out in paragraph 124c, as a first step towards brownfield passports?

No- there has been a longstanding position in national policy that where possible brownfield land should be prioritised for development. This is necessary to ensure that PDL use is maximised, but this should not be at all costs.

 

Many sustainable brownfield sites have already been developed. Where they remains is because they have significant constraints: high flood risk, or are in isolated locations which may not in their development contribute to the wider strategic spatial development principles.

 

Due to the need for additional safeguards to protect both existing residents during remediation and construction, and future residents, contamination is an abnormal cost and whilst this should not prevent development from taking place- it may result in reduced affordable housing contributions as other mandatory requirements have to be met.

 

Brownfield land can also play an important role in providing biodiversity and GI opportunities within urban areas and may be better employed to provide green/blue infrastructure. Providing BNG may be prohibitive too, as many brownfield sites, such as former airfields, have high biodiversity value.

 

We acknowledge that LPAs should use PDL wherever possible and make clear justification if it is not to be developed, but it should not be described as a default position to brownfield development being yes.

 

Question 21: Do you agree with the proposed change to paragraph 154g of the current NPPF to better support the development of PDL in the Green Belt?

Green Belt reviews should be principally driven by the settlement which the green belt is there to serve.

 

It depends on the impact of the existing use/building on the character and openness of the greenbelt and the extent to which landscape/landform could ensure retention of the open qualities if it is developed, and whether the resulting development would have an impact.

 

The matter of land use and purpose of the greenbelt are being conflated when referring to agricultural land productivity, that is not the role of Green Belt land

 

A development of the side of a settlement which is distanced from the settlement which green belt is serving is not resulting in coalescence or urban sprawl.

 

With regards to the proposed change at paragraph 152 (revised numbering), criterion c is not supported. The proposed wording is unclear, but we think that criterion c is surplus to requirements as (new) paragraph 155 is referenced in criterion a. We are concerned that because there is no conjunction at the end of criterion b, that it could be interpreted as ‘or’, in which case the whole function of green belt could be undermined. It is our view that criterion c should be deleted.

 

Question 22: Do you have any views on expanding the definition of PDL, while ensuring that the development and maintenance of glasshouses for horticultural production is maintained?

There is likely to be a spate and release of glass houses, and this could be adverse to wider horticultural production.

 

It could only apply to glasshouse which are already at the edge of settlements. These could also be settlements which are identified as a focus for growth.

 

A marketing exercise, with a reasonable sales value could be undertaken for a period of 12 months to see if there is interest in the buildings and to confirm whether there is any need for the buildings to be retained.

Question 23: Do you agree with our proposed definition of grey belt land? If not, what changes would you recommend?

 

Grey belt: For the purposes of Plan-making and decision-making, grey belt is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising Previously Developed Land and any other parcels and/or areas of Green Belt land that make a limited contribution to the five Green Belt purposes (as defined in para 140 of this Framework) but excluding those areas or assets of particular importance listed in footnote 7 of this Framework (other than land designated as Green Belt).

 

 

How is “limited contribution” to be defined? Is that purely assessed against the 5 green belt purposes, and many areas of greenbelt are not subject to these criteria

 

·         Much of the green belt could away from the large built up area;

·         Sites may not be between settlements and open gaps

·         Much of the green belt is open countryside

·         Green belt reviews would be looking at key vistas and setting of historic towns (so views of key buildings (i.e. York Minster) which can be seen for miles

 

 

The fifth purpose of the greenbelt is to direct development to urban areas.

 

Without additional clarification many areas of the green belt are not strictly subject to the above 4 requirements or objectives- and so it is considered that in order to make the reviews effective and focused- the definition of Grey Belt either needs to focus on PDL or have much more prescribed criteria and methodological approach to what defines ‘a Limited Contribution’. 

 

Q23-24 The definition of grey belt should have a clear reference to sustainability, including access to public transport and key services, as well as the ability of the site to complement the (usually rural) character/appearance of its surroundings. Otherwise, there is a risk of ad hoc housing remote from services and visually out of keeping.

 

‘Grey Belt’ is not a term that is readily understood. We see that it features in the glossary of terms as including PDL and parcels that make a ‘limited’ contribution to the five purposes of Green Belt. We would suggest that in fact all so-called Grey Belt is previously developed land as otherwise it is green and open. There may be cases where the inclusion of infrastructure corridors has blighted certain areas but this requires further definition and those areas still contribute to openness. The whole benefit and usefulness of the Green Belt is that it maintains openness and prevents settlements from coalescence as well as conserving the setting of historic towns and cities. In contributing to the 5 purposes the whole point is the perpetuity of Green Belts, otherwise they will be watered down and chipped away at until the original intent is lost and they eventually disappear as a policy instrument.

It is suggested that in order to be a ‘limited contribution’ it must fail one of the purposes or be weak on any of the other purposes. We think these needs greater clarity.

It is likely to result in a spate of additional site submissions being made to local planning authorities. 

Question 24: Are any additional measures needed to ensure that high performing Green Belt land is not degraded to meet grey belt criteria?

It may be necessary to look at bringing in additional restrictions to felling trees and removal of hedges in principle so that these key landscape features which often contribute to the quality of place and can help to ensure that sense of openness is retained.

 

That agricultural and horticultural buildings in the greenbelt cannot be demolished and then treated as PDL- although this is currently the situation with such buildings.

Question 25: Do you agree that additional guidance to assist in identifying land which makes a limited contribution of Green Belt purposes would be helpful? If so, is this best contained in the NPPF itself or in planning practice guidance?

Yes- and this should be broadly defined in the NPPF, and then the prescribed methodology in the PPG.

In is noted that Land which makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt purposes will:

a) Not strongly perform against any Green Belt purpose; and
b) Have at least one of the following features:
i. Land containing substantial built development or which is fully enclosed by built form
ii. Land which makes no or very little contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another
iii. Land which is dominated by urban land uses, including physical developments
iv. Land which contributes little to preserving the setting and special character of historic towns

Some of the features are precise, whilst others are quite open to interpretation and indeed would need some form of additional assessment to set out the scale of the contribution of the land to the purposes of the Green Belt.

Question 26: Do you have any views on whether our proposed guidance sets out appropriate considerations for determining whether land makes a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes?

The current contribution to the purposes is so wide ranging and such that large areas of the green belt meet that criteria.

 

Also, the criteria need to identify any defining features of the land which helps to ensure the land reduces the impacts of existing developments

 

No objection to sequential approach, but the consultation is silent on the position on ‘grey belt’ equivalent sites in the open countryside, beyond the Green Belt. Clarity would be helpful since much more of England has this status compared to Green Belt.

