Wiltshire Council's response to the government's National Planning Policy Framework consultation

Planning for the homes we need (questions 1 to 14)

Question 1

Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made to paragraph 61?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

Wiltshire Council strongly objects to the revised standard method and the resultant housing need figures (see responses to questions in A new Standard Method for assessing housing needs (questions 15 to 19)). That aside, the changes to Paragraph 61 should be reversed so that all authorities seek to meet their housing needs as the exceptional circumstances were open to interpretation. However, given the proposed high housing numbers for many areas and their neighbours, the ability to now respond positively to another authorities' need has substantially been reduced, which has the potential to increase the complexity of plan making and could ultimately slow down progress.

In requiring authorities "to take into account" unmet need in neighbouring areas, as in the final sentence of paragraph 61, there should not be the expectation that this will result in numbers above local needs.

Question 2

Do you agree that we should remove reference to the use of alternative approaches to assessing housing need in paragraph 61 and the glossary of the NPPF?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

This would be reasonable in the context that any exceptions, which will be limited circumstances, can be dealt with through the proposed guidance.

Question 3

Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on the urban uplift by deleting paragraph 62?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

While it is recognised that the scale of urban uplift applied presented challenges, there has been a disproportionate redistribution of housing growth to areas with far fewer brownfield opportunities and without the sustainable transport infrastructure, economic prospects, and better retail and community facilities to support growth. Housing targets for cities and urban centres should continue to be stretched to maximise delivery on brownfield sites and secure regeneration.

The effect of reversing the 'urban uplift' is that there is now a disproportionate distribution of homes to rural areas, with no obvious consideration given to whether those rural areas are able to accommodate such high levels of growth. The 81% increase in housing numbers for Wiltshire will be extremely challenging (if not impossible) to plan for. Wiltshire has never built anywhere near this scale of homes in its history. Even if it were able to plan for this scale of growth, the council has strong concerns that house builders will not have the resources or capacity to deliver growth on this scale.

The proposed increases in housing requirements will play into developers' hands to 'land bank' allocations and permissions, choosing to bring forward those sites that have higher sales values or where there is a lower burden to deliver infrastructure or reach complex agreements with other developers. Proposals need to be developed to incentivise or penalise developers to bring forward existing and future allocations and permissions. Local authorities only hold part of the answer.

Question 4

Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on character and density and delete paragraph 130?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Agree, it is important that local authorities maximise efficient use of land and in doing so they should be taking into account local character and principles of good design, which are dealt with elsewhere in the NPPF.

Question 5

Do you agree that the focus of design codes should move towards supporting spatial visions in local plans and areas that provide the greatest opportunities for change such as greater density, in particular the development of large new communities?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Agree, design codes should move towards a focus on ensuring development plans support efficient use of land at appropriate densities, and the preparation of localised design codes, masterplans and guides for areas of most change potential. This would promote localised development in line with the vernacular of the area, and in response to the existing setting, promoting and valuing local character. Also, design codes can fail to articulate a holistic development vision for specific sites and the proposed change should include not only design issues, including urban scale/density but also land use and regeneration objectives, infrastructure requirements, open space provision, etc.

Question 6

Do you agree that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be amended as proposed?

Answer: No

Please explain your answer:

While the need to improve housing delivery in the short term is understood, the hard approach of introducing unachievable targets for some areas, including Wiltshire, will severely undermine the plan-led system, confidence in it from local communities and compromise the strategic planning of areas. They (and the application of the presumption) will have a sudden, but lasting impact, as the drive for homes through piecemeal incremental growth is given weight rather than the strategic planning for places accompanied by the infrastructure improvements those communities need; in effect many planning authorities will lose control of plan-led development. Strategic planning is particularly important in rural authorities where the growth of market towns and villages needs to be planned carefully, particularly given the challenges of access by public transport and availability of jobs locally.

Notwithstanding the above, the following comments and changes are proposed to the wording as drafted:

The changes to paragraph 11d (ii) are welcomed, as they help reinforce the importance of location, design of development and delivery of affordable homes in providing for sustainable development. However, through application these should not be seen as diluting other important factors that will need to be considered when planning applications are scrutinised. It would therefore make sense to include the wording 'but not limited to' after "in particular".

Footnote 8 as proposed should be simplified, the difficulties around interpreting the existing wording which has prompted the change will prevail if this is not given further consideration. It is not clear what the wording "and allowances for windfall sites for the area and type of development concerned" would mean in practice. Also, while it is clear what the policies for the supply of land for the overall requirement would be, we object to the inclusion of allocations as this would encourage the review of allocations outside a plan making process and cause sites to stall for their intended use if a landowner sees the potential for higher profit. Employment sites take time to come forward and the loss of these to other uses, particularly housing, via the presumption would undermine creation of balanced communities with job opportunities provided locally. Paragraphs 124 and 125 already sets out appropriate policy for alternative uses to be assessed on allocated land or land which is currently developed.

Question 7

Do you agree that all local planning authorities should be required to continually demonstrate 5 years of specific, deliverable sites for decision-making purposes, regardless of plan status?

Answer: No

Please explain your answer:

Strongly disagree. As plans are scrutinised at examination, they should be deemed to have a demonstrable 5-year land supply for a lengthy period from adoption of the Plan to support the delivery of plan led growth and encourage allocations to come forward. This is important to gain community confidence in the plan-led system. Protection for 5 years as in the current version would incentivise the industry to focus on delivery of plan-led proposals.

While the application of the presumption is well understood, it is evident and common practice that developers will continually seek to undermine and reduce land supply demonstrated at any point in time. The requirement to repeatedly justify housing land supply through annual statements or at the point of time for any appeal is an onerous requirement on local planning authorities, placing authorities into a defensive position rather than positively planning to deliver, distracting from other planning activities.

The method for housing land supply would benefit from review, as the notion of deliverability is largely dependent on commercial activity linked to the strength of the market over which local authorities have little if any control. To illustrate this, over 17,500 homes are committed in Wiltshire but only 47% can be demonstrated to be deliverable over five years in the 5-year housing land supply calculation; lower if the views of the development industry presented at appeals are taken into consideration.

Question 8

Do you agree with our proposal to remove wording on national planning guidance in paragraph 77 of the current NPPF?

