association of directors of economy, environment, planning ... · opportunity to fund additional...

ADEPT response to NPPF Consultation February 2016

1

Association of Directors of Economy, Environment, Planning and Transport

Response to Consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy

February 2016 Introduction to ADEPT The Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport (ADEPT) represents local authority county, unitary and metropolitan Directors who manage some of the most pressing issues facing the UK today. Operating at the strategic tier of local Government, we are responsible for delivering public services that primarily relate to the physical environment and the economy, but which have a significant impact on all aspects of the nation’s well-being. ADEPT is submitting a response to this questionnaire within this context. At the local level, our members, with our wide-ranging responsibilities and cross-cutting professional knowledge, have a unique understanding of the opportunities and barriers facing their respective places. Because we start from a place-based approach, we automatically join up policy areas that in Whitehall are spread across a number of different Departments. We therefore see ourselves as having a key role in supporting and helping to deliver sustainable economic growth and quality of life and are keen to work with Government, business and the community and voluntary sector to make the most of the opportunities available.

Summary of Consultation Response

This response provides an overview of the views of ADEPT members in response to the questions raised by the Government in the consultation document. Where possible a number of recommendations have been provided. Whilst there is sometimes different views from ADEPT members in response to the specific questions there are four overriding themes that arise consistently throughout:

1) The proposals within this consultation do not address the real issues of providing affordable housing or increasing housing delivery;

2) There is a real need to ensure any increase in housing is supported by the necessary infrastructure;

3) A request from all members that national planning policy remains flexible, providing Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) the power to make decisions based on adopted Local Plans and local evidence; and

4) Housing delivery and the implementation of the proposed changes in this consultation will require investment in staff and resources both of which are under pressure in LPAs.

Finally as this consultation is around the broader ideas of changing the NPPF rather than the detailed wording we would request that a further full consultation is undertaken to allow for interested parties to respond to the detailed changes. Also ADEPT would welcome any opportunity to be involved in discussions around any further proposed changes to the planning system.


2

Response to Questions

a) Affordable Housing

Q1. Do you have any comments or suggestions about the proposal to amend the definition of

affordable housing in national planning policy to include a wider range of low cost home

ownership options?

There is general support in principle from ADEPT members to widening the definition of affordable

housing. However ADEPT members have a number of concerns with regards to the consequences of

this proposed change:

The range of low cost housing currently proposed, notably starter homes as per the current

definition, will not be affordable to the majority of people in need. It is highly unlikely that

starter homes will meet the needs of the most disadvantaged such as the homeless, low

income households and the disabled;

The emphasis of affordable housing policy should not disproportionately focus on home

ownership over rental as this could result in a less mobile workforce, fewer homes for key

workers to rent and an overall lack of supply for affordable rented homes in more deprived

areas;

If the provision of starter homes under the proposed broadened affordable housing

definition is going to replace an existing element of affordable homes delivery, rather than

supplement it, there is a very real risk that those who have the greatest need will be in a

worse position to secure suitable accommodation;

Where development viability is an issue, the current proposal to extend the definition of

affordable housing to include a wider range of low cost home ownership options, including

starter homes, could result in homes for social rent and shared ownership being squeezed

out in s106 negotiations with developers and replaced by starter homes without increasing

the overall supply of new homes;

It is also possible that amending the definition of affordable homes to include starter homes

could prompt developers to seek to renegotiate existing s106 agreements to replace existing

provisions for affordable homes with starter homes. This would risk undoing provisions on

contributions to supporting infrastructure, which infrastructure providers are already relying

on in planning the delivery of infrastructure, with revised agreements leading to funding

shortfalls and delayed infrastructure provision; and

Affordable housing and starter homes do not have to contribute to CIL and this could result

in the development of further houses without the necessary supporting infrastructure.

Furthermore, affordable housing products which are not subject to ‘in perpetuity restrictions’

will not reduce the demand for affordable housing in the medium to long term as there will be

no long term net addition to the stock of affordable housing. This will ultimately make it difficult

to maintain and increase a sufficient supply of affordable homes to meet the NPPF requirement

to provide objectively assessed needs.


3

Recommendations

LPAs are given the flexibility to decide which type of affordable housing (including discounted starter homes) is provided based on local evidence which can better match identified needs.