Question 27: Do you have any views on the role that Local Nature Recovery Strategies could play in identifying areas of Green Belt which can be enhanced?

It would be good for greenbelt to perform wider roles in nature resilience to climate change and this would not infringe on GB purposes.

Question 28: Do you agree that our proposals support the release of land in the right places, with previously developed and grey belt land identified first, while allowing local planning authorities to prioritise the most sustainable development locations?

It is currently questionable about how much land can be reasonably released through such a process- and this needs to be thought through- green belt reviews could result in a disproportionate amount of resources for LPAs for little return (return measured in amount of land for housing) and by requiring.

 

Green Belt reviews should be driven by the authority responsible for the settlement the Green Belt is there to serve- but for NYC we have pockets of greenbelt which may come under pressure but are serving other authorities and they are reticent about us making releases in the more distanced areas of the GB

Question 29: Do you agree with our proposal to make clear that the release of land should not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole?

Without some very clear defining principles and methodology the ability of the proposal to release sites in the green belt has the potential undermine the function of the green belt.

 

It needs to have a clear methodology which then ensures that cumulative impact considerations can ensure that there is no fundamental harm to the ability of the Green Belt to operate as intended in that locality

 

The proposed features are still too imprecise and there is an argument to say that in order to identify areas which don’t make a contribution you are inherently needing to identify the areas that do in order to define that in any part of the green belt- so how are then compelled to review the GB in totality. Also, it would be better to aggregate criteria so that it was made clearer.

Question 30: Do you agree with our approach to allowing development on Green Belt land through decision making? If not, what changes would you recommend?

To compel LPAs with Green Belt in their jurisdiction to review it as a mandate should be proceeded with significant caution- if local plans are also to be prepared in a timely way- and that such reviews should be subject to detailed methodology and led and driven by the authority to which the green belt predominantly serves- otherwise this could lead to considerable delays with plans- and some authorities have multiple peripheral Green Belts. 

Question 31: Do you have any comments on our proposals to allow the release of grey belt land to meet commercial and other development needs through plan-making and decision-making, including the triggers for release?

Q31 – see previous comments re residential development. The same concerns and caveats still apply.

 

In order to create sustainable places there is a role for employment sites to provide investment and local job opportunities, but these should be focused away from Green Belt areas, even if on PDL, as businesses can need to expand and with no land available to do that.

Question 32: Do you have views on whether the approach to the release of Green Belt through plan and decision-making should apply to traveller sites, including the sequential test for land release and the definition of PDL?

Meeting Gypsy and Traveller needs is no different to meeting wider housing needs-in terms of being a requirement and so aligned approaches should be taken in terms of establishing need and where that need is focused and then establishing the land availability and suitability and applying a sequential approach to land suitability for that use.

Question 33: Do you have views on how the assessment of need for traveller sites should be approached, in order to determine whether a local planning authority should undertake a Green Belt review?

The need for a review of Green Belt for traveller sites should be driven by whether there is a need in that location to secure a site. That should come from the Gypsy and Travellers Accommodation Assessment.

Question 34: Do you agree with our proposed approach to the affordable housing tenure mix?

Providing a range of tenures is supported and that should be as a mix across the site, which is based on locally-informed need.

Question 35: Should the 50 per cent target apply to all Green Belt areas (including previously developed land in the Green Belt), or should the Government or local planning authorities be able to set lower targets in low land value areas?

Viability has significant implications- if a scheme is rendered unviable by a too high affordable housing threshold, then it's not working- and such a policy in a local plan would be found unsound.

 

If it considered a suitable site for development that development should balance the equally important considerations of building quality designed development, climate change resilience, contributing to place-shaping agendas, and contributing to meeting housing needs – a 50% requirement is a high bar and may not be appropriate- an could be counter-productive to ensuring good development in the right locations.

Question 36: Do you agree with the proposed approach to securing benefits for nature and public access to green space where Green Belt release occurs?

Q36 – no objection, but access to green space important for all new housing.

Question 37: Do you agree that Government should set indicative benchmark land values for land released from or developed in the Green Belt, to inform local planning authority policy development?

Q37-46 – agreed that negotiations on viability can be too time consuming and reliant on specialist expertise. The benchmarking approach may need trialling to ensure that there are not unintended consequences in this complex field.

 

Question 38: How and at what level should Government set benchmark land values?

Q37-46 – agreed that negotiations on viability can be too time consuming and reliant on specialist expertise. The benchmarking approach may need trialling to ensure that there are not unintended consequences in this complex field.

 

Needs to be a fair system that is both attractive to the landowner but also ensures scheme viability – expect that this is likely to differ across regions and therefore potentially guidance as opposed to prescribed levels would be better, allowing local authorities to decide their own levels.  We agree it needs to be above agricultural value or land will not come forward, but if it is too high, it won’t stack up for developers

 

Question 39: To support the delivery of the golden rules, the Government is exploring a reduction in the scope of viability negotiation by setting out that such negotiation should not occur when land will transact above the benchmark land value. Do you have any views on this approach?

Q37-46 – agreed that negotiations on viability can be too time consuming and reliant on specialist expertise. The benchmarking approach may need trialling to ensure that there are not unintended consequences in this complex field.

 

A lot of time and money is spent with planning applications waiting on viability assessments, if this approach is taken a developer knows where they stand, and it is clear what will and will not be acceptable.

Question 40: It is proposed that where development is policy compliant, additional contributions for affordable housing should not be sought. Do you have any views on this approach?

Q37-46 – agreed that negotiations on viability can be too time consuming and reliant on specialist expertise. The benchmarking approach may need trialling to ensure that there are not unintended consequences in this complex field.

 

There was some confusion about how to respond to this question. If policy compliant, then by definition the level of affordable housing should be compliant and there would be no expectation to increase that level. There have been instances where schemes have come forward with a 100% affordable housing mix on a site and this was not deemed to be incompatible with the plan as in all other respects the scheme was plan compliant and provided a mix of tenures within that umbrella terms of ‘affordable housing’. But if this approach was to be implemented – then that position would no longer be able to be taken.

Question 41: Do you agree that where viability negotiations do occur, and contributions below the level set in policy are agreed, development should be subject to late-stage viability reviews, to assess whether further contributions are required? What support would local planning authorities require to use these effectively?

Q37-46 – agreed that negotiations on viability can be too time consuming and reliant on specialist expertise. The benchmarking approach may need trialling to ensure that there are not unintended consequences in this complex field.

