PAPER E
Purpose : For Decision
Committee : EXECUTIVE
Date : 12 MARCH 2002
Title : PLANNING GREEN PAPER
PORTFOLIO HOLDER - AGENDA 21 AND COUNTRYSIDE MATTERS
SUMMARY/PURPOSE
Attached to this report is the proposed response to the Secretary of State which the Executive are invited to consider.
BACKGROUND
A report on the Planning Green Paper and a supplementary paper on planning obligations was considered by the Development Control Committee on 18th February 2002. Members of the Economic Department, Countryside, Planning and Tourism sub-committee were invited to the meeting. The Committee resolved to recommend the paper as a basis of a response to the Secretary of State, subject to the proviso that strong emphasis was placed on the need for the Island to be considered as a sub-region in its own right.
A further recommendation is included in the response concerning the issue of the sale of farm land in small parcels to individual purchasers which is currently occurring on the Island and leading to unauthorised developments and a detrimental change in the character of the land.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The precise implications of the Green Paper proposals are unclear at this stage as they will depend on precisely how the government proposes to take these forward. The Green Paper does, however, acknowledge that in general Planning Authorities are under resourced and that the implications of the Green Paper proposals are that more resources will be required. The Green Paper implies that the government will meet this requirement through an increase in planning fees and reviewing the amount of money provided to Local Authorities through the 2002 spending review.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The implementation of the proposals will depend on the priorities of the government and parliamentary time. At present it is expected changes will not be enacted before 2004.
RECOMMENDATION That the proposed response be approved subject to any additional comments. |
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Planning Green Paper - Delivering of Fundamental Change, DTLR December 2001
Report to Development Control Committee 18 February 2002
Contact Point: Paul Airey, Planning Policy and Environment Manager - ☎ 4556
M J A FISHER Strategic Director Corporate and Environment Services |
B LAWSON Portfolio Holder - Agenda 21 and Countryside Matters |
RESPONSE OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL TO THE
PLANNING GREEN PAPER
The Isle of Wight Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Planning Green Paper and would make the following comments in response to the questions raised.
1. We propose to replace local plans and Unitary Development Plans with the Local Development Framework. Do you agree?
The proposals would replace present arrangements at the regional and especially, local level, with a new development plan system. The Green Paper claims that the new system could be introduced quickly, but experience elsewhere, for example with the introduction of the present development plan system in the 1970s, has shown that such expectations can be over-optimistic. The procedure set out in the Green Paper for the preparation of LDFs and particularly Action Plans also appear to provide scope for debate and challenge, which might well lengthen envisaged timetables for preparation significantly. Again, it is worth recalling that the Action Plans now proposed bear an uncanny resemblance to those that were originally suggested in the 1970s reforms. These were subsequently abandoned, proving too costly in both time and resources, and efforts were instead consolidated in the now-to-be-abandoned District Local Plans and UDPs. Of even more concern is the hiatus that could arise in the period until a new system is put in place. It is likely to be two or even three years until the new legislation could be brought into effect, and then there would no doubt be a period of preparation that would follow. In such a period of several years, will there be an incentive for local authorities to maintain their existing development plans? Many local plans and some structure plans are already out of date. A prolonged period of hiatus could be in prospect which could actually harm, rather than assist, the process of "speedy and clear decision making" which the Green Paper seeks as its central objective. Ministers will therefore need to be much more specific about transitional arrangements, and an early statement by them on this issue would assist.
It must be questioned whether a modification of the current system of development plans would provide a better solution to the problems raised, rather than risking a complete review with the uncertainties this would lead to. On the Island, the current UDP provides a single Plan for the whole area, is up-to-date and provides everyone with clear guidance on what can and cannot be done. It will be relatively easy to update and is a tool which simplified the development control process significantly. For a large, rural authority it is perhaps a good way of dealing with the need to encourage development in some areas and discourage it in others. It is interesting to note that in Wales where a network of unitary authorities all produce UDPs, the Welsh Assembly view is that the current system should be retained (with modifications) as it has provided a sound basis for dealing with development.
Under the Government proposals, the key issue is what happens to existing, long established policy guidance which is site specific, eg. development boundaries. In the Green Paper there is no provision for spatial designations, such as development boundaries, to be maintained. Implementation of the proposals would lead to considerable increase in uncertainty over limits of development and the location of development sites. The proposal would also mean that housing allocations would not be clearly defined, again leading to uncertainty and a difficulty in determining when and if housing requirements are being effectively met.