Answer: Yes

Please explain your answer:

Wiltshire Council believes that the requirements for a council to demonstrate a housing land supply (whether that be four or five years) should be abolished in its entirety. It serves no purpose to deliver high quality plan-led sustainable growth and only encourages speculative development in inappropriate locations, frustrating local communities. The system fails to recognise that developers can have many land interests and options and prefer to be working with councils without a five-year housing land supply than one that does because it opens up commercial opportunities relating to sites that are otherwise not suitable for development. This contradicts what effective planning is supposed to achieve.

A significant amount of time is wasted by local planning authorities and planning inspectors dealing with numerical calculations relating to housing land supply. This time and money could be better spent on plan-making and focusing on securing quality development. The planning system was effective before the requirement for a housing land supply was introduced. A positive, incentive-led approach to housing deliver should be the focus of attention.

The removal of paragraph 77 would remove the requirement to require only a four-year housing supply where there are advanced plans in progress and the ability to take into consideration guidance on how under or over supply can be addressed. Guidance that sets out when under or over delivery can be taken into account should be retained, as this recognises that delivery does not occur at a regular rate and can fluctuate in line with market conditions.

Question 9

Do you agree that all local planning authorities should be required to add a 5% buffer to their 5-year housing land supply calculations?

Answer: No

Please explain your answer:

No, adding a buffer has the effect of arbitrarily increasing targets for local authorities which they would then be measured against. With the significant increases to housing numbers proposed for Wiltshire this buffer alone would equate to an urban extension of over 800 homes making it harder to plan for new homes. The requirement to demonstrate a supply of 5-years should be sufficient, as the presumption provides the safeguard for any deficiencies to be addressed in the short term. This does not prevent local authorities in planning for their areas building in contingency to their land supply to provide additional safeguards against the presumption being applied. In any event, the scrutiny that plans are put through at the examination stage of the local plan process should be sufficient to prevent the need for a buffer being applied.

The use of a 20% buffer where an authority significantly under delivers allows for corrective action to be taken where there is clear underperformance. There is no need for a buffer to be applied to the supply side as well.

Question 10

If you answered 'yes' to question 9, do you agree that 5% is an appropriate buffer, or should it be a different figure?

Answer: no (It should be a different figure)

Please explain your answer (if you believe a different % buffer should be used):

Not applicable as we do not agree: see response to Question 9.

Question 11

Do you agree with the removal of policy on Annual Position Statements?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

No, the timescales required as part of the programme were too onerous to complete particularly for large unitary authorities. This should be retained with more realistic timeframes applied. However, if a buffer is to be applied this should be the same as it is for all 5-year housing land assessments.

Question 12

Do you agree that the NPPF should be amended to further support effective co-operation on cross boundary and strategic planning matters?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Yes, recognition of the importance of strategic planning and effective cross boundary cooperation is supported.

However, as stated in response to Question 1, given the proposed significantly higher housing numbers for many areas and their neighbours, the ability to now respond positively to another authorities' need has substantially been reduced, which has the potential to increase the complexity of plan making and ultimately slow down progress to achieve up-to-date plan coverage.

Changes to national policy should not lead to the expectation that neighbouring authorities must plan for their neighbours' needs. The use of statements of common ground (footnote 6 to paragraph 11b) will remain an important consideration, enabling authorities "to take into account", as referred to in paragraph 61, but not necessarily agreeing to accommodate the unmet needs of their neighbours. An important consideration for all plans will be their ability to demonstrate the delivery of a housing requirement that is realistic.

In the case of minerals and waste, these industries operate over a wider than local scale and planning for these matters would benefit from further support to ensure appropriate and effective collaboration takes place in relation to sub regional/cross boundary issues such as demand, supply and capacity.

Question 13

Should the tests of soundness be amended to better assess the soundness of strategic scale plans or proposals?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Tests of soundness could recognise that a plan's strategy may need to allow for delivery over a longer time frame than the identified plan period where significant strategic scale proposals are identified. This may be because higher scales of growth can provide greater certainty over the delivery of infrastructure needed to support growth thus improving viability but requiring development over a longer period.

The unintended consequences of progressing plans including strategic scale proposals without sufficient evidence on deliverability and viability is that land values/hope value could rise placing delivery of sustainable proposals supported by the right infrastructure at risk.

Question 14

Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this section - please provide any suggestions:

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

We would encourage a review of practical experience of producing evidence to demonstrate the 5-year land supply from a local authority perspective, which is resource intensive and requires timely input from the development industry themselves. See response to Question 7 also.

A new Standard Method for assessing housing needs (questions 15 to 19)

Question 15

Do you agree that Planning Practice Guidance should be amended to specify that the appropriate baseline for the standard method is housing stock rather than the latest household projections?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

The outcome of the revised standard method for assessing housing needs, particularly for Wiltshire, is objected to - 81% increase from the current figure of 1,917 to 3,476 homes. It is a simplistic method based on achieving aspirational targets without any explanation or evidence as to how the targets have been arrived at and whether practically they are achievable and can be delivered by the market. It results in in unrealistic and unjustified rates for some local authority areas without any understanding of the ability of those areas to accommodate growth. An adjustment should be made to take into account constraints within a local authority area, the importance of which continue to be recognised in the NPPF.

Wiltshire not only has three National Landscapes in its area (44%), but also heritage assets including the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage site, as well as substantial areas affected by zones of influence relating to protected habitats under the Habitats Regulations (65%). The presence of Salisbury Plain Military of Defence Training Area and the New Forest National Park further constrain the ability to accommodate growth. This severely constrains the geographical area within which development can be planned and/or the pace at which development can be achieved particularly where strategic scale mitigation is needed to address potential for adverse impacts on protected habitat sites. In total 83% of Wiltshire is affected by National Landscapes and/or zones of influence for protected sites illustrating the complexity and challenge of planning for growth in Wiltshire.

Notwithstanding this, the scale of growth and housing development to be planned for and delivered will need to be supported by timely delivery of strategic infrastructure. Evidence on the current emerging local plan indicates that substantial investment would be needed, for example in the following areas, which would have long lead in times and require a multi-agency approach and government support to deliver: the strategic road network, including motorway junctions, to satisfy Natural Highways.

Electricity grid capacity and connections to new areas of growth, as well as supporting decentralised energy systems. Waste water treatment and availability of water supply (direct relationship with protected habitats).

There is also no consideration of the market's ability to absorb such high levels of homes and whether the development industry has the capacity to deliver at the scale and pace that would be required.

