Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
Please Contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
11 March 2015
A meeting of Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party will be held in the Council Chamber at
the Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Monday 23 March 2015 at 10.00am.
At the discretion of the Chairman, a short break will be taken after the meeting has been running for
approximately one and a half hours.
Members of the public who wish to ask a question or speak on an agenda item are requested to arrive at
least 15 minutes before the start of the meeting. It will not always be possible to accommodate requests
after that time. This is to allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the
agenda for the convenience of members of the public. Further information on the procedure for public
speaking can be obtained from Democratic Services, Tel: 01263 516010, Email:
democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak on an item on the agenda, please be aware that you may be filmed or
photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Arnold, Mr M Baker, Mr B Cabbell Manners, Mr N Dixon, Mrs A Green, Mrs P Grove-Jones,
Mr P High, Miss B Palmer, Mr R Reynolds, Mr P Williams, Mr D Young
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order to attend this meeting, please
let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
1.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive apologies for absence, if any.
2.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
3.
MINUTES
(Page 1)
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 19
January 2015.
4.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered
as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the
following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires that declarations
include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.
6.
UPDATE – STARTER HOMES NATIONAL INCENTIVE FOR FIRST-TIME BUYERS
(Report – page 7; Appendix A – page 9)
This report provides an update on the government’s introduction of a new first time buyer’s
scheme aimed at providing first time buyers with a home at a cost at least 20% below open
market value. The item is for information pending preparation of practice guidance.
7.
DUTY TO CO-OPERATE – AGREEING AN APPROACH TO DISCHARGING THE DUTY
(Report – page 12; Appendix B – page 20; Appendix C – page 23)
This report explains the Duty to Co-operate when preparing Local Plans, what it means,
and recommends an approach to ensure that the duty is properly discharged.
8.
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
(Report – page 32)
This report outlines the Council’s approach to the provision and on-going maintenance of
Public Open Space in the District.
9.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution (if necessary):“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be
excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they
involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as
amended) to the Act.”
10.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE
PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
Agenda item __3__
19 JANUARY 2015
Minutes of a meeting of the PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
held in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am when there
were present:
Councillors
Mrs S Arnold (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair
M J M Baker
N D Dixon
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
R Reynolds
Officers
Mr M Ashwell – Planning Policy Manager
(28)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies absence were received from Councillors B Cabbell Manners, Miss B
Palmer, P Williams and D Young.
(29)
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 September 2014 were approved as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman.
The Planning Policy Manager updated the Working Party on progress made on the
issues discussed at the previous meeting and answered Members‟ questions.
(30)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Working Party.
(31)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interests were declared.
(32)
NATIONAL CHANGES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND OTHER PLANNING
OBLIGATIONS
The Planning Policy Manager presented a report outlining the changes that
Government had made to the process for requiring affordable housing and other
„planning gain‟ via Section 106 Agreements when determining applications for
planning permission. The Government had set a new threshold of ten dwellings
below which affordable housing should not be required, with an option to set a lower
threshold of five dwellings in designated rural areas.
The Planning Policy Manager referred to the Council‟s Housing Incentive Scheme
which had recently been extended to December 2015, which set a threshold of ten
dwellings. He recommended that no change be made to the threshold of ten
dwellings at the present time and that further consideration be given to this matter in
December 2015 as part of the review of the Housing Incentive Scheme.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
1
23 March 2015
Councillor Mrs A R Green asked if the new requirements affected exceptions
schemes. The Planning Policy Manager explained that exceptions schemes
were covered by a separate policy.
Councillor N D Dixon considered that regardless of the figure which was set,
there were many examples where viability issues impacted on the number of
affordable homes which could be delivered. He asked if it would be better to
include “subject to a financial viability test”. He stated that the Council would
not be happy with a five-unit scheme if it would have been possible to achieve
more.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that all proposals which reduced the
required amount of affordable housing affordable housing had to be subject to
a viability test.
It was proposed by Councillor N D Dixon, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds
and
RECOMMENDED to Cabinet
That the Council indicates that it will not currently introduce a
threshold of five dwellings in those parts of the District
designated as AONB or defined as a Rural Area under Section 157
of the Housing Act and will reconsider the position as part of the
review of the Housing Incentive Scheme in December 2015.
(33)
ROLL FORWARD OF AONB MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Planning Policy Manager presented a report outlining the content of the Norfolk
Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2014-2019.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones asked if Internal Drainage Boards were represented
on the Norfolk Coast Partnership. The Planning Policy Manager confirmed that they
were and explained the composition of the Partnership.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Planning Policy Manager stated that
the chalk reef was covered by the Marine Management Plan.
Councillor M J M Baker asked what was currently permitted in terms of the Council‟s
„roll back‟ policy on coastal erosion and whether there was any differentiation
between people who had lived for many years in these areas and those who had
recently purchased property.
The Planning Policy Manager explained Policy EN12: Relocation and Replacement
of Development affected by Coastal Erosion. This allowed businesses and
residential properties in areas at risk from erosion in the next 20 years to relocate to
areas where development would not normally be permitted. However, very few
people had taken up this opportunity. The next plan could consider allocated sites
for roll back development. The end result was to remove the risk so there was no
differentiation as to who was allowed to develop under this policy.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
2
23 March 2015
Councillor R Reynolds considered that there was a need to address where the AONB
started and finished visually.
The Planning Policy Manager explained that there were two constraints in the policy;
the AONB itself and its setting. The policy did not prevent development within the
AONB but regard should be had to whether or not development would have a
significant impact. The area around the AONB, which was its setting, was not
defined and it was necessary to make a judgement. The AONB boundaries were
not within the Council‟s remit and had been designated in a statutory act. Whilst
representations could be made with regard to reviewing the boundary, it was a
complex process.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor P W High
and
RECOMMENDED to Cabinet
That the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management
Plan 2014-2019 is approved.
(34)
FAKENHAM DEVELOPMENT BRIEF
The Planning Policy Manager presented a report which summarised the responses to
a consultation relating to a Development Brief for the allocated development site at
Fakenham. He drew particular attention to access issues, which was the main
concern raised in the representations.
Public Speaker
Mr George Acheson, Chairman of Development and Market Committee, Fakenham
Town Council.
Mr Acheson stated that Fakenham Town Council was broadly in agreement with the
brief. The Town Council considered that highway improvements would be necessary
prior to closure of Water Moor Lane. The Thorpland Road junction was dangerous
and it would be made worse. Relocation of the High School would temporarily
increase traffic on Rudham Stile Lane. The need for a second roundabout on Wells
Road would be obviated if Norwich Long Lane were improved. Local people
currently used Norwich Long Lane as a rat run as they could get out onto the A148.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that it would understood that Rudham Stile Lane
would require improvements. Decisions would need to be made prior to the
formation of the roundabout as to the need for off-site highway works including Long
Lane and the treatment of Water Moor Lane. He stated that given the long
construction period for development of the site it would be a long time before the
junction issue was reconsidered.
Councillor R Reynolds supported Mr Acheson. He stated that the Wells Road
junction was well-used and there would be benefit in his suggestion. He understood
that some consideration had been given to the closure of Norwich Long Lane.
The Planning Policy Manager stated it had been suggested that Norwich Long Lane
would be closed when the roundabout was developed. The options were to improve
it or close it. Highway issues had not been finalised.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
3
23 March 2015
Councillor R Reynolds stated that he was sympathetic with many of the complaints
received and it was important that they were addressed at this time. He was aware
that many of the points had been recognised and addressed.