 

They represent an opportunity to revisit the contributions in principle this is welcomed to capture any uplifts, but when would this take place? The timing is critical and could impact on delivery timescales, and Local Planning Authorities would need to have greater access to specialist expertise in a timely way- and which would mean developing an in-house viability appraisal service- this could be used more widely across the council.

 

Late-stage viability reviews are not advocated unless they seek commuted sums as part of a deed of variation of a s.106 rather than on-site delivery as otherwise this could fetter the delivery process unduly.

Question 42: Do you have a view on how golden rules might apply to non-residential development, including commercial development, travellers sites and types of development already considered ‘not inappropriate’ in the Green Belt?

Q37-46 – agreed that negotiations on viability can be too time consuming and reliant on specialist expertise. The benchmarking approach may need trialling to ensure that there are not unintended consequences in this complex field.

 

If developments are not considered appropriate to be coming forward in the Green Belt then the matter of contributions becomes moot. If by defining land as Grey Belt and it being considered appropriate development within that context- the site should be able to deliver the subject to any local plan standards and requirements. The golden rules which sets higher standards could ultimately hamper such developments. Whilst there may be a desire to seek to get additional contributions to deliver strategic infrastructure, but there is a likely CIL contribution and developer contributions so this needs to be considered on a case by case basis to ensure the development is both acceptable in planning terms and provides commensurate contributions reflecting any abnormal costs.

Question 43: Do you have a view on whether the golden rules should apply only to ‘new’ Green Belt release, which occurs following these changes to the NPPF? Are there other transitional arrangements we should consider, including, for example, draft plans at the regulation 19 stage?

Q37-46 – agreed that negotiations on viability can be too time consuming and reliant on specialist expertise. The benchmarking approach may need trialling to ensure that there are not unintended consequences in this complex field.

 

The use of clear transitional arrangements for implementing such releases should be carefully considered. We think that to avoid any unintended consequences of dealing with windfall applications on such sites that the identification of Grey Belt must be undertaken through the Local Plan process and treated like any other policy approach- i.e the more advanced the greater the weight.

 

If a process is proposed whereby sites are being considered on an ad-hoc basis this does not represent coherent plan-making and will simply being led by landowner aspiration.

Question 44: Do you have any comments on the proposed wording for the NPPF (Annex 4)?

Q37-46 – agreed that negotiations on viability can be too time consuming and reliant on specialist expertise. The benchmarking approach may need trialling to ensure that there are no unintended consequences in this complex field.

 

Para 1 The benchmarking values are likely to vary across the green belt – and will require substantial amounts of work for relatively little return.

Para 2 partially agree- but what would be the material considerations which would then have weight – assume it's the tilted balance as part of the operation of ‘the presumption’- but this drives poorer quality development because the land supply position is then driving the site forward.

Para 3 Agreed – if plan compliant levels of contributions are being delivered then that is sufficient.

Para 4 Partially agree that the onus is on the developer/applicant to demonstrate the viability, but the LPA will need appraise this- not sure about the late-stage review process would really be effective once a decision has been issued.

Question 45: Do you have any comments on the proposed approach set out in paragraphs 31 and 32?

Para 31 around the principle of use of Compulsory purchase powers and para 32 seeks to use directions for ‘no hope value’.

 

It is considered that it is unlikely that developments of significant scale are likely to come forward as part of Green Belt Reviews and identification of Grey Belt. Whilst the proposed approach may be needed in exceptional circumstances needed- but the costs and timescale for CPO of sites which are not ‘strategically important for the delivery of a plan’ are unlikely to merit such an approach- they will simply be not taken forward as allocations or be approved as part of the planning application process. 

Question 46: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

No.

Chapter 6 – Delivering affordable, well-designed homes and places

 

Question 47: Do you agree with setting the expectation that local planning authorities should consider the particular needs of those who require Social Rent when undertaking needs assessments and setting policies on affordable housing requirements?

Yes, we agree with this proposal in principle.

 

Yes, especially in communities such as North Yorkshire where demands and needs vary across the county. If this were too prescriptive there would be a risk of the wrong types of properties being developed in the wrong locations. By allowing authorities to drive this at a local level it would be expected that their knowledge of and insight into the needs of the communities will be best used to achieve these wider outcomes. 

Question 48: Do you agree with removing the requirement to deliver 10% of housing on major sites as affordable home ownership?

We cautiously agree with this proposal.

 

Affordable Housing delivery is best delivered where the policy requirements based on plan-viability and understanding property values and land values within a given area, but without some fundamental baseline to ensure that all major sites are expected to deliver 10% as a minimum this could result in even lower affordable housing delivery where sites are subject to additional constraints- and it is then whether in planning terms such sites should come forward if they are unable to deliver a minimum affordable housing requirement? It will need to be tested through the plan-making process to ensure sites are able to deliver meaningful affordable housing (as well as other plan requirements and BNG/ CIL etc).

Question 49: Do you agree with removing the minimum 25% First Homes requirement?

Yes, we agree with this proposal- the first homes approach was challenging to implement and was not a truly affordable product option. Whilst still an option to explore on certain schemes- the removal of 25% require is welcomed.

Question 50: Do you have any other comments on retaining the option to deliver First Homes, including through exception sites?

We would prefer to see exception sites developed for truly affordable homes delivered and managed by an RP.  With First Homes there is no allocation mechanism, which leaves it open to mismanagement and the potential for homes not to go to those in need.

 

The option to incorporate First Homes in the mix could be beneficial on some sites, but as this product fails to meet the needs of most in North Yorkshire, we do not consider it necessary to retain first homes exception sites.

 

Exceptions sites are exactly that- an exception to policy, and this tenure isn’t enough of a reason to build on a site outside of the development boundary or contrary to the spatial approach. Full market housing has for some time now been able to be used to ensure the minimum amount of subsidy to deliver an Exception Site.

Question 51: Do you agree with introducing a policy to promote developments that have a mix of tenures and types?

Yes, we agree with this proposal. We are keen to support affordable housing delivery which meets the needs of our communities.

Question 52: What would be the most appropriate way to promote high percentage Social Rent/affordable housing developments?

Genuine concerns would only likely to occur if larger sites are exclusively affordable, where open market provision would help create mixed communities – some guidance would help, but it is important it is framed in a manner where it is not used by objectors to block affordable sites, especially in smaller settlements where the opportunities for AH are much more limited.

 

By having a good mix of tenure from social rent to shared ownership and ensure that the types of units built are not all the same size and for a similar client group and are also tenure blind in their design and construction and integration into the site.  This would help encourage a wide range of tenants, and part owners and full owners – to create mixed communities.