The Government clarifies whether the provision of starter homes is intended to form part of

homes currently required as market housing, thus increasing overall the number of affordable homes available, or form part of the existing affordable housing requirements, therefore not increasing the overall number of affordable homes, and actually reducing the number of traditional affordable homes available.

The discount awarded to starter homes is in perpetuity and not for a 5 year period. This will mean that starter homes are a longer term solution to affordable housing.

Consideration should also be given to whether initiatives like Build to Rent need to be strengthened to ensure there is sufficient supply of affordable high quality homes to meet the requirements of households.

Q2. Do you have any views on the implications of the proposed change to the definition of

affordable housing on people with protected characteristics as defined in the Equalities Act 2010?

What evidence do you have on this matter?

ADEPT members expressed a number of concerns in regards to the impact of changes to the

definition of affordable housing, in particular:

It is inherently discriminatory to base starter home eligibility on age;

There are concerns that the emphasis on affordable homes to purchase for younger and

more able bodied groups will reduce the supply of specialist designed affordable housing to

rent for frail and older people and other adults with physical and learning disabilities. There

are no proposals set out within the documents to address this negative impact; and

The equalities statement does not address the fundamental impact of a reduction in supply

of affordable rented housing.

Recommendations

The equalities statement is revisited to ensure it examines the impact of the changes on the

overall provision of affordable housing in the long term.

An Impact Assessment is produced to examine the wider impacts of the proposals in terms

of social, environmental and economic effects.

The provision of affordable housing should be in relation to identified housing need, as

evidenced through the Local Plan. This would better enable local authorities to ensure that

housing can be made available to meet the needs of people with protected characteristics.


4

b) Increasing residential density around commuter hubs

Q3. Do you agree with the Government’s definition of commuter hub? If not, what changes do you

consider are required?

There is general agreement among ADEPT members with the Government’s definition of a

commuter hub but a number of questions and suggested additions have been raised:

The definition should include park and ride facilities along with commuter hubs at bus

interchanges;

There is need for clarity on the frequency of services needed to be defined as a hub and on

whether frequent service refers to both arrivals and departure;

There is need for clarity over what is meant by ‘could have a commuter hub in the future’;

and

The extent of the area “around” the potential hub at which the higher densities should be

applied needs to be clarified in the NPPF or defined at a local level.

Recommendations

The definition is revisited to address the uncertainties or if the definition cannot be made to

address the issues raised it may be more suitable to allow local authorities to set their own

definitions to suit local circumstances.

Q4. Do you have any further suggestions for proposals to support higher density development

around commuter hubs through the planning system?

The general principle of higher density housing close to commuter hubs is supported by ADEPT

members but we have the following suggestions to make:

Recommendations

While the existence of a public transport interchange allows the possibility for sustainable

journeys elsewhere, it is also key to ensure these hubs have other services to reduce the

need to travel. When considering higher density at commuter hubs it is therefore also

important that these housing developments are served by other infrastructure such as local

shops, open space, education and health care facilities. The definition of commuter hubs

should make reference to the capacity of public transport services, and their ability to

support housing growth in the vicinity.

It is suggested that commuter hubs should be seen as part of an overall

transport/settlement strategy that access all the development and infrastructure needs of

the area.

There is a risk of a blanket policy approach in the NPPF which encourages the development

of some valuable open space and Green Belt land without considering the potential impacts

on other policy and landscape designations. A statement is needed in the NPPF to protect

open space, Green Belt and other designations from inappropriate development.


5

There is a recognition in the NPPF that additional development may be used as an

opportunity to fund additional public transport capacity, not just locating development

where there is existing transport infrastructure. This could be through policy and longer

term funding initiatives to support local growth in sustainable locations.

The NPPF recognises that higher density residential development around commuter hubs

should have regard to the nature of the hub (whether origin or destination) and the

character of the area around the hub, including any potential adverse impacts of higher

density residential development. A reference is included to ensure they are well designed

schemes that compliment the local area.

Q5. Do you agree that the Government should not introduce a minimum level of residential

densities in national policy for areas around commuter hubs? If not, why not?