He referred to the changes in the carriageway along the length of Rudham Stile
Lane, which was almost acceptable by North Park and adjacent to the Academy end,
dangerous by and over the disused railway bridge, single carriageway in places and
with a difficult negotiation at the Thorpland Road junction. Thorpland Road adjoining
Rudham Stile Lane and onto Greenway Lane was narrow and poor and would not
sustain a much larger increase in traffic. At the opposite end of Rudham Stile Lane
where it joined with Claypit Lane and North Park, Field Lane and the Academy, the
traffic was extremely dangerous due to the bridge. There was already congestion at
the Claypit Lane traffic lights. He considered that Rudham Stile Lane needed to be
upgraded, but that traffic from the majority of the new build could not be
accommodated by Rudham Stile Lane, Claypit Lane or Thorpland Road.
He understood that Water Moor Lane could eventually be made one way to the north
to continue to take school traffic when the main infrastructure was in place for the
large site.
He considered that traffic must be encouraged to flow into the town by exiting the
new build by a roundabout onto the A148 and onto Clipbush lane. This would allow a
freeflow of traffic with little congestion and support the towns shops and businesses.
He referred to concerns regarding sewage, surface water, schools and amenities etc.
but noted from the report that these issues be addressed at the planning stage.
He referred to the planning application for 84 dwellings at Brick Kiln Farm, Rudham
Stile Lane. He had originally considered that the existing entrance could be used
temporarily and the development eventually served by the infrastructure of the larger
build. However, he had been advised that this was not possible or likely for a
number of reasons and the Highway Authority was likely to accept the existing
entrance subject to improvements to Rudham Stile Lane. He suggested that the
improvements should include upgrading of the road from the site gate past the
allotments and adjoining Water Moor Lane, and that the junction of the disused
bridge should be removed or bypassed and Water Moor Lane retained for the time
being for two way traffic to allow construction traffic to access the site from the A148
subject to restrictions on timing. He also considered that there should be drop off
areas on site for construction and work related traffic to alleviate congestion in
Rudham Stile Lane, and that wheel and lorry wash and road cleansing should be part
of the Brief.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that the applicant for the current planning
application had not demonstrated that Rudham Stile Lane would be suitable or would
be capable of being upgraded. However, Officers had not seen the highway
proposals being offered and it was premature to suggest that the site would be
acceptable.
Councillor N D Dixon considered that the additional paragraph suggested in the
report for inclusion in the Brief regarding delivery depended on a proper costed
exercise to determine what the physical and social infrastructure would be. There
needed to be clarity as to why contributions would be levied so that there would be
an equitable contribution all the way through from the early starters to the later
starters to ensure that the project was not delivered in part. This would need to be
agreed prior to determination of any planning application.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
4
23 March 2015
The Chairman considered that it was important that money was put up front.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that the Council could not require all the
principal landowners to make a single planning application. With regard to
contributions, the typical process was for a bond payment to be made, with the
Council acting as broker.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that, whilst it would be difficult, there needed to
be one overall authority dealing with the whole project. He suggested that the
Council should take on the role of main contractor to ensure that all the social
infrastructure was built.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that to date the Council had been prepared to
act as banker but not as a contractor.
Councillor N D Dixon expressed concern that, whilst the suggested wording was
substantially acceptable, developers would be unclear as to what they were expected
to contribute and how it would be made up. He considered the Council should be
clear as to what the development would look like on completion and that there should
be a formula to ensure delivery. Costs would need to be indexed as they would not
be the same throughout the development period.
He considered that the
development should be considered as a whole and how each part fitted together. He
agreed that leadership should be provided by the Council to ensure that the project
was delivered as it should be. The Council had the ability to co-ordinate everyone
involved in the delivery. There was a need to recognise that the pro-rata cost per
plot would be different depending on whether the site was brownfield etc.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that there were a number of delivery
mechanisms available. The brief was a framework which should be driving the
delivery strategy.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that it was important to take bonds as
there could be problems if some developers preferred a different approach. She
asked how many developers were anticipated and what timescale was envisaged for
completion of the development.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that the number of potential developers was
unknown, and given the average build rate it could be a 10 year project.
Councillor R Reynolds supported Councillor Dixon‟s comments and considered either
his suggested approach or the bond route should be taken.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that the wording, as proposed, recognised that
there were a number of delivery strategies and gave the expectation that a delivery
strategy would be required.
Councillor Dixon stated that there was a need to ensure that the current planning
application which had been submitted for part of the site did not slip under the wire
and cause upset at a later date.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that the decisions made on the Brief may have
an impact on the consideration of the application.
The Working Party requested a further report on the access strategy.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
5
23 March 2015
The Chairman requested that the possibility of the Council being the lead authority be
explored. The Planning Policy Manager stated that this would be a matter for
consideration in the future.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor N D Dixon and
RESOLVED
That the amendments outlined in the report and in Appendix 2 be
incorporated into the Fakenham Development Brief and
RECOMMENDED to Cabinet
That the Fakenham Development Brief be approved.
(35)
MAINTENANCE OF OPEN SPACES
Councillor N D Dixon referred to an issue he had raised at the meeting on 19 May
2014 regarding ongoing maintenance on large developments and the payment of a
commuted sum. The Planning Policy Manager had stated that he would prepare an
issues and options paper on this matter.
The Planning Policy Manager explained that this was a significant piece of work
which he did not currently have the resources to undertake.
Councillor Dixon requested a progress report at the next meeting.
The meeting closed at 11.58 am.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
6
23 March 2015
Agenda item 6
PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY – 23 MARCH 2015
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR INFORMATION
UPDATE – STARTER HOMES NATIONAL INCENTIVE FOR FIRST-TIME BUYERS
This report provides an update on the government’s introduction of a new first time buyer’s
scheme aimed at providing first time buyers with a home at a cost at least 20% below open
market value. The item is for information pending preparation of practice guidance.
1. Introduction
Following on from the government’s ‘Help to Buy’ mortgages and ‘Right to Buy’ initiatives the
government have introduced further changes to National Planning Policy specifically
focussing on starter homes on brownfield sites. The government is introducing a new ‘Starter
Homes’ scheme in England, with the intention of helping young first-time buyers purchase a
home with a minimum of 20% discount off the market value of the property. The aim is to
make 100,000 new build houses available for first time buyers who are under the age of
forty.
2. Policy Background
For many years a communities need for affordable housing has been a planning
consideration and planning authorities have been able to require a proportion of new homes
to be ‘affordable’ within larger residential developments. Additionally, Council’s also operate
rural exceptions policies to increase the supply of affordable housing provided by Registered
Social Landlords (Housing Associations). These rural exception policies allow affordable
housing development in locations where market housing for sale would not normally secure
planning permission. Government has now amended the National Planning Policy
Framework to allow some starter home housing schemes to be delivered under a new type
of rural exception scheme.
3. The Scheme
The key features of the scheme are:





Sites for starter homes must have been previously in use for industrial purposes or
current or proposed industrial/commercial uses should be shown to be unviable.
Qualifying sites should not be those where housing would normally be permitted so
sites already allocated for development would not qualify.
Homes built on such sites should be made available for sale at least 20% below open
market value with a price cap of £250,000 per dwelling outside of London.
Initial occupants must be first time buyers and must be below the age of 40.
The discounted purchase price must be passed on to successive purchases if the
property is sold in the first 5 years. After the first five years properties can be sold for
their full market value.