The issue for Wiltshire is compounded by neighbouring authorities who also face extensive increases (e.g. BANES, Cotswold) which are also constrained due to the presence of National Landscapes, designated heritage assets). Given the proposed high housing numbers for many areas and their neighbours the ability to now respond positively to another authorities' need has substantially been reduced, which has the potential to increase the complexity of plan making and ultimately slow down progress.

If the proposed revised method is to be retained, the figures should be capped, like the current method to ensure any uplift in figures to be planned for is reasonable. See response to Question 17 also.

Question 16

Do you agree that using the workplace-based median house price to median earnings ratio, averaged over the most recent 3-year period for which data is available to adjust the standard method's baseline, is appropriate?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

Using variables of house prices and median earnings within the method produces a figure which is demand-led, not needs-led. Applying a demand-led factor results in a standard methodology which will follow market conditions, not the actual needs for an area. The housing market does not operate in the same manner as other goods, as demand is less responsive to supply, and more to economic factors such as borrowing costs and the ability of borrowers to service housing debt given other living costs. Similarly labour costs will typically respond quickly to market conditions, as workers respond to factors such as inflationary pressure on living costs.

The use of a 3-year average will dilute the impact of isolated events which affect the affordability factor in the short term. These could include global or national events (for example as has occurred recently, through geo-political activity or post-COVID pandemic trends). These may cause noticeable fluctuations to the Local Housing Needs figure, which will take local authorities time to respond to.

Using a 3-year average figure is a positive step however, overall, applying an affordability factor still links the assessment of housing need to demand-based factors that are outside of the local authorities' control which is not supported. This can disturb plan-making process and will take time for local authorities to respond to when carrying out their plan-making activity.

Question 17

Do you agree that affordability is given an appropriate weighting within the proposed standard method?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

No, the affordability adjustment factor is given too much weight and results in an excessive uplift for Wiltshire (as well as other areas) resulting in exceptional rates of growth that are unrealistic and unjustified. The resulting level of growth for Wiltshire is 3,476 homes per annum, which is 81% higher than the current standard method figure.

To illustrate how unrealistic this figure is we only need to look back to the 2016 Structure Plan, which planned for both Wiltshire County (equivalent to the current unitary authority of Wiltshire) and Swindon Borough. At that time 3,000 homes were planned for over the period 2006 to 2016, which included the whole of Swindon Borough and the large urban area of Swindon. Clearly Swindon is no longer a part of Wiltshire and the resultant figure for Wiltshire alone is substantially higher than what has been achieved.

While it is understood that there should be some uplift for affordability this needs to be set at a lower level, which is deliverable and achievable.

Question 18

Do you consider the standard method should factor in evidence on rental affordability? If so, do you have any suggestions for how this could be incorporated into the model?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

No, for the same reasons as set out in Question 16.

Question 19

Do you have any additional comments on the proposed method for assessing housing needs? Please provide any additional comments on the proposed method for assessing housing needs.

Answer:

Having regard to the Environmental Impact Assessment principles in relation to Greenhouse Gas Emissions, growth that does not align with the Paris Agreement 1.5oC compliant trajectory is likely to result in 'Moderate Adverse' / 'Major Adverse' impacts that would be a 'Significant Adverse' impact in EIA terms. The revised standard method for housing needs presents a risk of unchecked growth that might not accord with the UK's international agreements. This is particularly an issue for Wiltshire which will see significantly greater housing requirements and already experiences high levels of private vehicle use. The combination of these issues will likely create significant carbon emissions, not just from the new homes, but increased surface transport.

the strategic road network, including motorway junctions, to satisfy Natural Highways
electricity grid capacity and connections to new areas of growth, as well as supporting decentralised energy systems
waste water treatment and availability of water supply (direct relationship with protected habitats)

If the proposed revised method is to be retained, the figures should be capped, like the current method to ensure any uplift in figures to be planned for is reasonable.

Brownfield, grey belt and the Green Belt (questions 20 to 46)

Question 20

Do you agree that we should make the proposed change set out in paragraph 124c, as a first step towards brownfield passports?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

It is not clear on what is meant by 'brownfield passports', it would be helpful if this was clarified.

We agree that the use of brownfield land should be supported and acceptable in principle, however consideration does need to be given to what the current use is and whether the proposed use is therefore acceptable in principle.

Question 21

Do you agree with the proposed change to paragraph 154g of the current NPPF to better support the development of PDL in the Green Belt?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Yes, this is a reasonable change to encourage further use of PDL but will only be one policy consideration when looking at the merits of proposals on PDL in the Green Belt, as not all PDL Green Belt land is equal in terms of its sustainability.

Question 22

Do you have any views on expanding the definition of PDL, while ensuring that the development and maintenance of glasshouses for horticultural production is maintained?

Please provide any further views:

Definition of PDL is well established and should be retained. Redevelopment of glasshouses could be considered at a local level by local planning authorities in setting their policies.

Question 23

Do you agree with our proposed definition of grey belt land? If not, what changes would you recommend?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

The definition of 'Grey Belt' is reasonable for the purpose of plan making and as part of a sequential approach to strategic release of land in the Green Belt. However, for decision-making it is complex and open to interpretation, especially the term "Green Belt land that makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt purposes." This is particularly the case when considered against the proposed guidance in paragraph 10. The application of criteria (ii) and (iv) would involve making judgements on whether land "makes no or very little contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another" or "contributes little to preserving the setting and special character of historic towns" and could ultimately lead to the incremental erosion of the Green Belt. The inclusion of these for decision-making purposes should be removed.

Question 24

Are any additional measures needed to ensure that high performing Green Belt land is not degraded to meet grey belt criteria?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Similar considerations to paragraph 202 of the NPPF (proposals affecting heritage assets) about deliberate neglect or degradation could be introduced here to address this.

Question 25

Do you agree that additional guidance to assist in identifying land which makes a limited contribution of Green Belt purposes would be helpful? If so, is this best contained in the NPPF itself or in planning practice guidance?

Answer: yes, and it should be contained within PPG

Please explain your answer:

Agree that additional guidance is needed to assist in identifying land which makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt. However, the suggested criteria are open to interpretation and complex to apply in a decision-making context. See response to Question 23 also.