Question 53: What safeguards would be required to ensure that there are not unintended consequences? For example, is there a maximum site size where development of this nature is appropriate?

We would argue that there is no general site size threshold. The scale of the site being appropriate is both a function of the local demand, and the ability of the site to be accommodated both in its design and setting and community capacity within the existing settlement. Local demand is crucial to help define the scale, especially in more rural areas where local connection is a part of the planning approval.  It is inevitable for homes on a new development to all become available at the same time, and it is sometimes the case that eligible occupiers can’t be found- although a cascade approach is likely to result in incoming residents with some degree of local connection- particularly as they may be seeking to access jobs within the locality.

 

Genuine concerns would only likely to occur if larger sites are exclusively affordable, where open market provision is needed to help create mixed communities – some guidance would help, but it is important it is framed in a manner where it is not used by objectors to block affordable sites, especially in smaller settlements where the opportunities for AH are much more limited.

 

The importance and role of wider infrastructure needs should be considered, in terms of securing homes that are both more affordable to access and to live in – providing good access to services and facilities and sustainable heating and power to make these properties be more affordable to live in and where market housing is subsidising such schemes, therefore also more attractive to purchasers.

 

Question 54: What measures should we consider to better support and increase rural affordable housing?

Rural affordable housing is often soley coming on the back of allocations and some exception sites- since contributions on smaller sites was removed.

Allow all LPAs responsible for rural communities to take an affordable housing contribution from sites of 9 dwellings or fewer by changing the definition of designated rural areas in paragraph 65 to, parishes of 3,000 or fewer population and all parishes in National Parks and AONBS.  If affordable housing cannot be delivered on-site (in exceptional circumstances only) then a payment at the value of the policy compliant on-site contribution needs to be made – and spent in the LA’s rural areas.

 

Due to landowner hope value exception sites are uncommon and require extensive work by the Council’s housing services to bring them forward. They are also often not well supported by local communities.

 

As such there is a need to further destigmatise affordable housing more broadly and ensure that it results in good quality homes in locations where people want to live. For example, many mid- century former council houses in many rural areas have become in demand due to the quality of the builds coupled with their attractive, rural setting.

 

There is a need for the necessary social and utility infrastructure to be in place in order to reduce the potential for isolation, and ensure that new homes are both affordable to run and also have good public transport connections to reduce the reliance on private cars.

 

In areas that are extremely popular for second/holiday homes, where there is a strong visitor pressure, there should be consideration to safeguarding new residential developments in rural areas for the use of primary residence conditions or make changes through the Use Classes Order to enhance people’s access to those properties for their full residential use. Whilst this would not significantly affect their affordability, in improves the ability for people to access those properties who might otherwise have been out-competed in seeking to acquire the property.

 

 

Housing Needs data needs to be down to a parish evidence base – not a full LA need, as this distorts the figures which will include Towns and Cities. Rural Exception Site (RES) delivery is falling and RP’s are less keen on taking on very rural schemes due to economies of scale, difficulty and time taken to develop – more incentives need to be made to RP’s to develop these schemes, as they are crucial for the small rural communities.

 

It has been suggested that National Parks and National Landscapes need to be encouraged to allocate/allow the development of RES, but it is difficult to reconcile this approach with the other policy demands and statutory duties placed on National Park LPAs, and LPAs with Protected Landscapes- for example around the LURA duty to “seek to further” the natural beauty of these landscapes as opposed to “having regard”.

Question 55: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 63 of the existing NPPF?

Yes, we agree with these proposals. Effective consideration of this issue will help ensure services are aligned to the needs of looked after children and care leavers, and the Council considers it important that the housing requirements of Looked After Children are considered in detail within the planning of housing proposals.

Question 56: Do you agree with these changes?

Yes, we agree with these proposals to deal with windfall applications in relation to strengthening support for community-led development. But in relation to allocations, is there a role for some form of assessment framework to assess competing sites in the same settlement, where it is then a community interest scheme vs commercial builders etc? Or will it come down the usual planning merits and the delivery mechanism is of lesser priority?

However, to remove a site limit would cause concern if in rural areas, and the housing needs weren’t there.

Question 57: Do you have views on whether the definition of ‘affordable housing for rent’ in the Framework glossary should be amended? If so, what changes would you recommend?

Important that if non-RP providers are providing affordable homes what standards they will be held to in order to maintain properties and protect residents, given that the regulator for social housing performs this function for the Social sector.

But agree that CLH groups should be able to access grant to be able to develop affordable housing for rent (when they don’t want to partner with an RP)

Question 58: Do you have views on why insufficient small sites are being allocated, and on ways in which the small site policy in the NPPF should be strengthened?

We do not have any views on this as it has not been our experience. We would be concerned if this requirement were amended to specify ‘allocation’ of small sites at 10% of the overall supply. This in our view is unnecessary and would add extra burdens and delays on local plan preparation.

 

We have been able to allocate sites of less than 1ha in our local plans, and infill windfalls still come forward housing has also supported SME housebuilders.

 

But it should come down to the quality of the sites and their ability to deliver local plan aspirations as opposed to a notional requirement to have 10% of supply being from sites of 1ha or less. Such sites currently do not deliver onsite affordable housing, often do not achieve commuted sums for affordable housing and make limited contributions (unless via CIL) to wider infrastructure.

 

Question 59: Do you agree with the proposals to retain references to well-designed buildings and places, but remove references to ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ and to amend paragraph 138 of the existing Framework?

Yes, we agree with these proposals in principle, as the term beauty is subjective but with some qualification required as good design has an aesthetic dimension and new buildings and spaces should be thought about holistically, including their character and appearance. The removal of this reference, without qualification within the policy wording waters down the aspirations for placemaking to the merely functional. There is an element to placemaking which is inspirational and creative and results in beautiful places. Designing great places from scratch requires this ingredient and the ambition should be to create beautiful places.

 

11 d(ii) The inclusion and particular emphasis on benefits relating to design and location is positive and welcome when determining whether adverse impacts outweigh the benefits of an application that is not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan. Suggest adding to this particular reference ..’ character and appearance’

Para 130 The removal of authority wide design codes as a means of setting densities adopted as part of the development plan is welcome and positive. Evidence suggests that design codes are more effective at a site wide level and when developed alongside master planning for these sites and an internal design review panel.

Para. 135 NMDC as the primary basis for the preparation and use of local design codes is a welcome clarification and we agree with this emphasis.