In principle ADEPT consider it appropriate to seek to achieve high density development around

commuter hubs where residents would have links by various sustainable modes to nearby jobs,

services and facilities, subject to the funding of any necessary infrastructure improvements. This

however, needs to be an assessment undertaken at the local level and nearly all ADEPT members

who shared their responses to this consultation agreed that the Government should not introduce a

minimum level of residential densities in national policy for areas around commuter hubs. This is for

three main reasons:

Higher density standards may lead to specific types of housing (e.g. flats) for which there will

not necessarily be demand or need:

In some cases, especially where particular constraints are present, for example, enabling

preservation of heritage assets and provision of green-infrastructure, smaller density is most

appropriate;

The implications of demands for services and facilities generated by a proposal and the

ability of the development to fund necessary supporting infrastructure should be tested on a

case by case basis.

It should be noted that this will place an additional requirement upon local authorities in the plan

making process which may have timescale and resource implications, particularly in light of the wide

reaching commuter hub definition as currently proposed. It may be necessary to establish different

densities at commuter hubs within the same Local Plan area depending on immediate setting and

context. Furthermore, it may be necessary to identify a commuter hub within a new development

area (new settlement) which will provide a new rail, tube or tram connection.

Recommendations

LPAs are left to determine the appropriate residential density taking into account local

circumstances such as levels of accessibility and capacity, impact on the historic and natural

environment along with constraints such as flooding


6

c) Supporting new settlements, development on brownfield land and small

sites, and delivery of housing agrees in Local Plans

Q6. Do you consider that national planning policy should provide greater policy support for new

settlements in meeting development needs? If not, why not?

New settlements are supported in principle at sustainable locations which are well planned and are

capable of delivering a good range of jobs, services, facilities and supporting infrastructure. ADEPT

considers that national planning policy should provide greater support for new settlements to help

speed up the delivery of large scale complex proposals which have historically had very long lead in

periods.

However ADEPT argue it is not sufficient to simply strengthen national planning policy. A package of

further support measures are needed to enable the successful delivery of new settlements. This

should include flexibilities in Local Plan production, mechanisms to facilitate land acquisition,

processes to facilitate greater land value capture for infrastructure delivery and greater funding

support from Government to ensure that critical infrastructure and services can be delivered early to

create sustainable communities.

Furthermore the impacts of new settlements are likely to have cross-border impacts and will require

strong partnership working between LPAs and infrastructure providers to successfully plan, phase,

secure funding for and deliver supporting infrastructure. It needs to form part of a plan-led system

by local planning authorities working together under the duty to cooperate to address housing

needs across the Strategic Housing Market Area.

Recommendations

Proposals of this nature should be set out in a high level strategic planning document, which

may cover more than one local planning area, and could be prepared in advance of more

detailed local planning policy in order to establish the overarching distribution strategy for

growth at an early date.

Any strengthening of policy is accompanied by a range of measures to support the delivery

of new settlements including land acquisition, processes to facilitate greater land value

capture for infrastructure delivery and greater funding support from Government.

There is recognition of the conflict between the need to demonstrate a 5 year supply to

prevent the enacting of the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ as set out in

paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the long time frames connected to new settlements.


7

Q7. Do you consider that it would be beneficial to strengthen policy on development of brownfield

land for housing? If not, why not and are there any unintended impacts that we should take into

account?

ADEPT is in full support of using suitable brownfield land for housing, it is however crucial that this

presumption in favour of development is not at the expense of other significant planning policy

objectives. Including:

Sites are in a sustainable location with good access to jobs, services and facilities to reduce

the need to travel, particularly by private car;

There is sufficient capacity in the transport and education infrastructure to accommodate

the additional demands generated by the residents of new brownfield housing and the

development can fund any necessary infrastructure improvements;

Consideration is given to the needs of industry and businesses. Pressure from land owners

to release brownfield land for housing could be detrimental to the economy if LPAs are not

given the policy support in national planning policy to retain a sufficient amount of land to

meet businesses needs. Industrial developments can take a significant time to build out and

there is a risk that proposals will be diluted by developers seeking to change to housing;

Brownfield land can often be a heritage asset or include heritage assets (e.g. industrial

archaeology and historic defence assets). Paragraph 22 proposes that development for

housing on brownfield sites should be supported, unless overriding conflicts with the Local

Plan or the NPPF can be demonstrated and cannot be mitigated. It is assumed that in these

circumstances significant heritage assets will remain a material consideration. In such

circumstances opportunities for conservation-led re-development should be prioritised -

which might not include housing, or might have a lower density of housing; and

There is a need to ensure that environmental considerations are given sufficient weight,

including the provision of open space and water management.