Some open market housing could be provided if this is necessary to assist with
overall scheme viability.
Further details of how the scheme is intended to work are attached as Appendix A.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
7
23 March 2015
Planning permission would still need to be obtained for the use of these sites for starter
homes which would also need to adhere to the policies within the National Planning Policy
Framework and other applicable policies from the adopted Core Strategy. However, the
guidance makes clear that these sites should be approved unless the LPA can demonstrate
that there are overriding conflicts with the NPPF that cannot be mitigated. Examples might
include very remote sites where residential development may be unsustainable or those
where absolute policy constraints apply such as coastal erosion and flood risk areas.
It is expected that the minimum 20% reduction in asking price would be achieved by
removing affordable housing obligations and tariff-style contributions (CIL where it has been
introduced) from starter home schemes. However other types of Section 106 contributions
for infrastructure needed to make the development acceptable could still be applied.
4. Implementation
This scheme comes into immediate effect via an amendment to the National Planning Policy
Framework and is now material to the determination of planning applications. The details
that have been published to date raise a number of questions which will require further
clarification. For example:
 there are likely to be differing opinions in relation to what constitutes a 20% discount
for any given property.
 What planning controls will be necessary to ensure initial occupation is limited to first
time buyers.
 How will age restrictions be applied, for example, in the case of joint applicants
where one is over the age of forty what approach should be taken?
 What approach should be taken in relation to the viability of former/existing
commercial uses?
 Should the Council seek to control the size/mix of dwellings proposed or is it
sufficient to rely on a 20% discount and £250,000 cap?
A further report will be presented to the Working Party to consider these issues.
Source: Jodie Young, Planning Assistant (Tel Ext 6304) & Mark Ashwell, Planning Policy
Manager (Tel Ext 6325)
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
8
23 March 2015
APPENDIX A – Extracts from Government Guidance note.
What is the Starter Homes exception site policy?
Starter Homes exception sites help to meet the housing needs of young first time buyers,
many of whom increasingly cannot afford to buy their own home, by allowing Starter Homes
to be offered to them at below their open market value. The exception site policy enables
applications for development for Starter Homes on under-used or unviable industrial and
commercial land that has not been currently identified for housing. It also encourages local
planning authorities not to seek section 106 affordable housing and tariff-style contributions
that would otherwise apply. Local planning authorities should work in a positive and
proactive way with landowners and developers to secure a supply of land suitable for Starter
Homes exception sites to deliver housing for young first time buyers in their area.
What are the key characteristics for a Starter Home?
A Starter Home is expected to be well designed and suitable for young first time buyers.
Local planning authorities and developers should work together to determine what size and
type of Starter Home is most appropriate for a particular Starter Home exemption site
reflecting their knowledge of local housing markets and sites. A Starter Home is not
expected to be priced after the discount significantly more than the average price paid by a
first time buyer. This would mean the discounted price should be no more than £250,000
outside London and £450,000 in London.
Who is eligible for a Starter Home?
Local planning authorities should put in place planning obligations to ensure that Starter
Homes are offered for sale at a minimum of 20% below its open market value of the
property. Such properties are expected to be offered to people who have not previously
been a home buyer and want to own and occupy a home, and who are below the age of 40
at the time of purchase.
How will the minimum 20% discount for Starter Homes be funded?
To deliver the minimum 20% discount, local planning authorities should not seek section 106
affordable housing contributions, including any tariff-based contributions to general
infrastructure pots, from developments of Starter Homes. Local planning authorities will still
be able to seek other section 106 contributions to mitigate the impact of development to
make it acceptable in planning terms, including addressing any necessary infrastructure.
Local planning authorities will also be eligible for the New Homes Bonus on Starter Homes.
How should the discount and age restriction for Starter Homes be enforced?
On Starter Homes exception sites, local planning authorities should include in the relevant
section 106 agreement a requirement on the developer to offer Starter Homes to a first time
buyer under the age of 40 for a discount of at least 20% below the open market value of the
property, and for there to be appropriate restrictions to ensure that Starter Homes are not
resold or let at their open market value for 5 years following the initial sale. Local planning
authorities should enforce these planning obligations in the usual way.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
9
23 March 2015
What is the role of the national Starter Homes register and how should local
planning authorities use it?
The national Starter Homes Register (at www.starter-home.co.uk - a webpage managed by
the Home Builders Federation allowing first time buyers to register their interest in the
scheme) provides a valuable source of information about potential demand for Starter
Homes and identifying who may be eligible for Starter Homes developments. Local planning
authorities can use this as evidence when developing their Local Plan and associated
documents. It will also allow those registering to receive information about Starter Homes
sites as they start to emerge.
What land is suitable for Starter Homes exception sites?
Starter Homes exception sites are expected to be on land that has been in commercial or
industrial use, and which has not currently been identified for residential development.
Suitable sites are likely to be under-used or no longer viable for commercial or industrial
purposes, but with remediation and infrastructure costs that are not too great so as to render
Starter Homes financially unviable.
The types and sizes of site suitable for Starter Homes are likely to vary across the country,
and will reflect the pattern of existing and former industrial and commercial use as well as
local market conditions. Land in both public and private ownership can be considered.
Where applications for Starter Homes come forward on such exception sites, they should be
approved unless the local planning authority can demonstrate that there are overriding
conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework that cannot be mitigated.
What are underused or unviable industrial and commercial sites?
Local planning authorities can take into account a number of factors when assessing
whether an industrial or commercial site is underused or unviable. Indicators may include
whether:
• the land value for the site is significantly below that of other sites with a similar permitted
use in the area;
• there is a high percentage of vacant units, and whether these have been vacant for some
time;
• land allocated for employment use has not been marketed actively for some period of time
or, if actively marketed, has failed to attract any interest over a reasonable period of time;
and
• there has been a lack of recent development activity to improve the commercial or
industrial site.
Employment land which is being used productively or which is allocated and viable for
employment purposes is not to be regarded as underused or unviable.
Should Starter Homes be allowed on land allocated for industrial or
commercial use in local plans which has not been developed?
Land allocated for industrial or commercial use in local or neighbourhood plans can be used
for Starter Homes, but only where it is clear that the land is no longer required or viable for
those purposes. Local planning authorities should keep allocated employment land under
regular review as required under paragraph 22 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
10
23 March 2015
How should local planning authorities deal with Starter Homes as part of their
five year housing supply?
Local planning authorities should work with landowners and developers to secure a supply of
Starter Homes exception sites suitable for housing for first time buyers. As such homes will
come forward as windfall sites, local planning authorities should not make an allowance for
them in their five-year housing land supply until such time as they have compelling evidence
that they will consistently become available in the local area. Local planning authorities can
count Starter Homes against their housing requirement.
What are the design requirements for Starter Homes developments?
Starter Homes developments are expected to be well designed and of a high quality,
contributing to the creation of sustainable places where people want to live, work and put
down roots to become part of the local community. A new Design Advisory Panel set up by
the Government, involving leading industry experts, is developing an initial set of exemplar
designs for Starter Homes which we expect to publish shortly for wider comment. While
recognising the need for local flexibility, we would expect these designs over time to become
the default approach to design to be considered for Starter Homes developments.
In addition, local planning authorities can make use of a range of processes such as design
codes and Design Review to help achieve good design of Starter Home schemes. These
could also be of use alongside industry tools such as the housing design checklist and
Building for Life 12.
It is important to involve local communities in shaping the design of schemes in their local
areas, and local planning authorities are encouraged to make use of appropriate consultative
and participatory approaches as the current design section of planning practice guidance
emphasises.
