Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
Please Contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
15 April 2016
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 25 April 2016 at 9.30 am.
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, Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mrs J English, Mrs A Green, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr P
High, Mr N Pearce, Mr J Punchard, Mr R Reynolds, Mr S Shaw, Mrs V Uprichard
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
(attached – p.1)
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 18
January 2016.
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 ON MATTERS FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING
7.
Preparation of Five Year Land Supply Statement
8.
(attached – p.6)
Summary:
This report provides an overview of how the Council
prepares the annual statement of five year land supply
and seeks to agree the approach for preparing this
year’s statement.
Recommendations:
That the Council adopts the approach outlined in this
report to the preparation of the 2016 Statement of Five
Year Land Supply.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected - All
Contact Officer, telephone
number and email:
Mark Ashwell, mark.ashwell@north-norfolk.gov.uk.
01263 587281
Local Plan Expert Group Recommendations
(attached – p.10)
Summary:
This report provides a summary of the Local Plans Expert
Group’s recommendations insofar as its provisions relate to
the preparation of Local Plans.
Conclusions:
The LPEG report produces a number of recommendations
which could lead to the introduction of a more streamlined
Local Plan process. The consequence would mean greater
emphasis on monitoring, delivery and review in order to
develop a flexible approach to meeting development needs
and a ‘lighter touch’ to the more technical elements of Local
Plan preparation. Should these recommendations be taken on
board by Government their introduction will require changes in
the NPPF, national PPG and other legislative changes. There
is the potential opportunity for the government to introduce an
element of stability to plan making although the transitional
period might result in some uncertainty and delay.
Recommendations: The report is for Information only
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
All Wards
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Iain Withington – Planning Policy Officer, iain.withington@north-norfolk.gov.uk
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
NOTE:
Following the meeting there will be a short presentation and open discussion considering the
emerging options. This will include how much growth is required and what options might be
available for the distribution of housing growth.
Agenda item 3 .
18 JANUARY 2016
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 A Arnold (Chairman)
R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs J English
Mrs A Green
P High
N Pearce
J Punchard
S Shaw
Observers:
Ms M Prior
P Rice
R Shepherd
N Smith
D Young
Officers
Mr M Ashwell – Planning Policy Manager
43.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
An apology for absence were received from Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones. An
apology was also received from Councillor N D Dixon, Portfolio Holder for Business &
Economic Development.
44.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2015 were approved as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman.
45.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Working Party.
46.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interests were declared.
47.
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANS – APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATED AREA STATUS
The Planning Policy Manager presented a report in respect of Neighbourhood
Planning and an application which had been made by Happisburgh Parish Council
seeking Neighbourhood Area status for the whole of the parish area. He answered
Members’ questions.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
4
25 April 2016
The Chairman requested that a briefing note be published in the Members’ Bulletin
so that Members were able to answer questions at Town and Parish Council
meetings on Neighbourhood Plans.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor J Punchard and
RESOLVED
That the proposed Neighbourhood Area designation for Happisburgh be
recommended to Cabinet for approval.
The meeting closed at 11.05 am.
_______________________
CHAIRMAN
25 April 2016
Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
5
25 April 2016
Agenda Item No____7_______
Preparation of Five Year Land Supply Statement
Summary:
This report provides an overview of how the Council
prepares the annual statement of five year land supply
and seeks to agree the approach for preparing this
year’s statement.
Recommendations:
That the Council adopts the approach outlined in this
report to the preparation of the 2016 Statement of Five
Year Land Supply.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected - All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Mark Ashwell, mark.ashwell@northnorfolk.gov.uk. 01263 587281
1.
Introduction
1.1
Each year the Council is required to produce a statement which compares the
future target for the delivery of new homes to the supply of housing land that
is available to meet that target. This statement is important both in monitoring
progress on the delivery of homes and ensuring that sufficient development
land is available to accommodate future needs.
1.2
The formal requirement is that each authority should always have available
sufficient deliverable (available now, suitable for development, achievable and
viable) sites for the next five years of required housing growth. In this way it is
anticipated that the absence of suitable development sites will not hold back
required development. If an Authority is unable to demonstrate a five year
land supply (sufficient development land for the next five years) it should take
measures to make more land available, for example, by granting more