2. We propose that the local development framework should include community based action plans 4.13 - 4.15. Do you agree?
If the LDF system is implemented as proposed, the Action Plans will be required to provide more detailed guidance for areas of change. There are, however, areas of concern including:
i) How will the Council prioritise the preparation of the Plans, especially if there is a need for a number to be produced simultaneously?
ii) How will the areas not covered by Action Plans have the certainty over change currently afforded by the UDP?
Again for the Isle of Wight, it could be argued that the UDP, with Supplementary Planning Guidance in the form of development briefs for key areas of change would be a better tool for development control than the Government’s proposals which potentially could create a confusing hierarchy of Plans.
3. We are proposing new arrangements for community involvement in the preparation of Local Development Framework and any significant planning decisions (Paragraph 4.21-4.24 & 5.52-5.58). Do you agree?
Any proposals to increase levels of community participation in the planning process are, in theory, commendable. However, there are a number of concerns. Firstly, it is notoriously difficult to get people to be involved in planning policies and their views on them, unless they are specifically affected by a development proposal. How this system would be any better is not clear. Secondly, it is unclear how the increased level of community participation squares with the proposal to speed up the whole planning system. Consultation inevitably takes time and is one of the key reasons why the planning system is currently so time consuming. This dichotomy is not addressed by the Green Paper.
4. We are proposing to simplify the hierarchy of plans by strengthening regional planning and abolishing county structure plans (paras 4.36-4.51). Do you agree?
The proposal for strengthening regional planning and eliminating structure plans is a key issue for many authorities in the south-east. The Isle of Wight as a unitary authority has been able to prepare its own strategic planning guidance as the County’s currently do. The Island would not want to lose any of its current strategic planning powers as a result of the changes under the current guidance the Island is designated as a rural development area and as a priority area for economic regeneration. This latter designation is shared by Portsmouth and Southampton and the South Hampshire coastal fringe. The Council are strongly of the view that the Isle of Wight should be considered as a sub-region of the south-east region in its own right. The Island has a unique set of circumstances affecting it and its own particular problems/ It is therefore vital that specific policies and proposals at the regional level do reflect the Island’s special characteristics.
5. We propose to review national planning guidance to reduce its volume and complexity. Do you agree?
There is undoubtedly too much national planning guidance and it is too complex. Any simplification of this would be desirable. It is equally important that local areas are able to justify different planning policies from national objectives if it is beneficial to their own area. National planning policy should only be prepared in respect of those areas where Government feels it is absolutely essential for local authorities to adhere to a common set of policies.
6. Do you have any further comments on our proposals for reforming plans?
a) There is a considerable concern over the status of the existing Unitary Development Plan in the transition period to the LDF. The Minister’s recent statement does not really help with this matter. Any weakening of the plans policies would be detrimental to the proper planning of the Island.
b) It could be argued that the Green Paper is really aimed at urban authorities - rural areas have different needs and different planning requirements and it may be that radical reforms are less justified in rural areas where the conservation and protection roles of the planning system are equal to the need to encourage development.
c) It is unclear how the requirements of PPG3 and Regional Guidance in respect of housing numbers will be achieved through the new framework. This needs to be urgently clarified if authorities are to properly plan for future housing needs.
d) The link with Community Plans still need to be clarified. Although this is mentioned in the Green Paper, there is insufficient clarity as to the respective roles of the Community Plan and the LDF and how possible conflicts will be resolved.
7. We are proposing to speed up the planning system and set new targets for Local authorities and central Government for dealing with applications and appeals. Do you agree?
While the new targets do recognise the differential between different types of planning application, the whole system is still too geared towards speed rather than quality. It is interesting to note that the Government have consistently refused to amend the basis of setting standards in respect of planning applications until this moment in time. The fact that these changes (ie separating out householder and major commercial applications and applying different standards) are now being proposed does perhaps demonstrate that the original targets were unrealistic and too inflexible. Of course it is important that applications are dealt with quickly, but there is a need to recognise that achieving quality does sometimes take longer. The proposals for greater emphasis on pre-application discussions are considered helpful. Targets are all very well, but it essential that adequate resources are made available to Local Authorities to achieve Government expectations.
8. We are aiming to propose new performance standards for statutory consultees and allow them to charge fees for consultation to help improve their performance. Do you agree?
This proposal would seem to be a good one providing that the information the developer gives to the consultee is the same as he gives to the Local Planning Authority.