Given the concerns raised about the proposed guidance and potential need for different approaches to decision-making and plan-making it may be better to incorporate this into planning practice guidance to avoid too much detail in the NPPF.

Question 26

Do you have any views on whether our proposed guidance sets out appropriate considerations for determining whether land makes a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Question 27

Do you have any views on the role that Local Nature Recovery Strategies could play in identifying areas of Green Belt which can be enhanced?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS) identify areas across their geographies for enhancement, which may or may not relate to land within the Green Belt. Only those Green Belt areas identified through the LNRS process should be enhanced to ensure the delivery of the LNRS across the area, rather than potentially being seen to prioritise Green Belt land over other areas.

Question 28

Do you agree that our proposals support the release of land in the right places, with previously developed and grey belt land identified first, while allowing local planning authorities to prioritise the most sustainable development locations?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Agree, changes to Paragraph 147 (revised paragraph 144) in referring to sustainable locations make it clear that Green Belt land release should be applied sequentially and in doing so only in sustainable locations. This approached is supported.

Question 29

Do you agree with our proposal to make clear that the release of land should not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

We strongly agree that the overall function of the Green Belt within the plan area should not be undermined. However, the use of the term 'fundamentally' is objected to as this is open to interpretation and misuse.

Care will need to be taken in applying policy as releasing Green Belt that is non PDL will only serve to increase the availability of greenfield sites for development potentially disincentivising the industry to focus on PDL and regeneration sites in urban areas.

Question 30

Do you agree with our approach to allowing development on Green Belt land through decision-making? If not, what changes would you recommend?

Answer: no

If not, what changes would you recommend?:

No. In the short term with the significantly increased housing figures for many areas Green Belt land would be vulnerable to speculative development because it will be impossible to demonstrate a 5-year land supply. Whilst Green Belt PDL in sustainable locations is a reasonable policy objective, we are concerned about the gradual and incremental erosion of the Green Belt around settlements that could occur if other, non PDL, 'grey belt' land is allowed through decision-making.

See response to Question 23 for suggested changes to the definition of 'Grey belt' and associated guidance where it relates to decision-making.

Question 31

Do you have any comments on our proposals to allow the release of grey belt land to meet commercial and other development needs through plan-making and decision-making, including the triggers for release?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Revised paragraph 152(a) allows for commercial and other development on the green belt "where there is a demonstrable need for land to be released for development of local, regional or national importance" and public benefits can be achieved. The public benefits, based on revised paragraph 155, that could be applied to such uses is relatively limited and appear to only relate to provision of new or improvements to existing green spaces open to the public. Further guidance is likely to be needed to support the implementation of such a policy. Establishing what is a demonstrable need through decision-making could be open to interpretation and present difficulties in implementation.

Question 32

Do you have views on whether the approach to the release of Green Belt through plan and decision-making should apply to traveller sites, including the sequential test for land release and the definition of PDL?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

The release of land for development should apply equally to all forms and type of development and use. However, the practicalities of applying the sequential approach to traveller sites in a plan making context requires further consideration, as this could be complex to implement for the low level of need being planned for. Also, unmet needs can arise because of a lack of willing landowners to bring forward sites, which is necessary to demonstrate delivery, rather than sites being technically suitable for such uses. The other consideration is that traveller sites are less likely to meet the threshold for major development to which the 'golden' rules would apply.

Question 33

Do you have views on how the assessment of need for traveller sites should be approached, in order to determine whether a local planning authority should undertake a Green Belt review?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

See response to Question 32. The need to undertake a Green Belt review to accommodate the needs of travellers would depend on how much of the plan area is covered by Green Belt and whether other options are available to accommodate needs.

Question 34

Do you agree with our proposed approach to the affordable housing tenure mix?

Answer: not answered

Please explain your answer:

Agree that the tenure split for Affordable Housing delivered under the golden rules should be for local authorities to decide as this will ensure that the homes provided meet local needs.

Question 35

Should the 50 per cent target apply to all Green Belt areas (including previously developed land in the Green Belt), or should the Government or local planning authorities be able to set lower targets in low land value areas?

Answer: the 50% target should apply to all Green Belt areas (including previously developed land in the Green Belt Please explain your answer:

Please explain your answer:

Agree that 50% target should apply to all Green Belt areas (including previously developed land in the Green Belt), unless the applicant submits viability evidence which is independently assessed and agreed by the Council.

Question 36

Do you agree with the proposed approach to securing benefits for nature and public access to green space where Green Belt release occurs?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

The approach is reasonable, as it provides alternative standards in the event local plans do not include specific policies that can be applied. However, it is considered that the development of all greenfield sites/countryside should be treated equally and deliver such benefits.

Question 37

Do you agree that Government should set indicative benchmark land values for land released from or developed in the Green Belt, to inform local planning authority policy development?

Answer: not answered

Please explain your answer:

The Existing Use Value will depend upon site specific attributions and local market conditions. It will also vary over time due to changes in economic conditions. Therefore, the government should set national multipliers to agricultural land, both in and outside the Green Belt. This could reflect the comparison in value of agricultural land and pony paddocks. It should do similar for Grey Belt land, both for agricultural land and for existing buildings both in and outside the Green Belt.

Question 38

How and at what level should Government set benchmark land values?

Please explain your answer:

Question 39

To support the delivery of the golden rules, the Government is exploring a reduction in the scope of viability negotiation by setting out that such negotiation should not occur when land will transact above the benchmark land value. Do you have any views on this approach?

Answer: not answered

Please explain your answer:

This will need an obligation on site promoters to reveal the price paid, the price (if there is one) in the conditional contract/Option, and any minimum land value in such agreements. However, the approach is sound. An alternative/addition would be to give the local authority the power to acquire the land at the Benchmark Land Value or Residual Land Value if less.

Question 40

It is proposed that where development is policy compliant, additional contributions for affordable housing should not be sought. Do you have any views on this approach?

Please explain your views on this approach:

Agree that additional contributions above the policy requirement should not be sought. However, this should not prevent applicants bringing forward higher percentages should they wish to.

Question 41

Do you agree that where viability negotiations do occur, and contributions below the level set in policy are agreed, development should be subject to late-stage viability reviews, to assess whether further contributions are required? What support would local planning authorities require to use these effectively?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer, including what support you consider local authorities would require to use late-stage viability reviews effectively:

Agree. A development proposal may not be undertaken for many years after the original approval, and thus could become more viable over time. The use of external viability assessors may need additional funding.