Para. 156 welcome the inclusion of the urban greening factor and Green Flag as national standards for green space provision. The urban greening factor in particular has been underutilised and is a positive framework for assessing the quality of green space.

Would also welcome making greater reference to embedding climate change resilience into design, together with key health and wellbeing principles. 'Well-designed' homes could include consideration of minimum space standards, clear criteria on access to open space, parks, social infrastructure and those factors that support the health of the population who the country rely on for economic growth. Greater emphasis on health is needed more widely within in the NPPF and considering health in terms of design would help deliver a greater commitment to promoting healthy communities.

Question 60: Do you agree with proposed changes to policy for upwards extensions?

Yes, we agree with these proposals. Amendments could go further and removal all reference to mansard roofs as this is unnecessary prescriptive detail for national policy.

Question 61: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

Government guidance on the Historic Environment (Historic environment - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)) defines as ‘buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified by plan-making bodies as having a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions but which do not meet the criteria for designated heritage assets’.

Could consideration be given to abandoning the term ‘non-designated heritage asset’ and replacing it with ‘Locally identified heritage asset’ or ‘Locally significant heritage asset’ with commensurate definition in the glossary.  This would create a clear tier of assets that are easily understood and distinct from other designated assets, and assist in the consideration of archaeological assets which are not the subject to formal designation. Also to clarify the process of designation and the weight they carry in the planning process. We think that it is important that paragraph 209 of the NPPF and footnote 73 applies to this category of asset which would include the majority of archaeological sites.

Affordable Housing and design:

 

Affordability is linked to wider economic growth and investment in the area to bring greater opportunities for well-paid jobs which allow greater access into the housing market.

 

One of the key elements of economic success is avoiding unsustainable commuting patterns for local residents, although this is challenging in larger rural areas.

 

Design consideration including scale and mix of homes including suitable smaller dwelling for first time buyers, and adaptable accommodation for older residents to ensure vitality for all residents and get a balanced mix of housing.

Chapter 7 – Building infrastructure to grow the economy

 

Question 62: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraphs 86 b) and 87 of the existing NPPF?

Yes, we agree with these proposals. The amended NPPF gives particular support to key industries: laboratories, gigafactories, digital infrastructure and freight and logistics. All above industries are key to unlock economic growth in North Yorkshire and they are also supported in the North Yorkshire’s Economic Growth Strategy. Planning system should meet the needs of modern economy and prioritise sustainable development of key sectors of economy. We support the allocation of suitable sites for these type of sites for modern economy in local plans.

Question 63: Are there other sectors you think need particular support via these changes? What are they and why?

Low carbon/renewables economy infrastructure, to support the above sectors.

Potentially to have additional support where there are low wage economies and poor job opportunities to unlock infrastructure to deliver these sectors. In such instances, additional support should be considered to encourage the development within these communities. 

 

Question 64: Would you support the prescription of data centres, gigafactories, and/or laboratories as types of business and commercial development which could be capable (on request) of being directed into the NSIP consenting regime?

Yes, we agree with this proposal, but also whether there is also a role for promoting the powering/heating/cooling/lighting of these types of projects using renewables as a priority.

 

We support an option of requesting the prescription of data centres, gigafactories, and/or laboratories to be given opportunity to be directed into the NSIP consenting regime if this will speed up development process and relief pressure on local planning authority workload.

 

We feel this may need some additional exploration around the spatial dimensions – NSIPs by definition are seen to be projects of a scale which are national significance. We are keen to understand how these projects would interact with our economic development plan, and we would seek that complement and align. Can there be a mechanism from which the NSIP can be aligned to the needs of different geographical regions?

Question 65: If the direction power is extended to these developments, should it be limited by scale, and what would be an appropriate scale if so?

Rather than a size quantum, for the NSIP regime it should be about the strategic contribution of the proposal to national infrastructure requirements, and that requires setting out in a National Plan- there is then the question of how much weight is given to that other than through the NSIP consent regime.

Question 66: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

There are no changes proposed in paragraphs 88 – 93, in relation to promoting the vitality of town centres. This is a major omission as there is a need for further support of town centres to allow them to thrive, flexibly adapt to fast-changing retail environment and remain centres for local community. It is noted that permitted development rights have undergone considerable changes to improve flexibility, and we monitor changes of use to see what the trends are. There is still a strong role for town centre identity and place shaping which is important for our town centres to weather the contraction in high street retailing. We hope that other, secondary legislation (such as review of business rates) will support the vitality of town centres- although we appreciate this is outside the planning system. 

Chapter 8 – Delivering community needs

 

Question 67: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 100 of the existing NPPF?

Yes, we agree with this proposal. Infrastructure improvements /developments should feature in the consideration of proposals; again, in a rural area this is even more important due to the acute pressures services face. We would also like to have clearer funding arrangements from central government for key service areas.

 

We support changes proposed to paragraph 100 to make clear that key public infrastructure such as hospitals should be given special, preferential importance in the planning system.

 

The Council is concerned that a lack of national investment in public infrastructure, e.g. schools, has resulted in a significant investment backlog, which represents a risk the continued availability for service provision.

 

It is important to ensure that new development does not place additional pressure on services without commensurate infrastructure provision, and where possible, to ensure that in bringing forward a growth-led approach to housing delivery that can harness additional contributions to address wider deficiencies and allow more strategic consideration of infrastructure delivery- this policy approach will be helpful in doing that. 

 

Currently there is (unless via CIL) limited opportunities to collect commuted sums from small-scale developments, yet cumulatively across the plan are these developments still place additional pressures on infrastructure which may require strategic interventions to address. This needs additional consideration.

 

The ability to work with housing promoters to ensure the continued availability of existing provision through investment in condition backlog, in addition to providing new facilities, would assist in meeting future demand.

 

Amendments to paragraph 100 should also include infrastructure that is essential to support the health and wellbeing of the population, including both primary and secondary care facilities, parks, playgrounds and benches.

 

Whilst not public infrastructure, consideration should be given to a mix of retail and broader supportive community infrastructure. There has been a rise in 'new town centres' being developed where it comprises of one large retailer and proliferation of a range of HFSS (less healthy food establishments).

 

Question 68: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 99 of the existing NPPF?

Yes, we agree with this proposal.  We support proposal to incorporate reference to post-16 places to paragraph 99 of the existing NPPF to support the delivery of this type of education provision. Education and skills are essential to support strong local economy.

 

Whilst the council has a limited function within this area- the NPPF is there to guide policies and planning decisions for these proposals which may have a strong education provision from earlier years to post 16 education and training.