planning permissions, allocating more land in a Local Plan, or introducing
other measures to incentivise the quicker delivery of the required homes (such
as the Housing Incentive Scheme).
1.3
In those circumstances where an authority fails to maintain an adequate five
year land supply the NPPF states that its Local Plan policies relating to
housing supply should be regarded as out of date and in such cases greater
weight should be attached to the presumption in favour of sustainable
development when determining planning applications, notwithstanding that
such development may be a departure from adopted planning policies. In a
recent High Court decision the judge concluded that policies dealing with
‘housing supply’ had a wide meaning and potentially included all policies
which both promoted or constrained house building. Hence in the absence of
a five year land supply councils may not be able to rely on Countryside,
AONB, Green Belt or other constraining land use policies to limit development
(the weight to be attached to such policies is reduced), provided that such
housing growth is sustainable.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
6
25 April 2016
1.4
This report explains the process for preparing the annual statement. The final
statement for 2016 will be reported to the next Working Party Meeting.
2.
The approach to preparing a statement.
2.1
Taken at face value the process for preparing the statement is
straightforward. All that is required is a demonstration that sufficient land is
available to accommodate the next five years of required growth. The basic
process is:
Stage 1 -Establish the target number of dwellings which are currently
needed.
Stage 2 - Assess the future supply of deliverable dwellings over the
next five years.
Stage 3 - Compare the target number of dwellings with the deliverable
supply to establish how many years supply are available.
2.2
However, whilst government requires that a five year land supply statement is
produced, there is no nationally agreed approach or best practice. This has
resulted in a number of methods being used to prepare studies and these
different approaches have become hotly debated through the planning
appeals process.
3.
Stage 1 - What housing target should the authority aim to deliver?
3.1
There are a number of sources of information in relation to the need for
homes including local plans, national forecasts produced by the Office of
National Statistics (ONS) and specifically prepared local documents such as
Strategic Housing Market Assessments. These may all suggest different
target figures, for example the current ONS forecast is 370 dwellings per year,
the Core Strategy requires 400, and the latest SHMA suggest 420,
3.2
It is usually the case that the housing targets included in recently adopted
Local Plans are regarded as the preferred starting point as these will have
been agreed locally through the preparation of the Local Plan and will have
been subject to independent examination. However the ‘shelf-life’ of these
targets can be relatively short particularly where evidence suggests they may
no longer be up to date.
3.3
In the case of North Norfolk the Council has previously used the Local Plan
target of 400 net new dwellings per year. This was adopted in 2008, and was
in turn, derived from an earlier Regional Spatial Strategy which has
subsequently been revoked. Consequently, the figure of 400 dwellings per
year may not reflect current needs. In fact the more recently prepared
Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2016 concludes that a slightly higher
target of 420 dwellings per year is now required and it is recommended that
until the new Local Plan is prepared this figure should be used as the baseline
figure for five year land supply purposes.
3.4
Once this baseline figure is established it then needs to be subject to two
further adjustments. The first takes account of dwelling delivery rates since
the start of the counting period (2012) and whether housing delivery is ahead
or behind the required rate. In the case of North Norfolk dwelling completion
Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
7
25 April 2016
rates are slightly behind the required rate and a current shortfall of 132
dwellings (2015 figure) needs to be added to the required target.
Table 1- Completions since 2012.
Year
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
Total 2012/15
Required
420
420
420
1260
Completions
242
383
503
1128
Annual Shortfall
-178
-37
+83
-132
3.5
The final adjustment is the addition of a buffer. The NPPF requires that as a
minimum a 5% buffer of additional supply should be added to the target. The
buffer is intended to serve the purpose of extending the choice of sites
available and to help minimise the risk that targets will be missed. Where
there has been a record of persistent under delivery a 20% buffer is
recommended. There is no definition of persistent under delivery but in a
recent appeal decision (Lodge Close, Holt - Gladman) the inspector felt that a
20% buffer was desirable given that shortfalls had arisen in North Norfolk over
a sustained period. Given this, it would be appropriate to add a 20% buffer
until such time as any historical shortfalls have been largely addressed. In the
event of a higher than required number of completions this year, further
consideration should be given to the addition of a 5% buffer.
3.6
The example below illustrates the approach using the figures which are
available from the 2015 statement and applying the 20% buffer.
Example:
420 dwellings per year X 5 years = 2,100 dwellings required
plus shortfall of 132 dwls = 2,232
plus a 20% buffer = 2,678 dwls over five year period.
Hence the annual target would be 536 net new dwellings per year (2,678/5
years = 536 dwls)
Stage 2 – Assessing the future supply of deliverable dwellings
4.
What potential sources of future housing supply can be counted?
4.1
The five year land supply statement is based on net additional dwellings. All
new dwellings are counted both in terms of new completions and the
assessments of likely future supply. Dwellings include new build houses,