Can market homes be built on Starter Homes sites?
Local planning authorities can use their discretion to include a small proportion of market
homes on Starter Homes exception sites where it is necessary for the financial viability of the
site. The market homes on the site will attract section 106 or Community Infrastructure Levy
contributions in the usual way.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
11
23 March 2015
Agenda item 7
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION.
DUTY TO CO-OPERATE – AGREEING AN APPROACH TO DISCHARGING THE DUTY.
This report explains the Duty to Co-operate when preparing Local Plans, what it means, and
recommends an approach to ensure that the duty is properly discharged.
1. Introduction
Under Section 110 of the Localism Act and the National Planning Policy Framework (paras 178 to
181) local planning authorities are subject to a “duty to co-operate” when preparing Development
Plans. This requires them to engage constructively, actively and on an on-going basis, with the
expectation that on areas of common interest joint working is undertaken. As well as working
with other local planning authorities the duty also extends to other public bodies. Local Planning
Authorities are expected to demonstrate that such co-operative working has taken place for the
examinations on the Local Plans that they produce. This process of co-operation is intended to
replace the strategic planning role previously addressed via the preparation of Regional Spatial
Strategies and Structure Plans and is focussed on those issues regarded as having strategic
importance which cross one or more administrative boundaries.
North Norfolk has resolved to commence a review of the Local Plan following local government
elections in May. There is consequently a need to consider, and agree, how the requirements of
the Duty should be discharged.
The Norfolk local planning authorities already work together on planning and other issues through
a variety of processes ranging from informal officer level discussion to joint preparation of local
plans, for example, the Greater Norwich Development Partnership has steered the process of
preparing a single local plan for Norwich and parts of South Norfolk and Broadland District
Councils. More recently a Forum has been established, comprising Members and Officers from
all the Local Planning Authorities in Norfolk and representatives of other relevant public bodies
specifically to address the requirements of the Duty.
The Norfolk local planning authorities which participate in the Forum are Breckland District
Council, Broadland District Council, Broads Authority, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Borough
Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk, Norwich City Council, North Norfolk District Council,
South Norfolk District Council and Norfolk County Council (Minerals and Waste lpa). North
Norfolk is represented on the group by the planning portfolio (Cllr B.C. Manners) and the Planning
Policy Manager.
The Forum has no decision making powers and acts as a steering group to recommend actions
to each of the partner Authorities. Terms of reference for the group are attached. (Appendix B)
2. How is the Duty discharged?
There is no specific guidance in relation to how the duty should be discharged but when Plans
are submitted for independent examination the appointed Inspector will apply both a legal and a
soundness test. At these Examinations the Council will be required to demonstrate that:

Co-operation has taken place throughout the plan preparation process on an on-going
basis, not just tagged on just before the examination.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
12
23 March 2015


Co-operation has involved both Officer and Member engagement in the process.
Co-operation has been meaningful and has genuinely sought to address cross boundary
strategic issues. Note: The duty does not require agreement to be reached but where
there is no agreement Inspectors will expect to understand why?
A number of Local Plans have already failed at examination due to a failure to comply with
these tests.
At it‟s meeting in January the Forum considered a number of options in relation to administrative
arrangements for ensuring that the duty is effectively discharged. These options ranged from
relatively limited engagement at officer level through to the formal joint preparation of
development plan documents. The options considered were:
1. Informal officer level cooperation.
2. Structured cooperation through an agreed Memorandum of Understanding.
3. Formal cooperation through preparation of a shared non-statutory strategic
framework.
4. A statutory Joint Strategic Plan (similar to Structure Plan)
5. A statutory single Local Plan or a number of joint local Plans covering specific
geographies.
A summary of each option is attached as Appendix C. In practice option 1(the current
arrangement) was thought unlikely to be sufficient to discharge the formal requirements of the
duty. Options 4 and 5 involve the formal preparation of plans and hence would need to be
subject to all of the regulatory requirements of plan making such as Sustainability Appraisal and
independent examination.
The Forum agreed to:
1.
2.
Endorse the principle of option 3 - formal cooperation through preparation of a
shared non-statutory strategic framework.
Recommend that each constituent authority agrees formally to take forward
option 3 at its earliest convenience subject to later agreement of:
A) Amended terms of reference for the member Duty to Cooperate Forum
(attached);
B) Appropriate officer and member working arrangements; and
C) Budget and timetable to support preparation of the shared non-statutory
framework being agreed by the partners.
Individual endorsement by each authority of option 3 is still on-going. At the time of writing no
authority has refused to endorse what was recommended by the Forum.
Assuming there will be widespread agreement amongst the partners that option 3 is the
preferred approach the remainder of this report outlines the suggested content of a framework
document and a preferred process/ structure for its preparation.
3.
What is a non-statutory framework and how would it be prepared?
A Framework document is not a statutory development plan and it will not include development
plan policies or be subject to independent examination. Unlike the formal plan making process a
non-statutory framework document is not subject to any specific regulatory requirements and it
need not be subject to public consultation or sustainability appraisal although there is nothing to
preclude these being done. The content of the Framework and the process for its preparation
are matters for the Councils to collectively decide. The Framework is intended to guide and
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
13
23 March 2015
inform the preparation of individual Local Plans and ensure that strategic land use issues of
cross boundary significance are properly addressed.
The NPPF states (paragraphs 156 and 162) that Local Plans should include strategic policies,
and LPAs should work with other authorities and providers to meet forecast demands and
deliver:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
homes and jobs;
retail, leisure and other commercial development;
infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, waste management,
water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management;
minerals and energy (including heat);
health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local
facilities;
climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and enhancement
of the natural and historic environment, including landscape;
nationally significant infrastructure.
As a guide this list is indicative of the type of subject areas where there is an expectation that a
co-operative approach may be desirable. At an early stage a decision needs to be reached
about which of these raise genuinely strategic issues and are likely to have cross boundary
implications, which would necessitate, or be best addressed, via a co-operative approach.
It is not necessary for all cross boundary issues to be addressed in a strategic framework
document; for example, depending on the issue it might be equally appropriate for authorities to
produce bi lateral agreements (memorandums of understanding or similar) or to separately
evidence how a co-operative approach has been taken. Whilst the Framework is initially
intended to be prepared on behalf of the Norfolk Planning Authorities it will need to demonstrate
how issues of cross boundary significance beyond Norfolk are being considered.
Table 1 below outlines those issues which officers consider are most likely to raise strategically
important cross boundary considerations and where a co-operative approach would therefore
be helpful; and identifies the key evidence that will be required to understand and address the
issue and suggests how this might be prepared. This should not be regarded as an exhaustive
list and the final content of the document must be kept under review as evidence is prepared.
The aim would be that the resulting Framework would provide a set of agreed objectives which
would influence the subsequent spatial distribution of growth in the next round of Local Plans.
Table 1. Potential Content of Framework Document
Topic Area
Spatial Vision
Framework to
address
What is the overall
spatial vision for the
area (to include
Norfolk, Suffolk and
the wider region as
necessary) and to
identify and describe
the key drivers and
constraints in
relation to growth. To
include a spatial
portrait and overall
direction of travel
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
14
Evidence needed
to support
Mainly drawn from
review of local
and national
policy documents
and further
evidence sources
referred to below
plus census and
ONS/CLG
projections of
population and
households.