Question 69: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraphs 114 and 115 of the existing NPPF?

Yes, we agree with this proposal. How we want places to be and design the transport and behaviour interventions around that vision instead of the predict and provide pattern. This change can potentially allow more transformative transport schemes in town centres and speed up delivery of employment opportunities.

 

A vision-led approach is aspirational and will contribute to the provision of infrastructure, but this alone does not result in utilisation of active travel routes.  A multi-faceted approach that combines behaviourally informed approaches (e.g., creating social norms, persuasion) with more conventional interventions around infrastructure is recommended. 

 

Continued financial support and investment in supporting active travel behaviour change across target groups with varying needs will therefore be crucial to achieve the positive long-term impacts on health, carbon reduction, air quality and productivity.  

 

A one size fits all approach is not effective in active travel behaviour change, different approaches will be needed in different populations and in different geographical areas, so the vision will need to respond to this.

 

We would be interested to understand the resourcing of this work and the relationships between Local Highway Authorities and National Highways to deliver this.

Question 70: How could national planning policy better support local authorities in (a) promoting healthy communities and (b) tackling childhood obesity?

Embed throughout the NPPF links to improving health through the planning system.

 

Make clearer links between health and active travel. Design of active travel in new developments

 

Encourage a holistic approach to future development with a pedestrian focused approach (applying 15-minute city principles to create walkable neighbourhoods).

 

Increased provision for open/green space and sports and leisure facilities.

 

Make Active Travel England a statutory consultee for local plans and fund them so that they might have a meaningful input on local plan policy.

 

Whilst not part of the NPPF- the use of Health Impact Assessments could be made a requirement for all major applications.  The HIA must be meaningful and inform the design of the application.

 

There is an opportunity to look at how zones could be created which identify areas of sensitivity to applications for Hot Food Takeaways (HFT) and Premises that sell foods High Fat, Salts and Sugars (HFSS) within walking distance from both primary and secondary schools, playgrounds and parks or a clustering of such types of use. As a principle, this could be explored with the NPPF or NDMPs to be set out in local plans. This could also be extended to Article 4 directions removing permitted development rights to re-open closed outlets or changes of use to these types of establishments.

 

Question 71: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

To emphasise within the NPPF the need to ensure that public health is protected, this is both through the planning system- and other environmental health protection regimes.

 

Look to utilise national standards to ensure meaningful plays pace and public open space on developments can be achieved, and where on-site provision is not appropriate then commuted sums (either via CIL or s.106) can be sought to enhance/deliver provision to serve the wider settlement.

 

There are already strong policies which restrict the re-use of playing fields, but all new schools should have safe, practical assess to playing fields which factors in any maximum capacity for public numbers.

 

All new schools must have room for food-growing space which would contribute to both education around healthy food choices as well as enabling the consumption of healthy and sustainable foods; and provide safe cycle storage contributions for which should be provided through developer contributions.

 

New developments must ensure that they provide safe and accessible walking/cycling/wheeling routes to the nearest school and the park. This should be away from the main through flow of traffic and be safe and secure with adequate onlooking from neighbouring houses.

 

 

To create healthy communities the NFFP must acknowledge the differing needs of people across the life course- from birth though to aging and dying well.

Sustainable development should deliver environments and homes for life, providing accessible and adaptable accommodation which ties into building control.

 

Open spaces should include seating and trails for elderly people by adopting an age-friendly bench policy in the NDMP

Chapter 9 – Supporting green energy and the environment

 

Question 72: Do you agree that large onshore wind projects should be reintegrated into the NSIP regime?

Yes, we agree with this proposal in principle, subject to ensuring that there is full community engagement in such proposals.

 

It also depends on how proposals fit with any national energy infrastructure spatial plan and the weight that this would have in the planning process if it is not within the Development Plan (although Local Plans would be expected to identify areas of opportunity for RE generation)

 

We do, however, want to ensure that schemes outside of the NSIP regime are coming forward are locally-driven through the Local Plan process- and identifying the most appropriate locations for larger- scale renewables alongside the NSIP projects to help deliver sustainable growth, subject to extensive consultation.

 

We want to ensure that there is local decision-making taking place through the local plan on schemes of less than 100MW. That is the case for all forms of renewable energy- not just on-shore wind.

 

 

 

 

Question 73: Do you agree with the proposed changes to the NPPF to give greater support to renewable and low carbon energy?

Yes, we support the principle of this approach to give significant weight to the benefits associated with renewable and low carbon energy generation in the planning balance, both with planning policy and in development management.

 

We support proposed changes to the NPPF to give greater support to renewable and low carbon energy proposals. North Yorkshire aim to be carbon neutral by 2040 and further support for renewable project will help to achieve this goal. Renewable and low carbon energy industry is also one of the key growth sectors in North Yorkshire.

Question 74: Some habitats, such as those containing peat soils, might be considered unsuitable for renewable energy development due to their role in carbon sequestration. Should there be additional protections for such habitats and/or compensatory mechanisms put in place?

Habitats containing peat soils may already be designated or identified as irreplaceable habitat, providing an elevated level of legal and policy protection. This protection should be strengthened on account of biodiversity/habitats and carbon sequestration.

 

Compensation for these types of habitats should only ever be as a last resort, and due to the significant carbon sequestration development, which compromises these features should be avoided in such locations.

Question 75: Do you agree that the threshold at which onshore wind projects are deemed to be Nationally Significant and therefore consented under the NSIP regime should be changed from 50 megawatts (MW) to 100MW?

Although we would agree that 100mw is a better threshold for identifying schemes that could be considered to be nationally significant it may be counterproductive to change the threshold depending on how long it takes to determine schemes locally compared with through the NSIP regime. If the goal is to increase the amount of renewable energy capacity being consented as quickly as possible the threshold should be set appropriately.

 

It also depends on how proposals fit with any national energy infrastructure spatial plan and the weight that this would have in the planning process if it is not within the Development Plan (although Local Plans would be expected to identify areas of opportunity for RE generation)

Question 76: Do you agree that the threshold at which solar projects are deemed to be Nationally Significant and therefore consented under the NSIP regime should be changed from 50MW to 150MW?

Although we would agree that 150mw is a better threshold for identifying schemes that could be considered to be nationally significant it may be counterproductive to change the threshold depending on how long it takes to determine schemes locally compared with through the NSIP regime. If the goal is to increase the amount of renewable energy capacity being consented as quickly as possible the threshold should be set appropriately.