It could be argued that there is already sufficient guidance and encouragement to use brownfield

land within the NPPF and ADEPT have concerns that further guidance could undermine local policies

which seek to protect suitable and deliverable office, industrial and commercial sites required to

meet future economic needs. If the policy is strengthened it is crucial that LPAs still have the ability

to take into consideration other planning policy objectives.

The Housing and Planning Bill states that LPAs will be required to create and maintain up-to-date

registers of brownfield sites suitable for housing. Overall there maybe some merit in the publication

of brownfield registers to draw attention to the potential redevelopment opportunities for

brownfield development for both residential and business development. However, we do not

support the concept of an entry on the brownfield register being a means to qualifying for

permission in principle. It is important that the implications of a development proposal for

infrastructure provision are tested and mitigation measures are identified and agreed through the

planning application process in line with a genuinely plan-led system. It is also crucial that the

impact of the development of brownfield land to housing is not at the detriment of businesses in

order to ensure there remains a balance between housing and employment land. Environmental

assets and constraints such as flood risk, heritage and open space also need to be given full

consideration, which is only possible through the planning application process.


8

Recommendations

Any strengthening of policy also includes references to ensuring that proposals accord with

other planning policy objectives with specific references to economic, social and

environmental sustainability.

Any changes to the NPPF also include a specific reference to requiring sufficient land to meet

the needs of industry and businesses.

The decision over what is included on the Brownfield Register should be left to LPAs and is

based on evidence such as Employment Land Reviews and Strategic Housing Land

Availability Assessments.

The Government provides a range of financial incentives to redress the balance between the

costs of redeveloping brownfield land in comparison with easy to develop greenfield sites.

The Government examines the impact of the proposals in this consultation on LPAs

resources.

Q8. Do you consider that it would be beneficial to strengthen policy on development of small sites

for housing? If not, why not? How could the change impact on the calculation of the local planning

authorities’ five-year land supply?

There are differing views between ADEPT members on the proposal to strengthen policy towards

small sites. Some are in support whilst others argue that the presumption in favour of sustainable

development in the NPPF is sufficient. Others even argue the proposal could actually be damaging.

However, one area where there is general agreement is in questioning the consequences of

encouraging further small sites for housing:

Whilst a small site in isolation may have insignificant impacts upon infrastructure, there is

the potential for cumulative impacts if a number of small sites come forward in one area and

do not provide sufficient contributions through S106 or CIL towards infrastructure. Any

increased delivery of small housing sites would need to be provided alongside the necessary

infrastructure, notably education and transport;

In addition the pooling restrictions also mean that in towns with significant growth spread

across many sites it is not possible to collect adequate contributions to mitigate the

cumulative impact of development on key transport junctions and corridors;

Smaller developments may face the greatest difficulty in resourcing any measures that may

be required to mitigate for environmental impacts. Paragraph 24 of the consultation refers

to the need for such developments to reinforce local distinctiveness and to be sustainable –

in this context it is presumed that the weight given to the environmental aspects of

sustainable development would not be diminished in considering applications for smaller

developments;

Outside of urban areas, strengthening of policy on small sites should be within the wider

policy framework for Green Belt, AONB, and other landscape and open space designations.


9

The presence of brownfield land, on small sites, should not override the wider policy aims of

such designations; and

The consultation document refers to applying the same approach to small sites as that

proposed for brownfield sites. It is unclear whether this includes keeping an up to date

register of small sites. This would have obvious resource implications. Another approach

could be to require LPAs to have greater consideration of smaller sites as part of the Local

Plan process which is likely to lengthen the Plan making process and again require additional

resources.

Overall ADEPT considers that changes to national policy should allow for determinations to be made

locally in the context of approved Local Plan policy.

The change to national policy on development of small sites for housing clearly could have an impact

on the way in which LPAs five year land supply is calculated, however, this would depend on the

detail of the proposed changes and the implications this will have at a local level, which is not clear

in the current consultation paper. It is already acceptable to include windfall development in 5 year

supply calculations. Having a register of small scale sites for windfalls may lead to further certainty

of windfall delivery which could mean that more local authorities include windfalls in their supply

calculations. This may therefore not lead to a significant increase in local plan housing targets, nor

therefore, supply.