changes of use, building conversions and the removal of holiday conditions to
allow permanent occupancy. Although other types of permanent
accommodation are provided such as care homes and nursing homes these
are not typically accounted for in the statement notwithstanding that they are
addressing the housing needs of the occupant.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
8
25 April 2016
4.2
When estimating the future delivery of homes the NPPF requires that only
those dwellings which have a realistic prospect (again not defined) of being
built over the next five years may be included. Hence, whilst at any given time
there might be planning permission for in excess of 2,000 dwellings in the
District the annual assessment will conclude that only a proportion of these
will actually be built over the next five year period. Sites which can be counted
include:
•
•
•
•
Sites with planning permission
Sites with a committee resolution to approve
Sites allocated in an adopted Local Plan, but no current permission
Windfall assumptions, where supported by robust evidence
4.3
The NPPF states that an allowance can be made for windfall sites in the 5year supply. A high proportion of residential permissions and completions in
the district are windfall and it is considered that windfall sites will continue to
make a significant contribution to meeting the overall requirement, windfall
allowance therefore forms part of the housing land supply.
5.
What should be taken into account when assessing likely future
development rates?
5.1
Future delivery rates of development are one of the most challenged areas of
land supply statements. Clearly the rate of future development is influenced
by many factors. The ‘realistic prospect’ test inevitably involves judgements
being made. The statement will include a formal delivery assessment of all
sites which can deliver more than ten dwellings. This will take account of
ownership, planning status, market conditions and viability, legal restrictions,
and any other known local factors which might influence when development
actually happens. The Housing Incentive Scheme has been helpful in
removing some of the uncertainty in relation to starts and completions of
development as has the commencement of development on many of the
larger sites.
6.
Legal Implications and Risks
6.1
The absence of a five year land supply is a significant risk to the Council.
Failure to plan for the required quantity of homes would result in housing
needs going unmet and increases the risks that planning decisions will depart
from the approved Local Plan. It also increases the risks associated with
planning applications being made on unallocated sites in locations where local
communities expected that the Local Plan would limit development.
6.2
It is therefore important that the five year land supply statement is robust,
transparent and accurately represents both previous housing delivery rates
and the future trajectory. The approach recommended in this report would
fulfill these requirements.
Recommendation:
Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
That the Council adopts the approach outlined in
this report to the preparation of the 2016 Statement
of Five Year Land Supply.
9
25 April 2016
Agenda Item No_____8______
Local Plan Expert Group Recommendations
Summary:
This report provides a summary of the Local Plans Expert
Group’s recommendations insofar as its provisions relate to
the preparation of Local Plans.
Conclusions:
The LPEG report produces a number of recommendations
which could lead to the introduction of a more streamlined
Local Plan process. The consequence would mean greater
emphasis on monitoring, delivery and review in order to
develop a flexible approach to meeting development needs
and a ‘lighter touch’ to the more technical elements of Local
Plan preparation. Should these recommendations be taken on
board by Government their introduction will require changes
in the NPPF, national PPG and other legislative changes.
There is the potential opportunity for the government to
introduce an element of stability to plan making although the
transitional period might result in some uncertainty and delay.
Recommendations: The report is for Information only
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
All Wards
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Iain Withington –Planning Policy Officer, iain.withington@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
The Local Plan Expert Group (LPEG), was set up by the Housing and
Planning Minister and the Communities Secretary in September 2015 in order
to review how the Local Plan process could be simplified and be made more
effective with the aim of reducing the time necessary to get plans in place. In
October 2015 the group issued a call for evidence from interested parties and
in March 2016 published their report. The report contains a number of
recommendations, which if taken on board by the government have the
potential to impact on Local Plan making process significantly through
substantial reform across all aspects of Local Plans,(how they are prepared,
what they should contain and how they are reviewed). The Department of
Communities and Local Government are inviting representations on the report
of the LPEG no later than 27 April 2016.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
10
25 April 2016
1.2
In reaching their recommendations the LPEG has sought to frame their
recommendations around the existing framework1, with the aim of providing
clarity and reducing potential conflicts and delays in the plan making process 2
so as not to disrupt current plan preparation.
1.3
This report summarises the main recommendations of the report and reviews
how, if the recommendations are adopted by the Government, they could
affect the production of the emerging Local Plan in North Norfolk.
1.4
The full report can be found:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-plans-expert-group-reportto-the-secretary-of-state
2.
The Group’s key recommendations include:
2.1
Faster and Simpler Local Plans

