What should Development Management Policies look like in future?

Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Grŵp agored | Wedi dechrau - Gorffenaf 2012 | Gweithgaredd diwethaf - Ddoe

Former Member, Addaswyd 12 Years yn ôl.

What should Development Management Policies look like in future?

I'm a Planning Consultant working with South Norfolk Council to prepare a Development Mangement Policies DPD. A first Reg 25 consultation document will be prepared for late 2011. The NPPF paras 13-14 bring us the "presumption in favour of sustainable development", requires "positive plans" and for LPAs to approve proposals whenever possible, in particular when the plan is "absent, silent, indeterminate or...out of date".....unless the adverse impacts of allowing development significantly and demonstrable outweigh the benefits..." when assessed against the policies in "this Framework..." i.e. the NPPF It is the case that LPAs have been urged to prepare plans that rely on rather than duplicate RSs and PPSs and these are being abolished/dramatically reduced in content. So where does this leave Development Management Policies? To try to expand to fill in all the gaps in RS/PPS coverage and to anticipate and set out all the exceptions where the presumption and the proposal should not be approved? Surely not?! Is the answer in the end of para 14 and 15? i.e. DM policies must give "clear polices that will guide how the presumption will be applied locally" to assess whether the adverse impacts of allowing development would "significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" when assessed against the LOCAL policy framework? Any thoughts and ideas? Do policies need to all start with a repeated positive statement and then a basis of assessment? Anyone at a similar point in the process?

Former Member, Addaswyd 12 Years yn ôl.

Re: What should Development Management Policies look like in future?

Michael - that quote from the end of para. 14 only applies to where an application is in line with a plan or absent, silent etc. It says nothing about when a scheme is contrary to a plan - the assumption has to be that in line with s38(6) that where contrary to the local plan it should be refused. So presumably as long as a local plan meets objectively assessed development needs & includes the presumption on its first page, it is still possible for DM policies to say 'yes unless' and use criteria based policies. So for example you could fill in the gap on adverts by having a policy against large adverts in the countryside. It is silly though we have to fill in the gaps and the NPPF seems strangely encourage a return to 500 page local plans. Wales though with its 200 page equivalent to the NPPF does not have excessively sized local development plans, no larger really than many core strategies which incorporate a limited number of DM policies and site allocations. Admittedly that is in a system without the 'presumption' but best practice still would favour a limited number of generic policies on impacts rather than a return to policies on paintball, fishing, and whatever was the controversial land use of the hour. The draft NPPF might usefully have retained that phrase from an earlier version on PPS12 on the use of generic rather than specific policies. Neighbourhood plans might be more specific still. So if for example you had a generic policy on A3/4/5 saturation, a neighbourhood plan might say, its been reached here.

Former Member, Addaswyd 12 Years yn ôl.

Re: What should Development Management Policies look like in future?

Thanks Andrew. I agree s38(6) remains (as far as I understand it) so the starting point is that contrary proposals are refused. In order to drum the point in to everyone, I suspect we may need to repeat the presumption in every policy - or at least early drafts. If we could "say this only once" at the beginging of the plan that would be great - but how often do people propoerly read the plan as a whole? Agree - a shorter a NPPF will create more longer Local Plans each reinventing the wheel, using more paper and more effort... we gain local discretion but will lose certainty/clarity..... Your comments please - As you say we should aim for fewer generic policies on impact etc but any particular thoughts on sources of best practice advice going forwards? My understanding is we should try to avoid using the "criteria" word - but to describe the outcome wanted. But how best to put "teeth" into the DM policies that are to deliver the aspirational Core Strategy stuff - does it have to be minimum standards?