Agenda item

Report by the Senior Planning Policy Officer (NDC) (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Senior Planning Policy Officer (NDC) regarding the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Consultation (circulated previously). 

The Planning Policy Team Leader (TDC) presented the report to the Committee and confirmed the following:

·                The NPPF proposed reforms and changes to the planning system formed part of the wider reforms of the planning system.

·                The consultation comprised of the Draft NPPF and a wider consultation document.

·                The consultation would close on 10th March 2026.

·                The consultation had 225 questions which were to be answered which made the process unworkable. In order to perform a more meaningful consultation the joint authorities would need to focus their response; and identify/target the more useful questions.

·                There was to be no replication of the content of national decision-making policies in our plans, nor were we to deviate substantially from policies, and local areas were required to ‘do their bit’ towards UK growth.

·                The presumption of being in favour of development within settlements in that ‘development should be approved unless benefits are substantially outweighed by the harms’ but ‘not at all costs’.

The draft definition of a ‘settlement’ being:

o   Including cities, towns, villages and other predominantly built-up areas

o   Excludes hamlets and scattered groups of houses.

·                Outside settlements there was a closed list of acceptable developments, supported in principle. If not on the list, it was only allowed in exceptional circumstances.

·                Housing Delivery (or lack of) would no longer trigger the ‘tilted balance’.

·                There were clearer, stronger rules regarding the viability and affordable housing. This included stronger emphasis on social rent, and the inclusion of military homes.

·                Within local plans there was a stronger focus on allocations, and a need for 10% on sites which were under 2.5 hectares (which was previously a requirement only for those under one hectare).

·                There was a benchmark that 40% of all new homes were required to be accessible and adaptable.

·                Accessible homes, parking, and green space standards were expected to be present in the plans. This would ensure that developers were clear on what they were required to attain when taking on new developments.

In response to questions from the Committee, Cllr Bell, the NDC Lead Member for Housing, agreed that there was a real need for a percentage (possibly 5%) of the adaptable housing to be created for those with need for extreme-requirements (fully adaptable for severe disability rather than more elderly/less mobile residents) in order to enable residents to stay in their own homes.

Cllr Walker wished to emphasise the importance of the fact that not all those requiring adaptive homes would be elderly. The provision of adapted homes for those under 55 was almost non-existent.

The Planning Policy Team Leader advised the Committee of policy HC01 “Assessing the need for homes” placed ‘older people’ front and centre, (rather than disabled) although there was mention of ‘those looking after children’, ‘specialist community-based accommodation’.

The Chair noted that the exclusion of hamlets and small villages from policies could make exception sites difficult. He was concerned that larger could continue to grow when smaller hamlets could ‘die’.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Planning Policy Team Leader advised, that:

·                    There seemed to be limited opportunity to set criteria to define the limits of places , and that it was more of a binary policy. There would likely need to be boundaries created around settlements.

·                    Biodiversity Net Gains (BNG) appeared to be the key method of assessing and securing habitat conservation on-site.

·                    Locations for development were not yet being established, and locations/sites would be looked at in future. He noted that 150+ sites could be required to meet the small sites targets set through the proposals which seemed unrealistic.

·                    There was a clear requirement to allocate land for employment.

·                    There was a need to work with communities whilst recognising the need to be adhering to the NPPF which could constrain scope for what is possible.

·                    Local plans would continue to hold status and existing Neighbourhood Plans would continue be considered in decision making.

The Chair agreed that the draft response to the consultation be shared with all members of both councils.

Cllr Clayton left the meeting (11:38)

RESOLVED that:

a)    the report, the proposed changes to national planning policy, and associated implications as set out in the appendices, be noted.

b)    the committee’s comments on the key aspects be taken forward in the Councils’ formal consultation response.

c)    Officers be delegated authority, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Joint Planning Policy Committee, to prepare and submit a formal response to the consultation on behalf of both Councils.