Introduction of a statutory duty to produce and maintain an up to date
Local Plan.

Significantly shorter and targeted Local Plans that focus on strategic
issues.

Based around the above the regulations should be revised to specify a
prescribed timeline for all Local Plans over a two year period to
submission.

There should be early MOT’s of emerging plans, and staged
examinations, in order to address key stages and prevent late challenge /
failure. The recommendation of the LPEG is that LPA’s should
commission two early assessments of soundness of their emerging Local
Plan.

A revised test of soundness should also be introduced so that a plan is
considered sound if it addresses an “appropriate strategy” when
considered against reasonable alternatives rather than the ‘most
appropriate’ strategy.

The evidence base required should be reduced and simplified. Current
guidance states that evidence should be proportionate. No definitive list
currently exists and LPA’s are often challenged at examination on the
extent of the supporting information. This in turn can lead to the
production of general supporting information rather than specific targeted
evidence to support the key policy requirements identified. The LPEG
recommend that guidance be updated to include a requirement that only
evidence that is considered by the LPA to be strictly necessary in order to
demonstrate legal compliance, soundness and compatibility with the Duty
to Cooperate should be necessary. This includes the requirements to take
into account environmental constraints and strengthening the Duty to
Cooperate requirements.
1
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Town and Country Planning ( Local Planning)
(England) Regulations 2012, Environmental Assessment of Plans and programmes Regulations 2004,
Conservations of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, National Planning Policy Framework and
national Planning Practice Guidance.
2
31% of LPA have up to date Local Plans - examined and found sound since the introduction of NPPF.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
11
25 April 2016

Guidance and single methodologies for key processes should be
introduced in order to bring clarity consistency and time savings to the
plan making process. In particular the simplification of the Strategic
Housing Market Assessment process (detailed in 2.2 below) is strongly
recommended. A single Sustainability Appraisal (SA) removing the
requirement to be iterative and to consider reasonable alternatives is also
recommended. The single SA report should only focus on explaining how
the plan represents sustainable development in the context of the NPPF.

Plan making continues to be affected by “policy creep” brought on through
changes in Government policy. The LPEG recommend that a more stable
plan making environment should be created by limiting changes to the
NPPF to a five year review, national PPG should only be changed
periodically and in one go and changes are subject to industry scrutiny
before they are made.
2.2
Meeting and Delivering Housing Needs

There should be a single and simplified approach to calculating housing
needs. This includes the requirement that Government provide an up to date
assessment of Housing Market Areas (HMA’s) and identify a “best fit”
approach based on local authority boundaries. The simplified approach
should be based around a standard methodology, set around a common data
set of house price and rental affordability and CLG household projections.
The current requirement to consider alignment of housing need to
employment forecasts is recommended to be removed as part of the
objectively assessed needs, however plan makers would be allowed to plan
over and above the OAN through a “policy on” alignment with jobs growth in
setting the housing requirement, but this should not be part of the full OAN for
housing.

Uplifts due to market signals should be informed by a “live table” maintained
by Central Government that specifically deals with market signals.

In converting the Objectively Assessed Needs (OAN) into the Local Plan
housing requirements the LPEG recommend that an essential element of the
evidence base should be an Environmental Capacity assessment.

The housing target in an adopted Local Plan should be considered up to date
for at least three years and provide the foundation for the annual five year
housing land supply calculation (5YHLSC).

The test of soundness should include a requirement that the distribution of
housing targets between local authorities is agreed. Individual Local Plans
would not be allowed to proceed to examination without agreement.