Climate change
Preparation process
Initially prepared by
existing Strategic
Planning Officer Group to
identify any information
gaps and revised as
Framework preparation
progresses and
additional evidence
becomes available.
23 March 2015
addressing:
Homes
Quality of life;
response to
challenge of climate
change; key
headlines in terms of
what is being aimed
for in relation to role
of settlements and
key growth locations.
Summary of impacts
of broad population,
economic,
environmental, social
trends and
implications of
known national and
local policies. To
have a longer term
vision – will need to
look beyond 2036.
What is the overall
quantity of homes to
be provided between
2016 and 2036?
What is the
proposed distribution
of housing growth
between District
Council
administrative
Areas? If there are
constraints to growth
how could these be
addressed?
Information on types
and tenures
including possible
shared approaches
to meeting affordable
needs?
Jobs
Demonstrate
understanding of the
strengths and
weaknesses of the
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
15
and coastal
changes. May be
a need to
commission some
further work to fill
any gaps or
interpret evidence.
SHMA –
assessment of
objectively
assessed housing
need and demand
factors.
Housing Growth
Strategy. SHMAs
and other
evidence to be
drawn together to
derive an agreed
Housing Growth
Strategy.
SHLAAs –
Assessment of
„unconstrained‟
housing capacity.
Five District SHMA
nearing completion.
Possible
reconciliation/consistency
checking if others‟
SHMAs are within area of
Framework.
SHLAAs to be completed
to a consistent
methodology and open to
mutual scrutiny and
challenge across the
entire area covered by
the Framework. Work to
be undertaken by
relevant LPA staff to an
agreed timeframe (with
consultant support if
necessary/appropriate?).
Constrained
Capacity–Need to
consider and
address other
capacity/constraint
considerations not
covered in
SHLAAs.
Employment
Externally commission
Growth Study.
via consultancy to a brief
produced involving
County Council(s) and
23 March 2015
local economy, likely
growth areas,
patterns of
distribution and inter- Further runs of
relationships.
EEFM.
Reference to the
SEP and
investment/economic
strategies.
LEP.
County Council to
arrange EEFM runs
(possibly to inform above
study).
Identification of
indicative job growth
targets and land
supply
implications/spatial
implications for
planning policy.
Infrastructure
Are there any key
infrastructure
constraints or
opportunities
(physical, social
and/or
environmental)
which are likely to
impede growth or
influence its
distribution at a
strategic scale?
Analysis of current
evidence base to
identify possible
constraints and
opportunities, and
whether further
work is necessary
to inform high
level strategy.
To be produced by
officers working with staff
from key agencies such
as EA and NE.
High level market
forces/viability
assessment
focussing on
Externally commissioned
To address transport
infrastructure (road,
rail and other
sustainable modes),
green infrastructure,
water issues (both
supply and disposal),
and flooding.
Potential to include
high level statement
in relation to other
physical and social
infrastructure
approach – health,
education,
broadband etc if
significant and cross
boundary.
Delivery
Is the development
market in the area
likely to be
sufficiently strong to
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
16
23 March 2015
support delivery of
the growth needs
identified in a
sustainable manner?
Is any further
stimulus necessary
to deliver?
issues associated
with strategic
scale growth
proposals as
opposed to more
dispersed/smaller
scale
development.
There are a wide range of other topic areas where cross boundary issues may arise as Plan
preparation proceeds but at this stage it is considered that the Framework should focus on
those issues which are likely to influence the broad spatial distribution of growth.
4.
Preparing a Framework - Process
Given the relatively focussed content of the framework listed above and the financial constraints
on local authorities the option of seeking to recruit a new planning resource to lead the work is
not favoured. The view was taken that existing local authority staff were likely to be best placed
to draft the Framework itself from the evidence base available and a small number of
commissioned studies. External work will only be commissioned where absolutely necessary
and the initial expectation was that this may only be required in relation to employment and
viability/delivery studies.
This would mean that the financial contribution needed for the work would be minimised but
there would be a significant resource required in terms of officer time. There is currently little
spare capacity within the policy teams of the partner authorities as a number are heavily
engaged in finalising local plan documents although this situation has the prospect of easing
over time as plans are adopted. Some of the work that will be required could be regarded as
„mainstream activities‟ such as the preparation of Strategic Land Availability Assessments and
will just require re-phasing of existing local plan work programmes to deliver what is necessary
in accordance with an agreed timetable.
Experience from working on Local Plans in the Greater Norwich area suggests that joint working
of local authority staff can be highly efficient and effective but that in order to be successful it
requires a level of dedicated project management and administrative support to ensure that
appropriate responsibilities are assigned, meetings organised, progress reports prepared,
external consultancy commissioned and remedial action taken where milestones are missed.
This will be required to support a series of task and finish working groups to do the work
needed. A possible structure in relation to the member forum is illustrated in Table 2.
In order to put these structures in place a number of steps would need to be taken. Due to the
time taken to recruit an early step will need to be recruitment to project manager and admin
support post. The current expectation is the project manager post would only be part time
(possibly 0.5fte) although having the scope to alter working hours throughout the period of
employment would be an advantage. The administrative support is anticipated being full time.
These staff would need to be hosted in one of the LPA offices (there would be advantages if the
hosting authority was the one which provided the LPA lead officer). Another authority would
need to agree to be the employing authority for the staff involved (this could be either another
LPA or a County or the LEP). The employing authority would be responsible for drafting the job
description, person specification and grading for the post, agreeing with the partner authorities
and holding the shared budget for the production of the framework.
Establishing the membership of the officer groups should be more straightforward. The
membership of the task and finish groups and the level of work involved will vary. All LPAs will
not need to be involved in all of the task and finish groups. However, each task and finish group
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
17
23 March 2015
will need to report back regularly to the steering group and at key stages to the member forum.
It is suggested that reports will be needed to the Member Forum prior to briefs being issued for
external commission and on draft evidence reports before they are finalised and published.
Table 2: Possible Structure
Duty to Co-operate Member Forum
Strategic Planning Officer Group(s)
As existing – membership depending on
coverage of the strategy
Framework Officer Steering and drafting Group
Comprising:
LA lead officer (chair)
Project manager
Lead Officer from each working group
Housing task
and finish group
Economy task
and finish group
Infrastructure task
and finish group
Delivery task and
finish group
To produce
SHMA
reconciliation
and SHLAAs
To produce
modelling
forecasts, agree
brief for
employment
study and act as
client for study
To produce
evidence related to
infrastructure and
environmental
capacity
To agree brief
delivery/viability
study and act as
client for study
Comprising
LPAs and
County
Council(s)
LPA lead officer
Comprising
LPAs, County
Council(s) and
LEP (if involved)
LEP lead officer
(if involved)
5.
Comprising LPAs,
County Council(s),
stat agencies (EA,
NE if involved)
County Council
lead officer
Comprising LPAs,
County Council(s)
and LEP (if
involved)
LPA lead officer
Possible Budget implications
The budget remains uncertain at this stage. Key variables in determining this will be the
coverage of the Framework (the greater the coverage the lower the cost to each authority
involved), and the willingness of the partners such as the County Council(s), LEP and statutory
agencies to assist with the process both in terms of the financial contribution and staff resources
to assist with the work. However, the following costs have been estimated:


Staff Project Manager £40,000pa (including on-costs, assuming 0.5fte)
Admin support £30,000pa (including on-costs assuming 1fte)
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
18
23 March 2015


Economic Evidence - initial estimate c£40,000
Strategic Infrastructure and viability/deliverability – initial estimate c£30,000
The above costs would mean under a conservative scenario of the work being financed solely
by the District level LPAs across Norfolk the costs faced by each authority should be a
maximum of c£15,000 each in the next financial year (2015/16) with no more £10,000 each in
the following financial year, assuming there is no decision to commission further work.