Q9. Do you agree with the Government proposal to define a small site as a site of less than 10

units? If not, what other definition do you consider is appropriate, and why?

Overall ADEPT members agree with the less than 10 units definition. There is also a view from a

number of ADEPT members that small sites should not be exempt from contributions to

infrastructure as they are often more profitable than larger sites and as set out above smaller sites

can place pressure on infrastructure.

Q10. Do you consider that national planning policy should set out that local planning authorities

should put in place a specific positive local policy for assessing applications for development on

small sites not allocated in the Local Plan?

It is not considered necessary to require LPAs put in place a specific positive local policy for assessing

applications for development on small sites. NPPF paragraph 15 states that “Local Plans should

follow the approach of the presumption in favour of development so that development which is

sustainable can be approved without delay.” As such, existing Local Plan policy would normally

support such developments. Having further presumption in favour of small sites would only weaken

and conflict with existing policy.

Recommendations

The need for specific policies on small sites should be taken locally in the light of evidence of

housing need and the impact on other plans and policies.


10

The exception of smaller sites from infrastructure provision is revisited in order to

understand the consequences and what impact any changes to this approach would have on

their delivery.

The policy makes it clear that the support does not apply to sites that are located within the

Green Belt and other important designated areas and that those sites will continue to be

addressed in the contest of the NPPF.

Q11. We would welcome your views on how best to implement the housing delivery test, and in

particular:

• What do you consider should be the baseline against which to monitor delivery of new housing?

The use of past performance against LPAs housing trajectory is considered as a robust method by

some members of ADEPT, who suggest the most appropriate baseline against which to monitor the

delivery of new housing would be the data published in LPAs Monitoring Reports. This approach

would help to ensure use of a consistent dataset across various reports and monitoring processes. It

should be noted however that there are significant discrepancies between housing completion data

published by Government and that held by LPAs. There is also often disagreement around the

correct way to measure a five year land supply between LPAs and developers which can cause delay

in the planning system.

• What should constitute significant under-delivery, and over what time period?

ADEPT argues that the monitoring period of 2 years is too short and could significantly increase the

workload for planning policy teams, resulting in a rolling 2 yearly review of Local Plans where

delivery falls below the required level. Large and other strategic housing sites are likely to take more

than 2 years to deliver following the granting of permission. Falling behind targets on a 2 yearly

basis for large sites should not be a justification for identifying and bringing forward further sites

unnecessarily.

Five years is considered by some ADEPT members an appropriate timeframe to define as a

‘sustained period’. This would reflect plan review periods, take account of long lead in times for

large sites and economic cycles.

• What steps do you think should be taken in response to significant under-delivery?

LPAs are already required by the NPPF to identify a 5 year supply of housing, with a 5% buffer, rising

to 20% where there is evidence of persistent under-delivery. This existing mechanism provides

sufficient flexibility and choice to the development industry in identifying and bringing forward

suitable housing sites. The consultation paper provides no evidence that existing policy has been

unsuccessful or that appropriate sites are not coming forward within this mechanism.

Overall ADEPT does not believe that a housing delivery test on local planning authorities will resolve

the failure of some areas to deliver against Local Plan housing targets and would lead to delays in

the planning system. There are other factors outside the control of the LPAs which need to be

considered and measures (incentives and penalties) introduced to deal with them. For example, if


11

there is a lack of demand or a lack of will from the development industry, allocating even more sites

may not assist in addressing the problem. The availability of suitable finance, the impact on profit

margins and availability of labour and materials have a much greater influence on when a site comes

forward than the grant of planning permission.

It is important to note that allocating more housing sites to overcome previous under delivery in

areas of low demand would be likely to lead to a self-perpetuating situation of ‘under-delivery’

compared to a five year land supply requirement. This may result in more and more development

being allocated without any real prospect of delivery. This could lead to more inappropriate

development coming forward if housing delivery continues to be seen as the primary consideration

in planning terms

In order to address sustained under-delivery it is considered necessary to establish a process which

will enable LPAs to gain control over the delivery of schemes. If sites are not coming forward due to

developer cash flow/land banking reasons, it may be appropriate to use compulsory purchase

powers, or a range of other new powers which would enable intervention and the progression of

schemes.