The 5YHLSC itself should be undertaken to a standard guidance /
methodology and in collaboration with land owners and developers and be
included in the Annual Monitoring Report. Local Plans should seek to ensure
a more effective supply of developable land over the medium and long term
by providing a mechanism for the release of reserve sites equivalent of 20%
of the housing target. Where there is a documented shortfall against the 5
year housing land supply, LPA’s would be expected to release reserve sites.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
12
25 April 2016

The 5YHLSC would be consulted on and independently tested annually so
that it is the accepted and definitive position for a 12 month period, including
at S.78 appeals.

In terms of delivery the LPEG recommend that the Local Plan and Community
Infrastructure (CIL) are brought forward together as part of the same process.
Where CIL exists then the charging schedule and the regulation 123 list
should be reviewed to ensure alignment with the emerging Local Plan.
2.3
Engaging Communities

Local Plans should start with a community vision and effective early
community engagement. Further discretionary stages of consultation should
only be carried out in exceptional circumstances.

Guidance should be produced on the necessary stages of consultation in
order to help streamline the Local Plan process to the prescribed time line.

A local authority should be allowed to modify its Draft Plan in response to the
pre submission public consultation without having to undergo a further round
of plan making.

Local Plans have the role in setting the scope for and the role of
Neighbourhood Plans
3.
Analysis / Implementations
3.1
The LPWG builds on the Government’s intentions by recommending that the
Presumption of Sustainable Development in the NPPF should be applied and
any historical “local plan” be declared out of date where a LPA has not
submitted an updated Local Plan by 20173 and the authority considered for
“special measures”. In cases where there is no post NPPF adoption4 of Local
Plans the LPEG report recommends that the same measures should be
applied but deferred until March 2018. North Norfolk’s Local Plan consists of
a Core Strategy and Development Management Policies adopted in 2009, a
Site Specific Allocations DPD adopted in 2011, and other Supplementary
Planning Guidance. North Norfolk would fall into the latter category should the
recommendation be carried into policy; however the current time line
anticipates submission in February 2018.
3.2
Any bidding for infrastructure funding through LEP’s could expect less priority
if timely progression is not made with the emerging Local Plan.
3.3
The use of an appropriate strategy rather than the most appropriate strategy
could not only allow greater flexibility and alignment to local circumstances,
but reduce the current work load around the iterative nature of the
sustainability appraisal. This change would reinforce the fact that local plans
are intended to reflect “the vision and aspiration of local communities” (NPPF
paragraph 150). At this stage of production North Norfolk’s Local Plan will still
need to focus on the production of an iterative SA.
3
4
In line with the requirements of the 2004 Act.
The National Planning Policy Framework, NPPF came into effect in 2012.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
13
25 April 2016
3.4
North Norfolk SHMA has been produced jointly across the Housing Market
Area of Central Norfolk in collaboration with 4 LPA’s and the Broads Authority
and NCC. It includes uplifts for affordable housing, market signals and
employment factors. Should the recommendations come into effect there may
be a need to review against a simplified methodology.
3.5
The streamlining of the evidence base in order to address only the key
requirement of the Plan as identified by the LPA still introduces ambiguity
around what the plan might be required to produce as an evidence. It also
has the potential to impact on the decisions around the commissioning of
more local evidence to address/inform any local concerns.
3.6
The examination of the 5YHLSC and the adoption of the figure for the entire
year would reduce the potential for challenge and free up resources. While
the inclusion of reserve sites represents a policy tool to respond to changes in
the market should the supply of land fall below 5 years, it is not at this stage
clear how it would work. Specifically once a site is allocated, at this stage the
mechanisms on how they could be held back/brought forward is an unknown
and remains a risk.
3.7
Both these initiatives could however have impacts (benefits) through reduced
“planning by appeal” should the authority not be able to demonstrate a five
year land supply in the future or be challenged on a speculative nature,
however the mechanism needs further clarity.
3.8
The recommendations seek to strengthen the Duty to Cooperate by agreeing
the housing distribution of the full OAN through the Duty to Cooperate
process or through devolved powers. Where unmet needs are identified the
Local Plan will still need to identify how these needs will be met in adjacent
authorities and demonstrate proactive involvement in delivering this element
of need. It is not, at this stage expected that North Norfolk will receive a
formal request to meet any unmet needs from adjacent authorities, nor is it
expected that the District will be unable to accommodate its own needs as
identified in the joint Central Norfolk Strategic Housing Market Assessment.