9. The Green Paper contains a number of other proposals aimed at making the planning system faster, simpler and more effective. Do you agree with them?
(i) A user friendly checklist - This seems a good idea but different types of application would require different checklists reflecting local circumstances.
(ii) Master planning large developments - This should be supported.
(iii) Business Planning Zones - There seems to be no real justification for these zones and it is considered that they would be entirely inappropriate for the Isle of Wight. Allocating sites for employment development can mean they are quickly and easily developed, as long as particular requirements are met. Business Planning Zones could introduce an element of uncertainty on the final development which would not help local communities or the Local Planning Authority in the wider planning of an area.
(iv) Preventing twin tracking and repeated applications - generally support.
(v) Limiting planning consents to three years - Good idea.
(vi) Increasing planning fees to help finance better Local Planning Authority performance. Increasing planning fees will help improve planning performance providing the fees are allocated to that function.
10. Do you have any further comments on our proposals for improving the development control process?
The Council welcomes the proposals and comments in the Green Paper in respect of;
1. Improving customer service (5.6)
2. Pre-application discussions (5.9), although for authorities like the Isle of Wight where development often has to be ‘coaxed’ the likelihood of being able to receive realistic fees fro Pre-application discussions may be limited.
3. Customer care (5.11),
4. E-planning (5.12 - 5.14)
5. One stop shop (5.15 - 5.16).
6. Faster delivery (5.19) - although this will only be realistic if all required information is provided when the application is submitted.
7. Delivery contracts (5.25 - 5.28). Officers are of the view that they would be happy to enter into a contract with an applicant as a bigger application over when the application would be presented to Committee. Members views are requested bearing in mind the proposal is to agree a contract over the decision date.
8. Entering the appeals process (5.43)
9. Clearer scope (5.44) - Both points consider to be good ideas.
The Council has concerns or would welcome further clarification on the following points:
• Permitted development rights (5.45 - 5.49). It is suggested that a new section within Part 1 should be provided dealing with the issue of open amenity areas to include balconies and raised decking areas. These have caused problems on sloping sites.
• Paragraph 5.49. It is considered that the introduction of local permitted development rights would cause confusion and uncertainty and would hinder rather than help efficient planning.
• Better Enforcement. (Para 5.67 - 5.70. It is recognised that there are certain instances where people make genuine mistakes as well as these instances where people clearly disregard advice and proceed breaching planning regulations. On balance if it is considered that it should be made a criminal offence but that considerations such as Human Rights and proportionality are taken into account before a prosecution is considered. There is a need to educate people to a greater degree if a more formal approach is to be adopted.
• There should be an ability to reject accepting a planning application once the Committee have resolved to take enforcement action. The developer does have the right to appeal through an Enforcement Notice.
• An Enforcement Notice should be able to effectively turn back the clock returning a site to its condition immediately before the first breach occurred. There does seem to be a dilemma at the moment that certain actions are not considered to be development, such as the removal of trees or hedgerows which therefore cannot be required to be replaced through an Enforcement Notice.
• The use of a Breach of Condition Notice to remedy a problem with a developer during the development phase is problematic. Minimum time you have to give is 28-days and this is meaningless on the basis that the breach of condition continues in this period. A shorter time period to remedy such a situation is required.
• Equally, BCN regarding an activity eg opening hours of a takeaway, notice should give 24 - 48 hours for action and not 28-days.
• The Council has considerable concerns that there is no mechanism at present to restrict the activities of individuals selling off very small plots of farm land to people hoping to develop it. This leads to problems of unauthorised development and fencing - all of which can cause a serious detriment to character of the land. The Council would request the government consider how best this specific problem can be resolved possibly by restricting rural land sales below a certain size.
CONSULTATION PAPER ON REFORMING PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
In respect of the Consultation Paper on Reforming Planning Obligations, the Council would make the following comments in response to the questions raised.
1. Do you support the refocusing of the planning obligation system around the objective of sustainable development? Yes
Comments: The extension of the planning obligation system to legally enable development to contribute more to the wider community than just the minimum requirements of a specific proposal is welcomed provided that the system does not restrict the initial full provision of all services and facilities require to support a proposed development and also make provision for their long term maintenance.
2. Do you agree that we should:
a) Introduce a standardised tariff-based approach for planning obligations? Yes
b) Incorporate the provision for affordable housing within the standard tariff? Yes subject to comments.