There are also concerns from ADEPT members about the proposal to allocate additional housing

sites to make up a delivery shortfall. Additional sites should be taken through a Local Plan review

with a view to being safeguarded for development beyond the plan period. This would allow the full

impacts of the additional sites to be assessed comprehensively alongside already planned growth

and the infrastructure solutions to be planned and phased in a coordinated manner to ensure that

the infrastructure is deliverable.

The changes proposed in this consultation will place extra duties on LPAs. The changes would

require more work to monitor housing completion data. Also the additional work required to factor

the policy changes into Local Plans and consult on them will be an additional call on resources; this

could delay even further the adoption of local plans currently under preparation and potentially lead

to LPAs not meeting the 2017 adoption deadline.

• How do you see this approach working when the housing policies in the Local Plan are not up-to-

date?

As can be the case with the 5 year supply test, there is a danger that the introduction of a housing

delivery test, with potential release of additional sites, will act as a deterrent for LPAs who may

otherwise want to be aspirational in terms of the scale of planned development. If plans are

ambitious there is a real risk that planned delivery rates may not be achieved – and LPAs then forced

to allocate additional sites in sub optimal locations.

Q12. What would be the impact of a housing delivery test on development activity?

There is a risk that if an LPA fails the delivery test, developers will take back off the shelf proposals

for sites which have previously been rejected, and resubmit them as applications or as new Local

Plan allocations. This is likely to raise issues for strategic infrastructure planning where such sites

have previously been rejected on grounds related to infrastructure capacity and have been shown as

incapable of funding improvements. It may also lead to the release of land for development in the


12

countryside and possibly the Green Belt, especially given those remaining brownfield sites are likely

to be sites that require mitigation to bring them forward.

Furthermore it is unlikely that the test would spur the developers to speed up delivery of sites to

match Local Plan trajectories unless possible additional allocations to make up a shortfall would

compete directly with their site.

As the scale and deliverability of allocated sites should have been assessed through the Examination

process – if sectors of the development industry fail to deliver it could be argued that LPAs should

have the power to intervene and offer sites to alternative house builders. Overall it is considered

that the impact of the housing delivery test would be negligible. It is only likely to add to the

administrative burden on LPAs and divert resources away from delivery.

Recommendations

A review is undertaken on the impact of LPAs resources on the delivery of Local Plans and

planning permissions.

A review is undertaken to establish the delivery problems in relation to stalled sites that

have an allocation or consent for housing.

The basis for any housing number calculations should be set out clearly within national

guidance.

LPAs are incentivised to accelerate Local Plan production, for example by providing funding

for additional resources to speed up the process.

Appropriate penalties or incentives are introduced for developers with permitted sites to

bring these forward in a reasonable time frame – including: attaching conditions or

obligations to planning permission requiring an agreed, swift but realistic delivery rate,

forfeit of permissions on the remainder of uncompleted sites; stringent tests for renewal of

permission on expiry; simplify the use of compulsory purchase by the LPA; and financial

penalties such as payment of council tax on unbuilt dwellings post expiry of permission.

The Government invests further in the infrastructure needed to unlock sites and looks to

address issues such as land remediation that make sites unviable.


13

d) Supporting delivery of starter homes

Q13. What evidence would you suggest could be used to justify retention of land for commercial or

similar use? Should there be a fixed time limit on land retention for commercial use?

ADEPT would urge the Government to be cautious in removing control of development from LPAs by

extending the exception site policy for starter homes to ‘unviable or underused brownfield land’.

The push to accelerate housing delivery should not undermine urban regeneration strategies by

removing the ability to bring forward employment, retail, leisure and other uses. Urban

regeneration programmes are often complex projects, phased over a long period of time. It is

therefore crucial that accurate information is used when considering any loss of commercial land.

Recommendations

Commercial land which has been endorsed through adopted Local Plans should be retained.

Plans are required to take account of long term development needs – at least 15 years –this

proposal would contradict that very aim.

Evidence produced to support Local Plans is also used as an evidence base for the retention

of commercial land. These studies indicate the need for and appropriate location of

employment and commercial land e.g. Employment Land Review.