 

It also depends on how proposals fit with any national energy infrastructure spatial plan and the weight that this would have in the planning process if it were not within the Development Plan (although Local Plans would be expected to identify areas of opportunity for RE generation)

Question 77: If you think that alternative thresholds should apply to onshore wind and/or solar, what would these be?

Although we would agree that 100/150 mw is a better threshold for identifying schemes that could be considered to be nationally significant it may be counterproductive to change the threshold depending on how long it takes to determine schemes locally compared with through the NSIP regime. If the goal is to increase the amount of renewable energy capacity being consented as quickly as possible, so the threshold should be set appropriately.

 

It also depends on how proposals fit with any national energy infrastructure spatial plan and the weight that this would have in the planning process if it were not within the Development Plan (although Local Plans would be expected to identify areas of opportunity for RE generation)

Question 78: In what specific, deliverable ways could national planning policy do more to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?

Provide a policy framework which allows us to use a broader range of means to assess energy demands and usage within buildings.

 

That in building homes that are more affordable to buy- that through sustainable low carbon/renewable energy schemes they are affordable to live in too.

 

Would welcome the ability to set higher standards for water usage through the plan-making process even if areas are not in water stress- to ensure that with climate change, and increased demands both from within LPA area and beyond are factored in now, to ensure that we are better prepared over the plan-period (which is at least 15 years and could be longer)

 

Embedding more detail about the importance of embedding adaptation and resilience at the decision-making stage- so it is not left to reserved matters- as it can be too late to maximise the opportunities at that point.

 

Question 79: What is your view of the current state of technological readiness and availability of tools for accurate carbon accounting in plan-making and planning decisions, and what are the challenges to increasing its use?

There is extremely limited capacity indeed at the present time.

 

There is no standardised approach, software procurement is challenging in terms of choosing a standardised tool which is then used by both developers and LPA, then there are the costs of upskilling planning staff- at all stages of the application process- validation, determination, conditions compliance and enforcement if necessary.

 

Question 80: Are any changes needed to policy for managing flood risk to improve its effectiveness?

Recognising the natural capital approaches to reducing flood risk upstream for developer contributions or community infrastructure contributions could be improved. Housing allocation for anticipated areas at coastal flooding risk must be recognised. Planning for adaptation is essential – to protect everyone against excessive heat through quality and resilient design frameworks.

 

The policy regarding the operation of sequential and exception tests, and the wider consideration of flood risk is welcomed.

 

Would appreciate greater clarity of methodology to identify sequentially considering all forms of flood risk.

Question 81: Do you have any other comments on actions that can be taken through planning to address climate change?

Improved grid capacity is critical here – and doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the NPPF document. 

 

Support to all the proposals to support renewable energy – but recognising protection for sequestration and BNG also 

 

Also support community energy development to support the just transition to the low carbon economy, whereby the benefits and gains from renewable energy infrastructure are delivered in the locality of the infrastructure.

 

The types of activities we need the NPPF to support are outlined in our climate change strategy. Barriers include technological advances (such as green hydrogen generation and storage) and electrical grid capacity.  

Question 82: Do you agree with removal of this text from the footnote?

Yes, we agree with this proposal, on the basis that agricultural land quality and use remains a key consideration.

Question 83: Are there other ways in which we can ensure that development supports and does not compromise food production?

Some consideration of the practicalities of food production, such as ensuring access to land is not compromised, parcels of land are not reduced to the point that they are impractical for cultivation. Also consider soil condition in the long term as well as short term to understanding the impacts of a development over longer timescales is also important- particularly where there is potential for the land to be brought back into agricultural use in the future and bring that fully into the planning process.

Question 84: Do you agree that we should improve the current water infrastructure provisions in the Planning Act 2008, and do you have specific suggestions for how best to do this?

We agree with the proposal to bring some water infrastructure within the NSIP regime.

 

It will require consideration around the scale of the influence of the infrastructure, such as that which had catchment level significance and may involve multiple LPAs or affects multiple LPAs.

Question 85: Are there other areas of the water infrastructure provisions that could be improved? If so, can you explain what those are, including your proposed changes?

A twin track approach to improving water supply resilience is required. This involves action to reduce the incidence of leaks and improve water efficiency both in new development and where possible existing development (such as retrofits) – support this along with improved natural water course quality, and more nature-based solutions to flood risk management.

 

Would welcome the ability to set higher standards for water usage through the plan-making process even if areas are not in water stress- to ensure that with climate change, and increased demands both from within LPA area and beyond are factored in now, to ensure that we are better prepared over the plan-period (which is at least 15 years and could be longer)

Question 86: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

Clarification on the term ‘Non-Designated Heritage Assets’ is sought. Propose that consideration is given to abandoning the term ‘non-designated heritage asset’ and replacing it with something along the lines of ‘Locally identified heritage asset’ or ‘Locally significant heritage asset’. This would create a clear tier of assets that are easily understood and distinct from other assets whether designated or not. We would then have a clearly ranked system as follows:-

 

Designated Heritage Asset – listed building, scheduled monument etc.  NPPF paragraphs 206-208 apply.

Locally Identified or Locally Significant Heritage Asset – a heritage asset identified by a plan-making body as having special local interest. Seek to recommend that new paragraphs and a glossary definition are needed in the NPPF to clarify the process of designation and the weight they carry in the planning process.

Heritage asset – a building or site that falls beneath the above tiers but that may still form part of the balanced planning judgement. It is important that paragraph 209 of the NPPF and footnote 73 applies to this category of asset which would include the majority of archaeological sites.

Chapter 10 – Changes to local plan intervention criteria

 

Question 87: Do you agree that we should we replace the existing intervention policy criteria with the revised criteria set out in this consultation?

We support the proposed revisions to the criteria.

Question 88: Alternatively, would you support us withdrawing the criteria and relying on the existing legal tests to underpin future use of intervention powers?

As Q87- we support the proposed revisions.

Chapter 11 – Changes to planning application fees and cost recovery for local authorities related to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects

 

Question 89: Do you agree with the proposal to increase householder application fees to meet cost recovery?

Yes, in principle.

Question 90: If no, do you support increasing the fee by a smaller amount (at a level less than full cost recovery) and if so, what should the fee increase be? For example, a 50% increase to the householder fee would increase the application fee from £258 to £387.

No- it would be better to seek the full cost

If Yes, please explain in the text box what you consider an appropriate fee increase would be.

This a risk that with some very types of development the costs of making an application might be either prohibitive to the application being made or the development happens without consent (for example, sheds and greenhouses in conservation areas when they need permission)

 

Question 91: If we proceed to increase householder fees to meet cost recovery, we have estimated that to meet cost-recovery, the householder application fee should be increased to £528. Do you agree with this estimate?