Comments: A standardised tariff approach for planning obligations should only apply to the provision of facilities and infrastructure which cannot be provided as part of the development. The tariff approach will allow small scale incremental development to make an equal contribution to the provision of wider facilities and affordable housing to that provided by major developments. It is agreed that this should not remove the need for major housing schemes to provide for affordable housing as part of mixed housing provision within the development. The locally determined tariff should itemise its make up so that where particular contributions were to be made as part of the overall development proposal then that element could be deducted from the tariff applied for the remaining elements.
The suggestion that there should be higher tariffs for greenfield sites than for brownfield sites should be based on the inclusion, or not, of particular elements within the tariff to be applied to such sites. A general higher tariff for greenfield sites (whether within or outside settlements) might suggest the ability to buy greenfield consents. It may be appropriate in some areas however for a tariff on greenfield sites to establish funds over time which could be used by the local authority to contribute towards the clearing of derelict land, dealing with contamination or assisting with land assembly and so promoting regeneration projects and the bringing of brownfield land back into beneficial use.
3. Do you believe that any of the other option listed in annex A provide a better solution than our preferred option? No
Comment: The preferred option is seen as broadening the current legal basis of obligations whilst retaining the principle that development proposals should meet their site specific requirements.
4. How do you think the tariff should be set:
a. on gross floor space;
b. on a per dwelling basis;
c. as a proportion of development value; or
d. other (specify)? Other
Comment: A combination of a unit tariff per bedroom for residential development and on the gross floor space for all other forms of development. The use of bedrooms would ensure that the contribution from residential development reflected the population to be accommodated by the development and smaller dwellings would not bear a disproportionate loading, particularly bearing in mind the shortage of smaller units of accommodation and predicted smaller household size. This would also mean that residential extensions or conversions which increased the occupancy capability of dwellings would make an appropriate contribution. The application of the tariff on other development would mean that it would contribute to the provision of affordable housing and if that element could be offset against actual provision would encourage mixed use development and the provision of say affordable housing on upper floors above ground floor town centre uses such as retail. Development for community uses could be exempted from the tariff in recognition of their beneficial nature.
5. Do you agree that sites should be identified within the planning system specifically for affordable housing? Yes
Comment: The ability to identify sites exclusively for affordable housing will be of particular importance in supporting rural communities where otherwise residential development would be resisted. However affordable housing should generally be seen as no different from market housing and fully integrated as part of the mix of residential areas and development. The ability to be able to identify specific sites will need to be included in the Local Development Framework system proposed in the Planning Green Paper.
6. Do you support the provision of central guidance about how the tariff-based (system) should work, whilst retaining local flexibility on the details of implementation? Yes
7. Do you agree we should retain negotiated agreements where they are needed to address, principally, site-specific issues? Yes
Comment: Provided they include the provision of affordable housing element on site within suitable residential development. See above.
8. Should we enable local authorities to pool contributions should they wish to do so? Yes
Comment: This is unlikely to be applicable to the Isle of Wight but should be for the joint provision of facilities for the community and presumably would need to be part of the agree tariff element.
9. Are you in favour of the use of a dispute resolution mechanism? If so, how might it work?
Comment: The paper appears to suggest that any reductions in the tariff expectations from a development would be exceptional and this would need to be the case in practice or the fears that it would lead to lengthy negotiations will be realised. However it appears to be suggested (4.39) that higher infrastructure provision costs for a site could be used to offset the standard tariff which would have been set to ensure equality of contribution to the wider community. If site conditions are such as to warrant abnormal additional expenditure to enable development this should be recognised in the land value, not a means of avoiding the tariff. The fact that development costs for competing sites will be different in every case should not become the basis for suggesting that tariffs are flexible and open to negotiation. The ability to for example to locally nominate tariff free types of development which are of community benefit may enable such uses to compete for unfavourable sites and bring them into beneficial use. (See comment 3 above). The appeal process remains open to resolve unfavourable decisions on planning applications.
10. Would you welcome new good practice guidance about monitoring, accounting and the use of model clauses for planning obligations? Yes
Comment: It is not clear from the paper as to which stage of planning consent the application of tariffs would apply. With outline consent the gross floorspace of a commercial development or the number of dwellings or bed spaces may not be established until later consents are sought. It will be important that if there are to be exemptions for small development the incremental application for approval of reserved matters is not used as a means of avoiding the tariffs. The point at which the tariff become payable is also not clear; it is assumed that this would be on initial occupation rather than on issuing the consent but the collection mechanism will need to be clear.
N:\WEB\Mod-Executive\12-3-02\Planning Green Paper.wpd