This should apply to all such applications over a certain size. The amount of affordable housing/planning contributions should only rise, not decrease. The landowner/developer should pay the Local Planning Authority's professional fees in advance on a non-refundable basis.

Question 42

Do you have a view on how golden rules might apply to non-residential development, including commercial development, travellers sites and types of development already considered 'not inappropriate' in the Green Belt?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

Comments have been provided against Question 31.

Question 43

Do you have a view on whether the golden rules should apply only to 'new' Green Belt release, which occurs following these changes to the NPPF? Are there other transitional arrangements we should consider, including, for example, draft plans at the regulation 19 stage?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

None given.

Question 44

Do you have any comments on the proposed wording for the NPPF (Annex 4)?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

This is potentially technical and complex and may need further clarity in planning policy guidance.

Question 45

Do you have any comments on the proposed approach set out in paragraphs 31 and 32?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Compulsory purchase is a lengthy and expensive process so the proposed provision may not be taken advantage of other than for very large schemes. If the process could be streamlined and made more cost effective, then it could bring forward smaller areas of land which would also help small and medium sized businesses.

Question 46

Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this section?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

The idea behind reviewing Green Belt boundaries to assist with finding suitable land for development is already in place and any authority that is constrained by the Green Belt should be required to carry out this review to understand its value in relation to openness and to protect the coalescence of towns. The idea that councils will be able to deliver lots of homes on 'grey belt' land is unlikely to make a significant difference to housing land supply

Delivering affordable, well-designed homes and places (questions 47 to 61)

Question 47

Do you agree with setting the expectation that local planning authorities should consider the particular needs of those who require Social Rent when undertaking needs assessments and setting policies on affordable housing requirements?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Strongly agree that local authorities should determine appropriate tenure type given their local circumstances including those who require Social Rent. However, this should be in the context of understanding the need for all affordable tenures including Social Rent, Affordable Rent, Shared Ownership, First Homes and Discount Market Units.

Question 48

Do you agree with removing the requirement to deliver 10% of housing on major sites as affordable home ownership?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Agree, this is too prescriptive but do not object to home ownership being part of the affordable mix where appropriate.

It is always our aim to negotiate a mix of tenures which contribute to a 'mixed and balanced community'. However, each site is different and there are some instances when it would be preferable to have rented homes only e.g. on sites with only a few affordable units in areas of high need for rented accommodation. Removing the requirement for 10% affordable home ownership would enable the local authority to negotiate the mix which best meets need.

Question 49

Do you agree with removing the minimum 25% First Homes requirement?

Answer: not answered

Please explain your answer:

Strongly agree, this is too prescriptive and should not be a blanket requirement at the cost of other much needed tenures.

The First Homes requirement can mean less affordable homes available to purchase by registered providers overall, reducing the level of affordable housing for those most in need. Shared Ownership units, for example, are the most affordable home ownership tenure.

Question 50

Do you have any other comments on retaining the option to deliver First Homes, including through exception sites?

Answer: yes

Please provide any further comments:

Agree with the retention of the option to deliver First Homes as they may meet a specific need for Affordable Housing and will allow local authorities and local communities to meet their housing needs using the full range of tenures. They should not be mandatory.

Agree with retention of First Homes Exception Sites (FHESs), although these should be restricted as follows to prevent unintended consequences: Greater restriction on size of sites, 100% First Homes do not contribute to the objective of providing mixed and balanced communities.

Greater restriction on location, which will in turn facilitate delivery of Rural Exception Sites across all rural areas. Currently FHESs are not permitted in National Parks, National Landscapes and designated rural areas, but are permitted in rural areas outside these designated areas. Restricting FHESs to sites adjacent to only larger urban settlements would increase the likelihood of availability of land for Rural Exception Sites across all rural areas and therefore enable rural communities to meet their housing needs and increase social / affordable rented stock in rural areas.

Welcome the removal of starter homes from the NPPF definition of Affordable Housing as its continued inclusion has the potential to cause confusion for applicants and local communities.

Question 51

Do you agree with introducing a policy to promote developments that have a mix of tenures and types?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Agree - a mix of tenures (both market and affordable) and housing designed for different customer groups is essential in creating mixed and balanced communities and should generally be encouraged but there needs to be flexibility maintained locally.

We currently negotiate a mix of affordable tenures - rented, shared ownership and First Homes on all sites where appropriate. Ideally all sites (other than small 100% Affordable / Rural Exception Sites) will also include some market units. However, it does need to be recognised that on some sites that are designed for specific groups e.g. independent living for older people, while mix of tenure (market and affordable may be appropriate) it wouldn't be appropriate to have a wider mix of different types of housing.

Also, there are types of housing that developers can be reluctant to include in the mix of units and will object to when policies are developed in local plans, which needs addressing e.g. self-build plots, sites for culturally appropriate accommodation to meet housing needs of travellers with protected characteristics who do not meet the Planning definition.

Question 52

What would be the most appropriate way to promote high percentage Social Rent/affordable housing developments?

Please explain your answer:

Promoting more affordable homes could be achieved through the following:

within national policy, supporting and encouraging the delivery of affordable housing through the provision of serviced land for councils and/or registered providers to build and manage. This would add to existing means of delivery - on site delivery of houses either by developers (for purchase by registered provided) or directly by councils/registered providers, or commuted sums towards off-site delivery. The difficulty with commuted sums is that councils do not always have the land to deliver homes on
providing greater flexibility in application of Homes England funding to permit some market units on majority affordable sites, where justified e.g. unexpected high mitigation costs for protected sites (phosphate neutrality) or to achieve a better mix in accordance with demonstrable need

However, we are concerned about predominantly (or exclusively) single tenures on larger sites, as this does not promote mixed and balanced communities - either on site and/or in the wider community. This is particularly the case for smaller places, such as small market towns or villages.

One of the unintended consequences of delivering high percentages of Affordable Housing on a site is the loss of CIL receipts and in particular local communities not receiving a neighbourhood proportion to spend on local infrastructure.

Question 53

What safeguards would be required to ensure that there are not unintended consequences? For example, is there a maximum site size where development of this nature is appropriate?

Please explain your answer:

There should be a restriction on the size of 100% Affordable Housing sites because the size of the site which is acceptable will vary depending on the location. In Wiltshire, we have previously considered 100% Affordable Housing sites up to 50 units to be acceptable in urban areas, provided that a mix of rented / affordable home ownership tenures is provided and that the different tenures are distributed across the site.