The figure of £528 is broadly reflective of recovering the salary of a case officer dealing with applications at that level. It does not necessarily reflect the management and other costs. It is suggested that there need to be considered further to ensure true costs recovery is achieved.

Yes

No – it should be higher than £528

No potentially may need to be higher.

No – it should be lower than £528

no - there should be no fee increase

Don’t know

If No, please explain in the text box below and provide evidence to demonstrate what you consider the correct fee should be.

When considering the salary of an officer dealing with householder application including ‘on costs’ these are likely to be between £41k - £51k. Looking at this crudely at the top end of the scale this equates to a carrying capacity of around 80 applications per annum which appears reasonable. It does not however build in the costs relating to managing the process e.g. sign off etc. So needs to be slightly higher.

 

Question 92: Are there any applications for which the current fee is inadequate? Please explain your reasons and provide evidence on what you consider the correct fee should be.

Whilst the fees for other application types are generally closer to cost recovery levels. These need to considered on a localised basis.

The costs of operating the Development Management planning service are running at a deficit and so proposals which see to allow fees to be set at a cost-neutral basis would be welcomed.

Question 93: Are there any application types for which fees are not currently charged but which should require a fee? Please explain your reasons and provide evidence on what you consider the correct fee should be.

Given they generate work including the need for technical input particularly if they relate to listed buildings or conservation areas, or works to trees, the extension of fees on a cost recovery basis to all types of applications is supported.

 

In the past these have not been subject to a charge because they place a burden on the owner in the public interest, and whilst charging would be preferred, such a charge would need to be monitored as to whether it

a)    Leads to more unauthorised works (which would be an offence in some instances)

b)    Anecdotally if properties subject to these restrictions are not as well maintained or experience a depreciation in value (this is unlikely to be experienced in higher value areas, but heritage assets in more deprived areas could see a further reduction in investment in the property or value). 

Question 94: Do you consider that each local planning authority should be able to set its own (non-profit making) planning application fee?

Yes.

Please give your reasons in the text box below.

The introduction of localised planning fees, which would allow councils to set their own fees to cover their actual costs is supported.

Question 95: What would be your preferred model for localisation of planning fees?

Full Localisation. Placing a mandatory duty on all local planning authorities to set their own fee.

Local Variation – Maintain a nationally-set default fee and giving local planning authorities the option to set all or some fees locally.

no

Neither

no

Don’t Know

Please give your reasons in the text box:

This would introduce greater accountability and transparency to the planning fees system, as local planning authorities would need to be able to demonstrate their charges are justifiable and based on cost.

Question 96: Do you consider that planning fees should be increased, beyond cost recovery, for planning applications services, to fund wider planning services?

Yes.

 

It is important that the costs are reflective of the whole process i.e. are reflective of the specialist inputs required and the management necessary. The latter relating to sign and appropriate officer supervision.

 

To support the validation process and the technical administration for planning applications. To support the commissioning of external technical assessments in the determination of specific types of application (such as viability appraisal work)

If yes, please explain what you consider an appropriate increase would be and whether this should apply to all applications or, for example, just applications for major development?

We are not able to provide a precise figure within the duration of this consultation. This needs to be the subject of further detailed work- and ideally a separate consultation.

Question 97: What wider planning services, if any, other than planning applications (development management) services, do you consider could be paid for by planning fees?

Question 98: Do you consider that cost recovery for relevant services provided by local authorities in relation to applications for development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008, payable by applicants, should be introduced?

Yes

Question 99: If yes, please explain any particular issues that the Government may want to consider, in particular which local planning authorities should be able to recover costs and the relevant services which they should be able to recover costs for, and whether host authorities should be able to waive fees where planning performance agreements are made.

Fees should be reflective of the work involved which is in many respects similar to a major application. This includes case officer time. Technical inputs and management. If planning performance agreements are used there should not be a duplication of costs.

Question 100: What limitations, if any, should be set in regulations or through guidance in relation to local authorities’ ability to recover costs?

Fees and charges, whilst locally generated should be published nationally by the government. This would highlight issues that may need to subject to further consideration or investigation.

 

Question 101: Please provide any further information on the impacts of full or partial cost recovery are likely to be for local planning authorities and applicants. We would particularly welcome evidence of the costs associated with work undertaken by local authorities in relation to applications for development consent.

Question 102: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

The council would support national development management policies including policies in relation to waste with a more focussed National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) or this separate NPPW document being merged into the NPPF.

Chapter 12 – The future of planning policy and plan making

 

Question 103: Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements? Are there any alternatives you think we should consider?

In principle yes. However, for these transitional arrangements to be implemented Government will need to publish new LHN figures for former North Yorkshire authorities so that the position of current Development Plans can be ascertained.

 

Why has the 200 homes figure been chosen as a threshold between the Plan Requirement and LHN figure as per the standard method as a basis for plan halting/plan reviewing - would a percentage be more reflective? 

 

Also, the timings could result in plans being newer and more recently adopted having to commence a review immediately with others of plans under 5 years old being able to keep their plans. 

 

North Yorkshire is preparing its new local plan, as a result of local government reorganisation, and so we will be working to the new arrangements from a procedural basis.

 

But it is the implications for treatment of existing local plans and the extent to which that may indirectly affect our emerging plan work, that is of concern. This is based on what is proposed in chapters 3 and 4 around the standard method and engagement of the tilted balance. We set our concerns out in Question 19, and we consider that there are significant implications for decision taking and consequentially could impact on plan-making, as a result of the proposed revisions to the standard method.  

Question 104: Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements?

Despite the changes proposed to the extension of time for submitting plans under the proposed NPPF, the North Yorkshire Local Plan is likely to come under the new LURA plan-making regime, so the transition arrangements are irrelevant to North Yorkshire, but for other authorities the transitional arrangements need to ensure that there are no anomalies resulting.

Question 105: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

If the new methodology for LHN comes in as proposed the council will be interested in discussing with the department what specific tailored support, there would be for North Yorkshire.

Chapter 13 – Public Sector Equality Duty

 

Question 106: Do you have any views on the impacts of the above proposals for you, or the group or business you represent and on anyone with a relevant protected characteristic? If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, or which businesses may be impacted and how. Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified?

There are no immediately apparent impacts for groups with protected characteristics, it is noted that there are specific references to Gypsy and Traveller needs, and this is welcomed. We want to ensure that the planning system supports the just transition to the low carbon economy and that all residents can make, and can benefit from, the transition.