Never the less the requirement will introduce the need for further strategic
cooperation.
3.9
In terms of delivery and the funding of infrastructure the current Local Plan
policy approach is expected to be based around S.106 agreements. The full
scale of obligations and policy “burdens” will in due course be subject to
viability testing and is a requirement of the NPPF. The recommendation that a
CIL is brought forward or reviewed as part of the Local Plan process is also
contained in the NPPF5, never the less the plan wide viability work should set
the scene for further CIL work, should it be seen as appropriate as the Local
Plan emerges.
3.10
The LPEG have stopped short of recommending prescribed templates and
policies, recognising that each Local Plan should be distinctive. They are
however recommending that Local Plans set the strategic content and set the
scope for neighbourhood Plans to add local value and distinctiveness to. In
advocating early regulation 18 engagement the LPEG are advocating that
Local Plans should focus on those matters that are identified as the greatest
5
NPPF, 2012 paragraph 175
Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
14
25 April 2016
concern to local communities including biodiversity, heritage, place making
and quality of life. The only formal consultation on the Local Plan would be at
the Draft Plan stage after a 48 week period. This approach simplifies and
introduces clarity into the consultation process but limits the options for the
authority to introduce additional layers of engagement should it wish to
undertake more inclusive engagement. However the recommendation that
LPA’s should be able to amend the Draft Plan following consultation in
respect of community engagement introduces new flexibility at this late stage
and will allow the authority the opportunity to respond to local feedback and
fine tune the plan at this stage, prior to submission.
3.11
The approach envisaged in the emerging Local Plan for North Norfolk
included an early consultation on the key topics to be included in the plan. A
further round of town council workshops are currently being planned which
will also form part of the visioning exercise and regulation 18 consultation. A
further round of regulation 18 consultation is currently time tabled for August September 2017 with the Draft Plan consultation set for November 2017. If
the recommendations are accepted around the LPEG’s time line and
consultation process there may be a need to review the scope of the earlier
approach and the envisaged consultation.
3.12
Generally the recommendations have been warmly received and are
generally supported, with the recognition that the Local Plan making process
has become over complicated. There is some concern around the LPEG’s
lack of technical expertise and a call for further technical review in relation to
some of the proposals. In particular the recommendation around the
simplified approach to the identification of the OAN has been questioned and
there is a call for this to be further reviewed by technical
experts/demographers in order to turn this into practice. Similarly there is
some concern on whether the suggested changes to the sustainability
appraisal process would be compliant with European legislation and further
technical appraisals should be carried out.
3.13
In terms of plan making the aim of creating a period of stability is welcomed
through restricting changes to NPPF and national guidance to set periods, as
is the collaborative proposal around a clear methodology for the 5YHLSC and
the three year period for the housing target set in any Local Plan. The ability
to amend the draft plan for reasons other than soundness introduces flexibility
at this late stage and is seen to accord with the streamlined consultation
process.
3.14
It is not clear how a LPA could “hold back” reserve sites once these had been
identified as sustainable locations with the result that districts could end up
with higher levels of growth (up to 20%) than the envisaged housing target.
3.15
The LPEG stopped short of recommending templates for Local Plans and this
is welcomed as LPA’s should be given the flexibility to address local issues,
however the introduction of MOT’s on emerging plans may result in a
movement to a more standard approach in time. Annual examinations of the
5YHLSC may reduce sporadic challenge but could be resource intensive.
4.
Conclusion
The LPEG report seeks to address many of the perceived barriers that have
resulted in some authorities’ slow progress in reviewing and updating Local
Plans. The LPEG report produces a number of recommendations which could
Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
15
25 April 2016
lead to the introduction of a more streamlined Local Plan process. The
consequence would mean greater emphasis on monitoring, delivery and
review in order to develop a flexible approach to meeting development needs.
Should these recommendations be taken on board by government their
introduction will require changes in the NPPF, national PPG and other
legislative changes. There is the potential opportunity for the government to
introduce an element of stability and level playing field for plan making.
5.
Legal Implications and Risks: This report is for information only. As outlined
above the report details the key recommendations to recommended changes
to the Local Plan process. Many of the recommendations, should they be
implemented will require further national enabling regulations.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
16
25 April 2016