To ensure that larger sites delivered by Registered Providers contribute to the creation of mixed and balanced communities, Registered Providers should be encouraged to include some market units on larger land-led schemes. This may necessitate changes to Homes England funding arrangements which currently discourage the inclusion of market units on land-led schemes.

Question 54

What measures should we consider to better support and increase rural affordable housing?

Please explain your answer:

The main obstacles to the delivery of rural housing are:

lack of understanding of housing need in rural parishes. Local Authorities and Neighbourhood Plan groups should be encouraged to undertake rural housing needs surveys to identify the extent and specific type of need at a parish level
lack of land availability. The NPPF should continue to promote Rural Exception Sites and should restrict Entry Level Exception Sites to large settlements to facilitate likelihood of availability of land for Rural Exception Sites across all rural areas
lack of support from local community. There is a perception amongst some rural communities that if they seek to deliver affordable housing to meet their housing needs, that priority for those homes may be given to households in a high priority banding on the Housing Register, who do not have a local connection to that parish. The NPPF should make it clear that homes delivered in rural areas on Rural Exception Sites, Community Land Trust schemes and sites designated for 100% Affordable Housing in neighbourhood plans should be prioritised for households with a local connection to the parish / adjacent parish. This would reassure rural communities and encourage them to deliver housing to meet their community's housing needs. (Please note that this may also necessitate a change to Homes England's Capital Funding Guide for Shared Ownership)

The increased cost of mitigating environmental constraints to ensure Habitat Regulations compliance, including the need to achieve nutrient neutrality mitigation in catchments of the River Avon Special Area of Conservation is affecting the viability of Registered Provider / community-led 100% Affordable Housing schemes, including delivery on Rural Exception Sites. As these schemes are usually delivered using public funding and don't make a profit, there is little scope to absorb the increased costs. The requirements on 100% Affordable Housing sites (including on Rural Exception Sites) being delivered by Registered Providers / Community Land Trusts should be reconsidered, or additional funding should be provided by Homes England to make schemes viable.

Question 55

Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 63 of the existing NPPF?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Yes, explicit reference to the needs of looked after children which may form part of the housing needs for areas is welcomed.

Question 56

Do you agree with these changes?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Yes, strengthening support for community led development as an option for housing delivery is agreed.

Question 57

Do you have views on whether the definition of 'affordable housing for rent' in the Framework glossary should be amended? If so, what changes would you recommend?

Answer: yes

If yes, what changes would you recommend?:

The definition of 'affordable housing for rent' should not be amended to allow almshouses / community groups to take transfer of / develop new affordable homes without the need to register as a provider, as registration provides accountability and scrutiny. Community Led Housing groups currently successfully work alongside Registered Providers that specialise in rural delivery. If groups, other than Registered Providers, are allowed to deliver Affordable Rented accommodation, there should be some type of registration / on-going checks to ensure that adequate procedures and practices are in place to protect the tenant. It would be preferable to find a less onerous way for community-led groups / almshouses to register with the Regulator of Social Housing to ensure scrutiny.

Any addition to the groups that are able to deliver Affordable Rented accommodation would have to be clearly defined and should be required to comply with a Council's adopted Allocations Policy (unless otherwise agreed with the Council) to ensure that developers / landowners are not able to 'select' tenants in a way which is contrary to adopted policies and procedures.

Question 58

Do you have views on why insufficient small sites are being allocated, and on ways in which the small site policy in the NPPF should be strengthened?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

The 10% small site requirement should not be a mandatory requirement if local authorities are to be supported to make their plans as quickly as possible. Local authorities should be able to focus on delivery of their housing targets taking into account local circumstances and the available land. Smaller sites tend to come forward as windfall sites in urban areas, where there is a general acceptance in policy for housing development and allocation is not needed, or through sites identified in neighbourhood plans. The requirement to bring forward 10% of all homes on small sites complicates and slows down plan making, as each site would need to be assessed as part of the plan making process to demonstrate delivery.

However, greater diversity in the market is supported and more should be done in policy or through other government measures for land promoters and developers to be required to break up larger sites to support faster deliverability and the availability of land to others. This would increase the number of outlets for more housebuilders, thus promoting greater competition and support the faster build out of sites.

Question 59

Do you agree with the proposals to retain references to well-designed buildings and places, but remove references to 'beauty' and 'beautiful' and to amend paragraph 138 of the existing Framework?

Answer: partially agree

Please explain your answer:

The phrase was subjective and the focus on well-designed buildings and places more fully encompasses what good design is about. However, there are local communities that value the term beauty and its inclusion within policy.

Question 60

Do you agree with proposed changes to policy for upwards extensions?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

Amending the reference to mansard roofs is agreed, as this was an excessive level of detail in national policy and may not be appropriate in all areas because of local vernacular and design considerations. However, upwards extension may not be appropriate for most settlements and could adversely affect the character and appearance of an area, and residential amenity.

Question 61

Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this section?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Paragraph 135 (revised paragraph 132) misses the opportunity to address the current lack of consideration of climate change mitigation and adaptation as a design issue - a matter that is referred to under revised paragraph 11. Therefore, additional bullet (g) could be inserted to address this.

Building infrastructure to grow the economy (questions 62 to 66)

Question 62

Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraphs 86 b) and 87 of the existing NPPF?

Answer: yes.

Please explain your answer:

In principle changes to the NPPF to support these growth industries and their contribution to the economy is supported.

Changes to 86b) require planning policies to identify appropriate sites. However, while land may be available there remains a fundamental obstacle and challenge to demonstrate it can be brought forward alongside other much-needed housing growth because of the lack of capacity on motorway junctions, need for timely infrastructure investment and disproportionate evidence requirements expected from National Highways to demonstrate deliverability of sites. The scale of infrastructure investment required and timing for delivery can have a huge bearing on the ability to identify such proposals within plans.

Given the drive to produce plans quicker, the regional basis on which such sectors operate (especially logistics) and strategic road networks on which the logistics industry relies more needs to be done at a national level to support cross boundary working at regional/cross-regional level, and investment programme to unlock infrastructure.

Question 63

Are there other sectors you think need particular support via these changes? What are they and why?

Answer: yes.