There should be no fixed time limit of land retention as the situation various between

different local authority areas. The time periods should rather relate to the date at which

the site was envisaged to be delivered in the Local Plan. This would ensure that sites

identified as necessary in the longer term are not surrendered prematurely.

Before commercial sites are released evidence of all reasonable attempts to address

constraints needs to be demonstrated along with marketing, promotion and demand should

be presented to the LPA.

Consideration is given to provisions in national or other local policy, including exemption

from national permitted development rights, or removal of permitted development rights

through article 4 direction.

If the retention of land needed for businesses and economic prosperity is to be reliant on evidence it

is crucial that LPAs are sufficiently resourced to ensure that evidence and monitoring data is

accurate.

Q14. Do you consider that the starter homes exception site policy should be extended to unviable

or underused retail, leisure and non-residential institutional brownfield land?

Adopting this approach could lead to the loss of retail, leisure and other land for which there is

demand, or which forms an important part of an adopted Local Plan. Retail/town centre

redevelopment often takes longer than the time periods suggested to be realised. Sites that may be

suitable in principle could be lost due to artificial time constraints imposed through the NPPF. The


14

reference to ‘underused’ could enable a land owner to deliberately run down/close existing well

used facilities in the expectation that permission could be granted for starter homes.

Unviable /underused institutional land such as care homes and redundant private school sites are

often in rural locations distant from services and facilities and not served by public transport. Their

redevelopment for starter homes would be likely to give rise to travel by private car as residents

seek access to jobs, schools, shops and other services and facilities unless of sufficient critical mass

to make public transport commercially viable. ADEPT therefore has concerns that extending the

scope of the exception policy could result in development in unsustainable locations, which would

require costly infrastructure improvements to render it sustainable.

Recommendations

The use of retail, leisure and non-residential institution brownfield land for starter homes is

undertaken through the Local Plan process to allow for assessments to be made and

consultation to be undertaken.

Q15. Do you support the proposal to strengthen the starter homes exception site policy? If not,

why not?

The current approach provides sufficient incentive to allow starter homes as an exception to policy.

The proposed amendment would significantly weaken the ability of LPAs to resist residential

development in areas more appropriate for employment or other commercial uses. This could have

the following effects:

Adverse impacts on local authorities economic development strategies and Local Plans;

The breakup of employment and commercial areas;

The introduction of incompatible uses to commercial areas making it difficult for

surrounding uses to continue operating effectively; and

Unsatisfactory residential environments.

As it is proposed that starter homes will be exempt from making developer contributions, the starter

homes policy needs to provide clarity on the importance of ensuring that sufficient capacity exists in

local infrastructure such as schools, public transport services and the local highway network to

absorb demands generated by a starter homes development.

Recommendations

The policy is only strengthened if there is scope for LPAs to make the decisions about what

sites are suitable through the Local Plan process.

Further consideration is given to how to ensure starter home schemes have the required

infrastructure. For example where infrastructure improvements are necessary for

development to go ahead there should be evidence that they can be funded and delivered

to the benefit of the new and existing communities.


15

Q16. Should starter homes form a significant element of any housing component within mixed use

developments and converted unlet commercial units?

There is no reason why starter homes should not form a significant part of the residential element of

mixed use development, although this should not be at the expense of standard affordable housing.

The level of housing within mixed use developments should be a matter for local determination in

accordance with adopted Local Plan policy. The proposal to allow the conversion of unlet

commercial units to starter or other homes again should be a matter for local determination. Vacant

units may not be in a suitable location for residential and may impact on the operation of nearby

commercial units. Such developments are also unlikely to provide attractive living environments.

Again ADEPT is concerned that starter homes will give rise to demands for infrastructure without

making contributions to infrastructure.

Recommendations

The level of starter homes provided as part of mixed use developments is determined by

LPAs addressing the need for starter homes locally.

Q17. Should rural exception sites be used to deliver starter homes in rural areas? If so, should local

planning authorities have the flexibility to require local connection tests?

Rural communities often suffer from a lack of small scale development which can lead to key

infrastructure becoming unviable (for example, local schools). Therefore a policy that will enable an

increase in housing to meet local needs in rural communities is supported. However there is a need

to ensure that new housing is sustainable. For example rural starter home sites would be less likely

to be served by frequent public transport and would not provide funding to improve local bus

services. The high returns from market housing in rural areas mean that exception sites are often in

short supply; it would be difficult to replace through new exception sites any starter homes which

are sold off. The provision of starter homes in rural area has the real potential to leave areas with a

shortfall in affordable housing to rent.

