Re: Policies in the NPPF and whether to include them? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

I think you shouldn't be including NPPF policies within the plan unless there is some locally specific dimension to their interpretation or you think there is a locally justified departure from national policy, in which case divergences should be identified explained and justified. Repeating national policy adds nothing to the plan although a cross reference may be useful. The model policy and the three line whip behind it are an anomalous approach.

I think Dan is spot on here and I am sure that is in the spirit of the NPPF and planning reforms generally. If you have consulted on a draft policy, but you are now going to leave it to the NPPF then you will need to make this clear to everyone. Set out which policies are being dropped as a result of the NPPF being published, and why. I am sure this could be done in a simple table rather than reams of explanatory text. Anyone else considering removing local policies, considering the issue adequately covered by the NPPF? How are you setting this out to everyone?

Don't forget that inspector's are insisting that part of the NPPF is repeated in all adopted Plans - the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This time around it doesn't say that we cannot, and we already know that national and regional policy can change leaving big gaps. So if a particular national strategy is important to you, what is the harm of interpreting it in you Local Plan and getting it adopted ?

Peter, Yes, the 'model policy' is clearly the exception, being the one piece of national policy everyone must have in their local plans. I also think you're right in that, if something is important to you, and backed up by evidence, then it is likely it is significant enough to warrant a local policy. However, I do want to put something out there about a 'default position' (ie. just because you can, should you?) As for national policy changing and leaving gaps, I agree, and that is always a risk to assess. However, I think the likelihood of national policy shrinking even further, and therefore removing something from the NPPF that you choose to rely upon, is probably fairly low (at least at the moment). Regional policy has been 'going' for a couple of years now, so hopefully anyone wishing to use that in their local plans has had time to incorporate it (as encouraged by para 218 of the NPPF). There are a couple of potential 'harms' of interpreting policy locally, I think. There is the push for brevity in plans and keeping things simple. There is already enough to be talking to communities about without making plans longer by repeating the NPPF locally. I also think a risk comes from the potential to slightly misinterpret it, and therefore have a plan that contains policies that are easy to challenge. You may find people arguing over whether you have interpreted national policy 'correctly' rather than what the policy 'does'. This will undoubtedly cause delay that you can avoid by relying on the NPPF 'as worded' in decision-making. To ask your question in a different way, If what is in the NPPF does what you want/need, then what is the harm in keeping it out of your local plan?

Adam - writes of the "push for brevity in plans and keeping things simple. There is already enough to be talking to communities about without making plans longer by repeating the NPPF locally". I was wondering how he would advise a local authority which, despite reading paragraph 47 of the NPPF several times over still felt that in order to demonstrate it had a suffciient supply of land for new homes envisages the need to allocate several hundred housing sites. These istes would only comprise about one third of the toal number required for the plan period, would average around 116 units each and would warrant in effect a 1 or 2 page mini-brief for a significant number of them. The final plan and the consulation docments before hand would clearly be quite voluminous. In that context copying a few things over form the NPPF would make relatively little difference.

Mike, I would say 'do what you can and take a proportionate approach'. Which I am sure is what you'd expect me to say. Maybe package some of the sites together if they are part of an existing settlement or coherent area? Think about the level of detail required to enable decisions to be made on them, and how much may be able to be covered by generic policies? I'd also question whether allocating sites is the only way of demonstrating a 5-year supply. A more proactive use of the SHLAA would seem to be another option. That is where you will have identified your sites, so monitoring those coming forward and having discussions with owners of other sites that may be able to contribute to the 5-year supply could be a way to go (without recourse to allocating hundreds of sites, perhaps). All that being said, if the 'multiple allocations' route had to be followed, I still don't see that as a reason for copying NPPF policies into your local plan. However big your plan has to be, why make it bigger unnecessarily? Anyone else using SHLAA as a means of helping to demonstrate a 5 year supply? What other evidence/means are you using?

Adam - it would be really helpful if there was some concrete evidence that wall to wall allocations were not necessary to demonstrate the first two tranches of supply. Inspectors decison letters or examination reports, counsels opinion to that effect or not would be welcome. As for NPPF poliices I think we will be generally content to leave them where they are.

Mike, I agree. I'm afraid I can't point to anywhere at the moment though. The meaning of footnote 11 has been well-documented, but footnote 12 less so. I can't see how an up-to-date and monitored SHLAA can't be used to provide the evidence that a site is 'deliverable', but I appreciate it would be better if a more 'official' line on this was provided. There is the Taylor Review of guidance and I'm sure the outcomes of this will be seen....at some point. I don't mean to be cynical by saying that, I just don't wish to make it seem as if I know when it is coming out (I don't) so I'm not going to put a timescale on it.

Not repeating NPPF policy seems obvious to me, after all it is what we were meant to be doing before so why would we change now? The problem I have with the 'model policy' is that it isn't really a policy and isn't that good, to my mind; how you are meant to monitor it properly? What happens with SA and the need for options? When i first read it I was instantly thinking of ways to edit and improve it. There is also part of me that when told I must do something a particular way wants to say 'No' or at the very least 'Why?' My final problem with using it without modification is that it will not reflect any 'house style' that may have been developed in all your other policies. I have no problem with including the principle of sustainable development, possibly even word for word the model policy but as an overarching principle alongside the vision and objectives - giving it the importance it deserves. There are a couple of problems with not repeating NPPF policy or having a 'local variation' type approach though: If you don't include a policy then people may think you don't think its important. If you have a local policy many people will say it differs too much from the NPPF. The solution to my mind is whichever route you go for to back it up with reasoned justification and evidence.

James, I think your last sentence says it all. On your 'couple of problems', I think the first one highlights a 'selling job' we all have to do now. We have to make people aware, officers, Councillors and the public, that the NPPF may be used in making a decision. I'm not actually sure how many people are really 'aware' of this. So therefore you are not saying 'we don't have a policy on it', you're saying 'here is our policy on this issue', and then pulling the NPPF out (preferably with a dramatic flourish, but I'd stop short of a 'ta-da!')