Please explain your answer:

Greater recognition should be given to supporting commercial space near to defence establishments to facilitate the private sector in working with the emerging needs of the defence sector. This is important in the Wiltshire context and could be applicable elsewhere nationally.

Question 64

Would you support the prescription of data centres, gigafactories, and/or laboratories as types of business and commercial development which could be capable (on request) of being directed into the NSIP consenting regime?

Answer: yes.

Please explain your answer:

Agree. Such businesses can be of a significant scale or national importance, with associated significant impacts at a local level, and would be best considered at a national level and context.

Question 65

If the direction power is extended to these developments, should it be limited by scale, and what would be an appropriate scale if so?

Answer: yes.

If yes, what would be an appropriate scale?:

Yes, there should be limits to scale to allow decisions to be made locally in appropriate circumstances.

Question 66

Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this section?

Answer: yes.

Please explain your answer:

Investment in strategic transport infrastructure is critical to accommodate growth at the local level and at the regional level (for example, strategic road corridors such as the A350 and A303) which should be committed to within the national road investment strategy. The expected scale of growth is not likely to be realised without the substantial private and public funding required to deliver key transport infrastructure. The recent decision to cancel the A303 Stonehenge tunnel scheme means that significant benefits, including providing a safer, more efficient network and substantial economic growth (Gross Value Added (GVA) benefits of almost £ 40billion, Economic Impact Study 2019), will not be realised.

Government and national policy need to do more to support delivery of land for employment development. Local plans rarely have land promoted for such use, with the development industry instead favouring housing. This has the effect of preventing employment growth in towns whilst the population is growing, resulting in increased out-commuting with the associated costs to the environment and local economy. National policy should provide greater expectations regarding mixed uses on strategic sites to support delivery of employment land and safeguarding of such sites to encourage them to come forward for such uses once established through a local plan.

There is a missed opportunity for the NPPF to support the co-location of development that can make use of excess energy such as industry using roof mounted solar electricity from adjacent warehousing and housing using waste heat from data centres.

Government needs to provide resources to enable local planning authorities to specifically address the increasing constraint of electricity grid connections on the path to net zero. A start to this might be to provide guidance and funding for the provision of Local Area Energy Plans to inform 'strategic policies' that involve engagement with 'infrastructure providers' on their 'investment plans'. Furthermore, explicit reference to energy infrastructure as part of cited 'major infrastructure' within national policy is important. To help address energy provision that cuts across the boundary of plan areas or is required to meet needs within a neighbouring authority. Adjacent urban authorities will not meet their energy needs in their plan area - this needs to be managed without overwhelming adjacent rural areas that have their own land use pressures including food production.

Delivering community needs (questions 67 to 71)

Question 67

Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 100 of the existing NPPF?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

It is not clear what this adds to policy, emphasis is already placed on proactively and positively planning for such uses within current policy. While the importance of delivering public service infrastructure such as further education colleges, hospitals and criminal justice consideration is understood this should not be at the cost of other planning considerations, such as highways, environmental or heritage matters.

Question 68

Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 99 of the existing NPPF?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Agree, the changes clarify the full range of education provision for children from early years to post 16 (to 18) education important for local communities.

Question 69

Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraphs 114 and 115 of the existing NPPF?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

It is unclear what 'a vision led approach' means in principle without reading the consultation document and what 'all tested scenarios' means. Publication of guidance will be important to support implementation of this policy. Notwithstanding this, the following comments are made on each change:

Paragraph 114:

suggest linking to the national policies including 'Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener' and 'Decarbonising Transport'.
clarity is required to state what the 'vision' is and what the policy source is (at the national level), which can then filter through to local policies. The approach should reflect local plan and local transport plan policies to promote sustainable transport modes.
further detail and guidance will be key to understanding the expectations of development proposals including how the approach, and deliverability of mitigation measures, will be demonstrated and secured
it is acknowledged that a vision led approach could help support National Bus Strategy objectives at both the national and local level, in theory better enabling local authorities to make buses more frequent, more reliable, and bringing people to jobs, study and local services. However, funding constraints to delivery of such infrastructure will remain a challenge particularly in rural areas.

Paragraph 115:

the addition of 'in all tested scenarios' will make it more difficult for authorities to demonstrate that a development proposal will have a severe impact on the road network. This could result in the authority not having the ability to ensure that the road network can operate in an efficient and safe manner
this could also undermine an authority's position to secure improvements to the transport network and other mitigation measures to ameliorate the impact of development
the wording of the policy should be strengthened to state that for a scenario to be deemed acceptable, the required associated infrastructure and other mitigation measures must be deliverable, quantifiable and within the control of the developer

Question 70

How could national planning policy better support local authorities in (a) promoting healthy communities and (b) tackling childhood obesity?

Please explain your answer:

Delivery of healthier communities is centred on good design and locating development in areas that have or can be designed to support use of sustainable transport links/active travel. Creating places where people are happy to be outside their homes and spend time in the wider environment requires a move away from volume house builders replicating designs/maximising numbers of homes to designing places for people with attractive public realm and open spaces.

(a) National planning policy could better support local authorities in promoting healthy communities by introducing health impact assessments for certain types of developments into design requirements.

It is recognised that the planning process has major benefits to improving the health of the nation. Momentum continues to grow across England, with the Office of Health Inequalities and Disparities (OHID), NHS and academics calling out for better integration of health and well-being into planning policy, as it supports the creation of 'healthy environments' which in turn facilitates healthy lifestyles and behaviours.

The Health Impact Assessment (HIA) process is seen as a tool to identify the health impacts of a plan or planning application and to develop recommendations to maximise the positive impacts and minimise the negative impacts, while maintaining a focus on addressing health inequalities. By bringing such health considerations to the fore, HIAs can add value to the planning process. However, the use of HIA does need to be proportionate to the scale of development and defining the trigger parameters will need further consideration should its inclusion be considered.

(b) It is difficult in practice to refuse hot food takeaways near schools through the planning system, as it is difficult to demonstrate the health impact of such a use. If the desired outcome is to restrict such uses close to schools, then introducing policy at national level would ensure consistency in its application and not leave local authorities open to challenge.

However, this is perhaps an overly simple solution to a more complex problem. The measures outlined in response to (a) would form part of a wider set of measures (including those outside of the planning system) that could be more effective

Question 71

Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this section?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

See response to Question 70.