6.
Timetable
In practice it will be the early part of the summer before endorsement is gained from each
partner (June/July 2015). This will inevitably delay the process of appointing the project
manager, establishing working groups, and drafting briefs for external commissioned work. In
practice it is considered that September 2015 will be the earliest post holders and lead officers
will be in place and work is able to commence in earnest.
The primary research phase and production of the key evidence base is considered likely to
take at least six months (complete by March 2016). Spring 2016 is likely to be a period of fairly
intense work for the staff involved in the steering and drafting group to produce the first draft of
the framework in the light of the Forum‟s reaction to the evidence base produced.
Notwithstanding the absence of any legal requirement for consultation it is suggested that the
process will need to feature the ability for the public and interest groups who have not been
directly involved in the process to have their say on the emerging framework. This will add at
least 3 months to the preparation timetable.
Allowing for time to analyse and consider any comments received on the draft document and for
engagement with each of the adopting authorities on the final content of the document the
earliest possible date that the Forum may be in a position to recommend adoption of a
framework to the adopting authorities is likely to be the first meeting in 2017. In order to
minimise any impact of this timetable, Local Plans are likely to need to be developed in parallel
(if preparation is not already underway).
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Working Party Recommends to Cabinet:
1) That North Norfolk agrees to the preparation of a non Statutory Strategic Framework
focused on those areas identified in Table 1, produced using a structure outlined in
Table 2
2) That North Norfolk agrees to contribute up to a maximum of £15,000 in 2015/16 and
£10,000 in 16/17 to cover the anticipated costs.
3) That North Norfolk agrees with the attached terms of reference.
Report prepared by Mark Ashwell (NNDC)
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
19
23 March 2015
Appendix B – Draft Revised Terms of Reference
Duty to Co-operate Members Forum
Terms of Reference (Jan 2015)
1. Introduction
1.1 The Localism Act 2011 inserts section 33A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act (2004) the requirement for authorities and certain public bodies to engage on key issues
under a „Duty to Cooperate‟ when preparing Development Plan Documents (principally Local
Plans), and other Local Development Documents .
1.2 The Act states, inter alia that Local Planning Authorities must:
‘…engage constructively, actively and on an on-going basis in any process by means of which
activities within subsection (3) are undertaken……’
1.3 The Duty to Cooperate is a legal test when local plans are independently examined and
Local Planning Authorities will need to provide evidence to demonstrate that they have
undertaken the duty. Local Plans are also examined for their overall soundness. To discharge
the soundness test work undertaken under the Duty to Co-operate must be demonstrably
effective, examinations to-date suggest that as a minimum this will require:



Genuine Member level co-operation.
A continuous process of co-operation throughout plan preparation.
Co-operation across all cross boundary strategic issues.
1.4 Norfolk Authorities have a strong record of working together through a range of both
formal and less formal mechanisms. A Strategic Planning Officer Group has been established
for many years and in January 2014 a Members Forum was established with the overall
purpose of ensuring that the requirements of the Duty were met. This comprised Members
from each of the Norfolk District Councils and the Broads Authority together with Norfolk
County Council (the „Core Group‟) supported by the Norfolk Strategic Planning Officer Group
and met on a quarterly basis to progress work under the duty. Its Terms of Reference were
most recently reviewed in January 2015 (these Terms).
2. The Forum
2.1 The Forum‟s overall purpose is to ensure that the requirements of the Duty to Cooperate
when preparing Development Plans is discharged in a way which enhances the planning of
strategic matters and minimises the risk of unsound Plans. It will provide the political input and
steerage necessary to discharge the duty.
Powers
2.2 The Forum has agreed to meet for the purposes set out in these terms of reference to
provide a vehicle for cooperation and joint working between local authorities and other parties
within Norfolk and across any other area over which the duty may be applied. They will act
together in accordance with their powers under sections 13, 14 and 33A of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act and Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 for this purpose.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
20
23 March 2015
2.3 For the avoidance of doubt, the Forum cannot exercise any of the functions of a Local
Planning Authority or competent authorities, such as setting formal planning policy or exerting
control over planning decisions, nor can it amend any decisions made by other bodies such as
the LEPs unless such powers have been expressly delegated to the Forum by one or more of
its members. The Forum will recommend actions to the member authorities and others insofar
as this is necessary to discharge the Duty.
Specific Activities
2.4 The Forum will address matters relating to the Duty to Cooperate to comply with Section
33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. In summary it will:

Identify spatial planning issues of strategic importance that impact on more than one
local planning area across Norfolk and a wider geographical area where appropriate
to do so and provide the basis for working collaboratively within, and outside, of the
„core group‟ across a range of organisations and geographies as might be appropriate
to address cross boundary strategic issues.

Recommend the most appropriate land use planning approach to better integration
and alignment of strategic spatial planning across Norfolk and a wider geographical
area where appropriate.

Provide the evidence that the Local Authorities are working „constructively, actively
and on an ongoing basis‟ on strategic planning matters to support delivery of Local
Plans which will be able to be assessed as „sound‟.

With the agreement of member authorities, oversee the joint commissioning and
preparation of evidence necessary to determine the most appropriate strategic spatial
approach to cross boundary issues.
Expected Outcomes

The timely production of an evidence base sufficient to address cross boundary
strategic land use issues, to identify where such issues arise and recommend actions
to the member authorities to address them.

The preparation and agreement of a single non-statutory shared strategic framework
document to inform Local Plan preparation covering, as a minimum, any cross
boundary strategic land use issues relating to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
homes and jobs;
retail, leisure and other commercial development;
infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, waste management,
water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management;
minerals and energy (including heat);
health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local
facilities;
climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and
enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including
landscape;
nationally significant infrastructure.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
21
23 March 2015

An evidenced (documented) approach to cooperation across strategic cross boundary
issues at a Member level and throughout the process of Local Plan Preparation.
And, as a result of the above, a collaborative approach towards addressing strategic issues
and delivering sustainable growth in Norfolk.
3. Governance and administrative arrangements.
Membership
The Core Group will consist of one Member from each of Norfolk County Council, Norwich
City Council, South Norfolk District Council, North Norfolk District Council, Broadland Council,
Breckland District Council, the Borough Council of King‟s Lynn and West Norfolk, Great
Yarmouth Borough Council and the Broads Authority. The membership of the group will be
determined by each authority via annual nomination preferably of the Planning Portfolio
Member or equivalent for each authority. Each authority should also nominate substitutes
should the nominated Member not be able to attend particular meetings.
Membership of the Core Group will be kept under review and adjusted to reflect any wider
geography over which it might be determined appropriate to cooperate.
Chairmanship and vice chairmanship will be determined by the Forum and reviewed each
year.
Format of Meetings
Meetings will be held in private and will comprise the Members and officers from each
authority. Others (specialists, representatives of other organisations, consultants ) may attend
and present at the meetings by invitation. An Agenda and papers will be circulated in advance
of each meeting and informal action notes will be taken for internal/ member use only.
Public Information/website
Agenda and a brief note of any recommendations made back to LPAs will be made public via
a Duty to Cooperate web page on the NCC website.
Frequency of meetings
Initially every two months, or at intervals to be agreed, hosted in the first instance by Norfolk
County Council.