Q18. Are there any other policy approaches to delivering starter homes in rural areas that you

would support?

See below

Recommendations

LPAs should have the ability to ensure that starter homes remain affordable in perpetuity to

local people where there is a shortage of affordable housing and starter homes are

considered as part of the mix of housing considered on such sites.

Local connection tests should be applied to starter homes if they are being delivered as a

form of affordable housing. This would retain the current requirements associated with

affordable housing.


16

Q19. Should local communities have the opportunity to allocate sites for small scale starter home

developments in their Green Belt through neighbourhood plans?

It is ADEPTs view that it would be more suitable for starter homes to be considered fully in terms of

need and impact on infrastructure through Local Plans before being allocated through

Neighbourhood Plans. There is a need to ensure that the overall integrity of the Green Belt is

maintained and a Local Plan led approach would help to address this risk.

Q20. Should planning policy be amended to allow redevelopment of brownfield sites for starter

homes through a more flexible approach to assessing the impact on openness?

ADEPT is concerned that the proposed approach would result in development on sites which could

be detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt impacting on landscape and environmental

quality. The proposed change to the NPPF is expressed in vague terms – ‘flexible’ and ‘suitable’.

Rather than seeking to amend Green Belt policy in this way, which could result in different

interpretations between areas, the NPPF could instead give greater encouragement to LPAs to

identify suitable sites or establish local criteria for development, which would be tested at

examination and thereby enable policy to reflect local circumstances and sensitivities.

Recommendations

Any starter homes in the Green Belt is considered as part of the plan making process in

order to protect the green belt from unnecessary harm to its openness and to ensure

developments are in the most sustainable locations.


17

e) Transitional arrangements

Q21. We would welcome your views on our proposed transitional arrangements.

Any national policy amendments which will need to be reflected in Local Plans will have implications

upon the plan preparation timeframe. This will include developing evidence and redrafting/drafting

policy.

We consider a period of six to twelve months is an unreasonable period for LPAs to review their

affordable housing policies. The proposed changes will require additional work to implement them

at a time that staff resources in local planning departments are already under pressure.

Infrastructure providers will also need to undertake additional work to understand the implications

of the emerging policy for the planning, funding and delivery of supporting infrastructure. For those

with newly adopted Local Plans it would be better to revisit affordable housing following updated

housing market assessments of housing needs as a part of a Local Plan review.

The changes to provisions for starter homes may require policy changes, particularly where evidence

is required to support the retention of important employment sites. There is a danger that sites

could be lost due to lack of an appropriate evidence base and a transition should be allowed to

facilitate the preparation of this evidence base.

LPAs have suffered significant cuts and this is likely to impact on local plan-making and the efficient

processing of planning application. Further changes to the planning system through the Housing and

Planning Bill and these proposed changes to the NPPF will only place further pressure on resources.

In order to effectively implement any proposed changes to the planning system and support housing

delivery it is crucial that there is future investment in LPAs.

Recommendations

The six to twelve month transitional period to enable a review of Local Plans to incorporate

the changes to affordable housing definition is far too short. We consider the time period

should only be guidance and that individual circumstances should be taken into

consideration.

We also consider that a transitional period may be needed to address the other proposed

changes to the NPPF. It is not clear what should happen in the light of the housing delivery

test and whether failure might require a review of the Green Belt, or what the implications

would be if authorities could not maintain a supply of employment land.

This current consultation does not provide the detail needed to understand the issues and

consequences in full and ADEPT request that there is a formal consultation on any proposed

wording changes to the NPPF.


18

Contact details Charis Blythe – responding on behalf of ADEPT Senior Planning Policy Officer Walsall Council Email: [email protected] Telephone: 01922 658023 Postal address: Planning Policy, Walsall Council, Civic Centre, Darwall Street, Walsall WS1 1DG If you would like to get in touch with ADEPT, please contact the Association’s Secretariat

who will direct your enquiry to the appropriate person.

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: 0333 013 4469

Postal address: Essex County Council, County Hall, Market Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM1

1QH

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

association of directors of economy, environment, planning ... · opportunity to fund additional...

Documents