Re: National Planning Policy Framework - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Ouvert
|
En cours - juillet 2012
|
Dernière modification - Aujourd'hui
Re: National Planning Policy Framework
Am I correct in assuming that there is little point in forward planning one's work programme on the basis of the Practitioners Advisory Group May 20th draft of the NPPF? I ask this because the following paragraph seems to be saying that a separate Core Strategy (which of course is not even referred to) and a second DPD setting out site allocations and policy designations would be wrong since it would not be "one plan". Therefore those of us working on such a basis would seem to be in conflict with the NPPF from the outset. Perhaps we should all down tools until next year? "Each local planning authority should produce one plan for its area – the Local Plan. Beyond this, additional development plan documents or supplementary planning documents should only be necessary exceptionally, for instance where their production can help to bring forward sustainable development at an accelerated rate. Supplementary planning documents must not be used to add to the financial burdens on development" Another question regarding the final sentence of the above - how broadly could 'financial burdens, be interpreted? For example would an SPD on Adaptation to Climate Change or on Improving Health Outcomes offend this aspect of the NPPF. Any views from PAS?
Mike, I don't think anyone should be downing tools at this stage. I think the opposite is the case and you should be working full steam to get your core strategy in place (whatever name you give it). I think the consequences of not having the core strategy in place (presumption in favour, neighbourhood plans, duty to cooperate) are serious. A pragmatic approach would be to adopt the core strategy, then take an early review if necessary for some of the issues you are working on in other DPDs. The heart of the core strategy won't change, the work on the other DPDs won't be wasted (evidence gathering, engagement). Where the words 'go' is less important than showing how you came to the conclusion that they are the 'right' words. At the very least, we should see what the NPPF draft for consultation says, in about a month's time (but I'm not suggesting you down tolls until it comes out!). There are always 'transitional arrangements' to allow for work in train to be completed as well. Who knows, maybe we will be allowed to add DPD work into the core strategy as an appendix, or a 'part II'?
With all due respect to you both as professionals, but you might be over thinking this and attaching too much importance to the titles rather than the content of these documents. The crucial aspects must be the relevance and soundness of the evidence rather than what it's called under the current system. Deffinately don't sit on your hands, down tools or even slow down the production of your 'local plan'. In the abscence of an a sound and up to date LP, an application for sustainable development must be approved and the NPPF is clearly designed to promote this. The localism bill will hit the streets in Nov, so time is of the essence.
It would be better if the NPPF said, submit your current plans ASAP, and then update on a one plan basis. The risk being that if the SoS issued a certificate of conformity - a new beast - of the submitted plan to the NPPF anyone wanting to delay a controversial scheme could issue a JR - as it was not a 'one plan' LDF contrary to national policy. The NPPF is all encompassing and the conformity process will be to that and not transitional arrangements outside it. No this has to be on the face of the NPPF. The next chapter of my analysis of the NPPF National Planning Policy Framework Forensics #10 Housing Site Assessment, Allocation and Management Is here http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/national-planning-policy-framework-forensics-10-housing-site-assessment-allocation-and-management/
Any SPD implementing national policy will not add to financial burdens as this will be assessed in the regulatory impact assessment that accompanies the NPPF. It will only be a burden if benefits
are less than costs. Is 5 minutes of a planning consultants time reading an spd charged to client adding to burdens? If so no SPD would be permitted.
My thanks to Adam for not going 'off message' and Roger is right my post did 'over think' the situation but deliberately so. I wonder if Andrew has as well with the point he makes about the 'certificate of conformity' with the NPPF - . Anybody know how that will work by the way? It is good to see the golden thread of 'Localism' on display though isn't it?
Out of interest, does anyone have a definition of an 'up to date' development plan? Are Core Strategies adopted in 2006 counted as 'up to date?' And, if so, how about a UDP adopted in 2006 as well?
There is caselaw concerning greenbelts saying that the age of a plan by itself is not material - what matters is its continuing relevance. However the moment the NPPF is published every single development plan will become out of date, except for the few areas where policy hasnt changed, such as greenbelt. Even a London Core strategy published this week, in line with the new London Plan, wouldnt be up to date on things like the protection of industrial land. If you are about to submit youll need a certificate of conformity analysis, even if you have adopted youll need to do one to avoid getting costs awarded against you at appeal. DM officers will need to check through that and not just an adopted DPD before making recommendations. Having now gone through the pratitioners draft line by line against current policy am free (well not free as in beer) to do such an assessment when the final draft is published next month.
The leaked version of the NPPF which surfaced a couple of days ago (whether authentic or not!) seems to suggest that more than one DPD is OK, which comes as good news to many. However...the draft NPPF is raising big questions for those of us who are preparing a standalone Development Management Policies DPD. We've previously considered these policies necessary to implement the Core Strategy, but as the draft NPPF doesn't acknowledge a hierarchy of plans, the logical assumption is that each local plan will need to justify its own existence. Do DM Policies assist in 'bringing forward sustainable development at an accelerated rate'? The 'accelerated rate' bit is going to be particularly hard to demonstrate. The draft NPPF suggests that a DPD setting 'local standards' requires in-the-round viability testing, so presumably this will be the method of justifying accelerated sustainable development, but inevitably there will be DM policies which are more about sustainable development than accelerated development. One for the inspectors perhaps. Does anyone have any thoughts on this and/or are considering a whole-plan viability assessment of DM Policies or other DPDs?
Sarah Cornwell, modifié il y a 12 années.
Re: National Planning Policy Framework
New Member Publications: 5 Date d'inscription: 11/08/13 Publications Récentes
0
Paul Can you post a link to the leaked version, or attach a file with it in please
The cynic in me suggest that all you policy experts are being led down the garden path here and that despite you best efforts to interpret this document in a postive manner, it's sole purpose is to actually to undermine pretty much everything you've done up until now. There's already a hint in the drafts that if somebody comes forward with an application that isn't in your plan, but doesn't involve actually knocking down Windsor Castle, or digging up the Peak District and says growth somewhare in the preamble and repeats sustainable often enough in the rest of its pages, you should approve it - so why bother writing your own local plan!! Perhaps the better approach would be to wait for the final version, rip the front cover off, stick your own on, complete with your particular LA logo so it looks like you mean it, and then start working your socks off on a complete a full set of neighbour plans, design briefs and site specific development briefs for currently vacant and important sites.