Secretariat
The secretariat for the group will be provided on a rotating basis commencing with the County
Council.
Decision Making
The Forum is not a decision making body and will recommend actions to partner authorities. It
will aim to reach a consensus where possible. It‟s recommendations are not binding on the
actions of any of the partners.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
22
23 March 2015
Appendix C – Options considered for co-operative models
Option 1 - Informal cooperation (i.e. continue current approach)
The current structure would be retained with the Strategic Planning Officers Group progressing the work through the Member Forum, with the
forum making recommendations to individual authorities. The process would be documented via minutes of officer meetings and forum/council
resolutions. Expected outcomes would not be formalised at the outset and the degree to which each authority cooperated would remain a
matter for each council. Individual authorities produce their own Local Plan and may commission joint evidence base with other authorities as
necessary and relevant.
Structure
Method
Norfolk strategic 1. Continue use of
planning
current Terms of
member forum
Reference in
appendix 1
2. Informal agreement
on specific issues as
they arise.
3. Shared evidence
base and/or /shared
approach to evidence
collection at different
geographical scales
dependent on issue
Advantages
This is the least
prescriptive approach
which potentially
enables individual
authorities to
maximise control over
their plan making
processes
Issues / Risks
Inability to agree on key issues (e.g. housing numbers) risks leading to
failure to reach the Local Plan examination stage. In November 2014
alone, there were four examples1 of authorities having their plans
delayed or significantly amended as a result of failing to address
housing need issue.
Decision making
Approach vulnerable to challenge – each local authority will have to
powers are retained at prove its case on housing numbers at each Local Plan examination
the district level
with no formal coordination
Whilst short term costs may be low, the costs of producing an
evidence base are difficult to predict without a careful analysis of
existing strategic evidence having been done. Therefore this approach
risks unnecessary work being undertaken by consultants. The
financial and reputational costs of any failure to progress Local Plans
to examination on Duty to Cooperate issues would be very high.
1
Cheshire East, South Worcestershire, East Staffordshire and Chiltern
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
23
23 March 2015
Option 2 – Structured cooperation through a Memorandum of Understanding
Under option 2 the current structure would be retained with the Strategic Planning Officers Group progressing the work through the Member
Forum, with the forum making recommendations to individual authorities. The process would be documented via minutes of officer meetings
and forum/council resolutions. In addition, each authority would make a formal commitment to a „Memorandum of Understanding‟ (MoU). This
would be a formal agreement between the authorities to cooperate on strategic issues, setting out the issues the authorities would cooperate
on and principles for how the LPAs would work together e.g.
Principle 1 – All authorities will agree to common principles on the implementation of green infrastructure.
Individual authorities would produce their own Local Plan and commission joint evidence with other authorities as necessary and relevant.
Structure
Norfolk Strategic
Planning Member
Forum making
recommendations to
each authority
Lead officers in
each district
Method
1. Memorandum of
Understanding
2. Revised Terms of
Reference
3. Shared evidence
base and/or /shared
approach to
evidence collection
at different
geographical scale
dependent on issue
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
Advantages
Enables each district to
have significant control over
their plan making processes
Issues / Risks
Possibly insufficient commitment to meet local plan duty
to cooperate requirements
Decision making powers
are retained at the district
level
Approach somewhat vulnerable to challenge – each local
authority will have to prove its case on housing numbers
at each Local Plan examination with limited coordination
Would support integration
and alignment of strategic
spatial and investment
priorities
The costs of collecting the evidence base are difficult to
predict without a careful analysis of existing strategic
evidence having been done. Therefore this approach
risks unnecessary work being undertaken by consultants.
Whilst short term costs may be low, the financial and
reputational costs of any failure to progress Local Plans
to examination on Duty to Cooperate issues would be
very high.
24
Depending on the content of the MoU, there may be
potential for inability to agree on key issues e.g. housing
numbers, which risks leading to failure to reach Local
Plan examination stage
23 March 2015
Example - Memorandum of Understanding between authorities in Somerset and Dorset:
http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/media/568924/ssdc_h55.pdf
The South Somerset Local Plan has had its plan making process delayed for over a year, but this relates to the approach to sustainability
appraisal rather than the overall housing numbers for the district. Thus it appears that in this case Duty to Cooperate issues have been
effectively addressed by this approach.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
25
23 March 2015
Option 3 - Formal cooperation through a shared non-statutory strategic framework
The current structure would be retained with the Strategic Planning Officers Group progressing the work through the Member Forum, with the
forum making recommendations to individual authorities. A dedicated staff team would greatly assist the implementation of this approach. The
process would be documented via minutes of officer meetings and forum/council resolutions. In addition, each authority would make a formal
commitment to the preparation and delivery of a non-statutory Joint Strategic Framework which would agree the approach to cross boundary
strategic issues, e.g. housing numbers; jobs growth targets; cross boundary infrastructure etc. The LPAs would sign up to a series of objectives
on strategic issues which they would then address in their Local Plans. This is similar to the approach taken in Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough (see example below the table).
Structure
Method
Advantages
Issues / Risks
Norfolk Strategic
Planning Member
Forum making
recommendations to
each authority
1. Amended Terms of
Reference
2. Non-statutory shared
strategic framework on
housing numbers
3. Additional nonstatutory document
covering broad spatial
approach to other duty
to cooperate issues
e.g. water, economic
development, energy,
natural environment (2
and 3 could be
combined)
4. Shared evidence base
and/or /shared
approach to evidence
collection at different
geographical scales
dependent on issue.
Reasonably comprehensive approach meets
NPPF and Duty to Cooperate requirements to
plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts
and fully meet objectively assessed needs,
providing housing targets for each district
Issue of housing numbers still likely to
be raised (generally by developers) at
each Local Plan examination as new
evidence arises, but evidence base can
be updated to reflect this
„Light touch‟ approach to loss of statutory
strategic regional planning which enables
promotion of coordinated, sustainable growth
Potential need to undertake
sustainability appraisal as part of this
process, though recent experience in
East Cambs. and Fenland suggests this
may not be necessary.
There has not been the same history of
cooperation on strategic issues within
Norfolk (or in Norfolk and Suffolk) as
there has been in Cambs. and
Peterborough e.g. Cambridgeshire
Horizons
Probably requires
small dedicated
officer team to
deliver either with
seconded or new
staff
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
Makes recommendations for policy
approaches in Local Plans - decision making
powers retained at the district level
26
23 March 2015
Work on the framework can assist in
identifying when, where and at what scale
evidence (as set out in the Schedule of
Future Evidence Work Report) is required.
Cooperation on evidence will ensure a
coordinated approach to other strategic
issues in Local Plans and would potentially
lead to significant cost savings
Need to explore willingness to fund an
officer team. Such costs may be
reduced if applied over a wide area or if
the LEP contributes to funding
The creation of a dedicated officer team
could provide a „neutral space‟ for discussion
and mediation between authorities
Allows for effective coordination with the
Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), incorporating
strategic spatial planning in the economic
planning for the area
Example: Cambridgeshire / Peterborough have produced the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Memorandum of Cooperation Supporting the Spatial Approach 2011-2031 .This document addresses the requirements of paragraph 181 of the NPPF. It is a non-statutory
document which sets out agreed levels of future housing growth. By demonstrating that emerging district-level strategies contribute to a
strategic, area-wide vision, objectives and spatial strategy, it provides additional evidence of how the Duty to Cooperate is being met in the
area.
