NPPF and out of date plans - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Grŵp agored
|
Wedi dechrau - Gorffenaf 2012
|
Gweithgaredd diwethaf - Ddoe
NPPF and out of date plans
We are in the process of writing a draft Development Management DPD following a Reg. 25 consultation. We have decided to ‘pause’ the work until the structure/content of the NPPF was known. However, now that we have the draft NPPF we are wondering where this leaves us with regard to the following matter: DM DPDs are intended to be concise documents not repeating existing national guidance. With the condensed guidance in the NPPF and the fact that it will not contain the helpful policies which were introduced in the most recent PPSs we are considering if an approach for our DM DPD would be to use some of the recent PPS policies. Secondly we adopted our Core Strategy in 2008 which makes reference to PPGs and PPSs – however we are concerned because this is such a radical change in the presentation of national policy our Core Strategy could become out of date immediately the NPPF is adopted. Also like many with adopted Core Strategies we have housing figures based on the RSS figure, could we have a situation that overnight the 30% of LPAs with adopted Core Strategies will find their plan is out of date? We all no doubt recognise there will be a need to assess housing requirements locally, but given other requirements, such as DM DPDs, site allocations, Gypsy & Traveller site allocations; reviewing the Core Strategies may not have been a high priority. How are others thinking of dealing with these matters?
Given that the NPPF proposes to do away with green belt inset villages, and knowing how critical and legally complex issue this has been for you I would recommend that you move quickly to: 1. Finalise the gaps in policy areas and place a comprehensiveness 'one plan' local plan on submission as soon as you can 2. That that review decides what to do with those villages, if necessary making a local case for special policy treatment (the draft NPPF on this issue is pretty dumb though on this point) 3. It bases its housing figure on the latest estimates of housing need and the 2008 based HH projections - if RSS was revoked, or if RSS was now being reviewed sub-regionally you would do the same so it makes little difference 4. Joint working arrangements are in place to test if any housing displaced beyond the green belt can be accommodated there. If not you or nobody else can have a lawful new plan after royal assent 5. You shouldn't need a whole volume of development management policies. Well written plans should have no more than 15 or so - even with the minimalism of the NPPF. No-one wants to go back to the days of the 500 page local plan. Repeating old PPS policies verbatim will gain an inspectors ire if used too much im sure. If an LPA fials to fill the policy gap by November, by not having something in place at least in draft form, then the presumption could fall down heavily on them, and you could fail to gain a certificate of conformity for the existing core strategy. Even Green Belt areas are at risk with the Woking inspector saying that failure to meet housing need can count as exceptional circumstances for green belt deletion. There seems to be panic and confusion at the moment with at least three core strategy examinations halted mid flow.
Andrew Where does the NPPF propose to do away with inset villages? There is admittedly, an almost negatively worded statement in para 139 advising LPAs to 'consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards town or village insets..." However, I don't read this is as a proposals to do away with village insets - or are we missing something here??
Not Andrew, but my reading is that it is Green Belt Settlements not inset villages that are not referred to. Under PPG2 there are three options for settlements in the Green Belt: i) inset - that is excluded from the Green Belt where limited development or limited expansion is possible; ii) “washed over” and listed in the development plan and normally with defined boundaries within which limited infilling can take place; iii) “washed over” but not listed in the development plan where no new building (except that considered appropriate in the Green Belt). The draft NPPF does not include the middle category (ii) of “washed over” and listed settlements, commonly known as Green Belt Settlements. Green Belt Settlements provide a opportunity for limited infilling to take place on sites which are surrounded by development and would not harm the openness of the Green Belt. Villages might not be suitable for being “inset” (excluded), and without the middle way even infill opportunities that may help to contribute to local housing or the economic vitality of a village will not be possible. It seems that paragraph 144 (bullet point 5) which refers to limited infilling in villages allows for such situations, but without more clarity the guidance is ambiguous.
Thanks Paul. Your last sentence sums it up and certainly, the definition of what constitutes appropriate development appears to have broadened in the draft NPPF. The final bullet point is also verye open ended given that it could provided the basis for the complete redevelopment of previously deveoped sites in continuing use, as 'infill'. I expect it will be 'down to local authorities' (and planning Inspectors) to interpret this, although this potentially could cover anything from a large cattle shed to an existing terrace of houses in the Green Belt.