More recently, the authorities have supplemented the memorandum with Strategic Spatial Priorities: Addressing the duty to cooperate
across Cambridgeshire & Peterborough 2014 . This document highlights how the local authorities have addressed the Duty to Cooperate
across a number of other strategic priorities as required by paragraphs 156 and 162 of the NPPF, providing objectives and policy
recommendations for Local Plans on cross-cutting issues such as economic development, design, water and energy.
These documents have recently successfully been used as evidence for the East Cambridgeshire and the Fenland Local Plans. Cambridge
and South Cambridgeshire are currently using the evidence to support the joint examinations of their Local Plans.
The support work to help develop this coherent approach to planning across the area is provided by the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Joint
Strategic Planning Unit (JSPU). Its two members of staff, paid for by contributions of £10k per year from the seven districts involved, are
employed through the county council and hosted at a district council (South Cambs.). The governance structure used includes:
•
A dedicated cross-party members group
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
27
23 March 2015
•
•
•
The Public Service Board (Chief Executives)
Senior Officer Groups – consisting of staff from both local authorities and the LEP
Working groups and project teams.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
28
23 March 2015
Option 4 - Joint Strategic Plan
This would be a comprehensive statutory strategic plan which would form part of the Local Plan for each district. The plan and approach would
be similar in nature to the Joint Core Strategy. More formal joint member decision making structures may be necessary if such an approach
were taken, although the process used for the Joint Core Strategy required decisions to be made at constituent councils.
Structure
Most likely binding joint
member decision making
group (possibly through a
combined authority),
although could be done
through Norfolk Strategic
Planning Member Forum
making recommendations to
each authority
Method
Statutory joint
strategic plan
covering housing
numbers, economic
development and
transport examined
once and adopted by
all authorities as part
of their Local Plan
Probably requires small
dedicated officer team to
deliver either with seconded
or new staff
Each LPA would also
produce separate
Local Plan documents
covering development
management policies
and site allocations
Advantages
Provides the greatest
certainty and
coordination for key
strategic issues
Issues / Risks
Potentially an unsuitable structure given the large
geographical area, the differing characteristics of the
districts and their current progress with plan making.
This emerging approach is currently mainly being
taken in conurbations
Allows for effective
coordination with the
LEP SEP, incorporating
strategic spatial planning
in the economic planning
for the area
Issue of housing numbers still likely to be raised at
each Local Plan examination
Issue of whether this of approach meets NPPF
requirement that each LPA should set out its planning
strategy with other policies in their Local Plan
(paragraph 156), unless the production of additional
development plan documents is clearly justified
(paragraph 153)
Need to explore willingness to fund an officer team.
Costs may be reduced if applied over a wide area or if
the LEP contributes to funding. Each LPA would have
to fund joint strategic planning document production
and separate documents for sites and development
management.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
29
23 March 2015
Examples:
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, envisaged as a statutory joint strategic plan to manage the supply of land to support jobs and
new homes, is at an early stage of production. There has recently been an initial consultation on evidence for future growth to identify the
priorities the plan should address. It is available at:
http://www.agma.gov.uk/what_we_do/planning_housing_commission/greater-manchester-spatial-framework/index.html
A number of authorities in the West Midlands have committed to a similar approach, and are looking to gain additional support. For more
information, see http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stories/2014/november14/131114/131114_1 .
More recently, a spokesman announced that London mayor Boris Johnson is keen to create a strategic regional plan covering the capital and
the greater South East and is organising a summit next spring to discuss the issue with Home Counties council chiefs.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
30
23 March 2015
Option 5 – Joint Local Plan
A Joint Local Plan would not only cover strategic issues, but also site allocations and development management policies for all of the districts in
a single, area wide, Local Plan. More formal joint member decision making structures would be likely to be necessary if such an approach were
taken.
Structure
Most likely binding joint
member decision making
group (possibly through a
combined authority),
although could be done
through Norfolk Strategic
Planning Member Forum
making recommendations
to each authority
Method
Joint Local Plan
covering strategic
issues, site
allocations and
development
management
examined once
and adopted by all
authorities
Probably requires
dedicated officer team to
deliver either with
seconded or new staff
Advantages
Provides coordination of key
strategic issues with
implementation through site
allocations and detailed
development management
policies
Issues / Risks
Unsuitable structure given the large geographical area
and differing characteristics of the districts
Disproportionate approach - coordination of site
allocations across a number of districts through a
single Local Plan would be likely to be highly
problematic
Allows for effective
coordination with the LEP
SEP, incorporating strategic
spatial planning in the
economic planning for the
area
Costs of a dedicated team to cover area wide single
Local Plan would be likely to be high, though this
would be offset to a certain extent as there would not
be the need for each LPA to produce its own Local
Plan.
Economies of scale as all
evidence base shared
Could be perceived as an approach which does not
comply with government‟s focus on localism
Examples:
We have not been able to identify any examples of a number of districts producing a single Local Plan. However, there are county wide unitary
authorities such as Cornwall and Wiltshire, which are both producing Local Plans consisting of separate strategic and site allocations plans.
See:
http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/planning-policy/cornwall-local-plan/?page=17394
http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/planninganddevelopment/planningpolicy/wiltshirecorestrategy/wiltshirecorestrategyexamination.htm
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
31
23 March 2015
Agenda item 8
PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY – 23 MARCH 2015
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
This report outlines the Council’s approach to the provision and on-going maintenance of
Public Open Space in the District.
1. How is Open Space Provided?
The National Planning Policy Framework recognises the benefits of outdoor recreation in terms
of health and wellbeing and requires local authorities through the preparation of their Local
Plans to ensure that the needs for a range of different types of space are being addressed.
The need for various types of outdoor space in the District was assessed as part of the
preparation of the Core Strategy. The North Norfolk Open Space and Recreation Study
considered the supply, quality, and distribution of open space in the district and made a number
of recommendations for improvements.
These recommendations are reflected in the adopted Core Strategy which aims to:




Make sure that sufficient outdoor recreation space is available to serve the specific
needs arising from new development.
Address any localised deficiencies by using new development opportunities to address
areas of under provision.
Make sure that space is provided of an appropriate type such as play areas, allotments
and sports pitches, and
Protect new and exist areas from alternative types of development.
Policy CT1 of the Core Strategy protects existing areas of designated open space from other
forms of development whilst Policy CT2 requires that schemes of more than ten dwellings
contribute to the provision of open space in accordance with specific open space standards.
The Site Allocations Development Plan makes a number of mixed use allocations which include
areas of open space which are specifically intended to address localized deficiencies and serve
the needs of the wider community rather than just address the requirements of new
development.
Where new provision is required the planning permission will agree the quantity of space, the
mix of uses, the provision of play equipment, if required, and a detailed landscaping scheme.
Currently, on-going maintenance of these areas is subject to conditions on the planning
permission and/or the completion of legal agreements requiring the approval of maintenance
arrangements. To discharge these requirements most of the larger areas of open space are
provided to an agreed specification and the developer transfers the ownership and the
maintenance obligations to an adopting body which is normally the District Council. As a
condition of adoption the Council will secure a commuted sum payment typically based on the
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
32
23 March 2015
cost of maintenance for the type of open space over a 15 year period. Alternatively, the
developer may opt to retain ownership and arrange for on-going maintenance via a specialist
company.
The Council standards are published in an Open Space Practice Guide which is available on the
web site at www.northnorfolk.orf/ldf
(Source: Mark Ashwell, Planning Policy Manager ext 6325)
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
33
23 March 2015