Supporting green energy and the environment (questions 72 to 86)

Question 72

Do you agree that large onshore wind projects should be reintegrated into the NSIP regime?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

It would be logical for large onshore windfall to be treated the same as other renewable energy projects and therefore be subject to appropriate thresholds for consent under the NSIP regime or under the Town and Country Planning system.

Question 73

Do you agree with the proposed changes to the NPPF to give greater support to renewable and low carbon energy?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

No, the flexibility in national policy for plans "to consider identifying suitable areas" should be retained, as this is a matter best determined by local planning authorities through their plan making process. The requirement to identify areas results in excessive evidence requirements contrary to the aim to have more proportionate evidence and speed up plan making.

Also, the acknowledgement in proposed paragraph 161 a) that adverse impacts, such as cumulative landscape and visual impacts, are addressed appropriately should be strengthened by provision in the Glossary of a clear definition of 'cumulative effects' in the planning process.

Question 74

Some habitats, such as those containing peat soils, might be considered unsuitable for renewable energy development due to their role in carbon sequestration. Should there be additional protections for such habitats and/or compensatory mechanisms put in place?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Yes. We support additional protection for carbon sinks, where these habitats are identified and safeguarded as part of the planning process.

Question 75

Do you agree that the threshold at which onshore wind projects are deemed to be Nationally Significant and therefore consented under the NSIP regime should be changed from 50 megawatts (MW) to 100MW?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

No, there appears to be no clear justification to increase this. However, if ultimately more schemes are to be determined by local authorities, then more resourcing is required and guidance should be given to local planning authorities on how to balance impacts versus benefits.

Question 76

Do you agree that the threshold at which solar projects are deemed to be Nationally Significant and therefore consented under the NSIP regime should be changed from 50MW to 150MW?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

Question 77

If you think that alternative thresholds should apply to onshore wind and/or solar, what would these be?

Please explain your answer:

The current threshold should be retained.

Question 78

In what specific, deliverable ways could national planning policy do more to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?

Please explain your answer:

Better design standards should be developed and /specified, with explicit reference to supporting a transition to net zero through assessing the design approach to operational energy, embodied carbon, sustainable transport and climate change adaptation. A rapid change to Building Regulations is required in concert with these changes.

Question 79

What is your view of the current state of technological readiness and availability of tools for accurate carbon accounting in plan-making and planning decisions, and what are the challenges to increasing its use?

Please explain your answer:

Greater consistency and accuracy is required, and a nationally accepted model would be helpful. Current skills and knowledge rest with private consultancies and local authorities will require additional resources and upskilling to utilise new technology for carbon accounting as part of the planning process.

Question 80

Are any changes needed to policy for managing flood risk to improve its effectiveness?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

The current policy for managing flood risk has not really changed for many years. At its heart is the principle that new development should be directed to areas at least risk from flood. Whilst the policy generally works well for the management of flood risk from main river and surface water, it is relatively weak in terms of the management of risk from rising groundwater and the assessment of cumulative effects. The main issues with the current policy lie in its application, with the added complications associated with the necessary reliance upon detailed technical evidence. There is often a lack of specialist resources in local planning authorities to interpret and apply flood risk evidence, leading to delays in plan-making and ultimately decision-making.

One specific issue that needs to be clarified and expressed more clearly relates the consideration of "reasonably available sites" and establishing the sequential test search area. The courts have recently considered both elements of national policy and the position remains unclear, particularly in terms of practical application.

Question 81

Do you have any other comments on actions that can be taken through planning to address climate change?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

We are concerned that proposed approach in the revised Framework will encourage urban sprawl and green belt/field development. Most of the new housing should be provided inside existing settlements, especially cities with effective public transport options to minimise car use.

Chapter 14 of the Framework is starting to be dated in its approach to climate change with a focus on operational energy considerations, rather than embodied carbon for example. Embodied carbon is not addressed by the Framework and should be. As the grid advances to decarbonisation (consultation document refers to 2030) embodied carbon will make up most greenhouse gas emissions from development.

It is suggested that the definition of Community-led developments in Annex 2 is further amended to reflect that such development is not just about housing and is as diverse as energy infrastructure and woodland planting. We would suggest removing the word 'housing' to allow community groups to deliver any development.

Question 82

Do you agree with removal of this text from the footnote?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

Retention of the footnote would be preferable to help indicate the importance of agriculture for food production.

Question 83

Are there other ways in which we can ensure that development supports and does not compromise food production?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

We consider that the most effective way to ensure development supports food production is to increase the amount of development and re-development carried out inside towns and cities. The removal of fields from agriculture use due to the nutrient neutrality and bio-diversity issues is worrying, and different solutions should be pursued.

Question 84

Do you agree that we should improve the current water infrastructure provisions in the Planning Act 2008, and do you have specific suggestions for how best to do this?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

The provisions of the Planning Act 2008 in respect of water infrastructure projects are relatively clear, but there are often many actors who need to be coordinated to deliver such projects through the NSIP route, leading to potential uncertainty and delivery delays. Therefore, the proposals in the NPPF consultation are generally supported. However, it is not clear how the Government will deliver such changes; and what the role of local planning authorities will be, other than acting as a consultee in the DCO process.

Question 85

Are there other areas of the water infrastructure provisions that could be improved? If so, can you explain what those are, including your proposed changes?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

With regards water quality in protected rivers and catchments, the issues surrounding nutrient neutrality are currently holding back significant amounts of much-needed housing developments. A permanent solution to this needs to be found that does not result in agricultural fields being taken out of production for ecology enhancement.

Question 86

Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this section?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Current building regulations Part G requires water efficiencies of 125 l/p/d, and a higher optional standard (in areas of water stress) of 110 l/p/d to be stipulated by a planning condition and secured through building regulations. This is a disjointed system reliant upon checks and, where necessary, enforcement. If, as is suggested, the Government opt to modify current building regulations to help address water scarcity it will lead to a perpetuation of this disjointed system and a risk of implementation failure.

To be effective, national planning policy needs to provide a clear steer on how water efficiency standards within new development will be delivered. Policies expressed in the revised NPPF need to provide clear and unambiguous guidance to all users of the planning system, so they know that in water stressed locations like Wiltshire 110 l/p/d ought to be the absolute minimum standard

Changes to local plan intervention criteria (questions 87 and 88)

Question 87

Do you agree that we should we replace the existing intervention policy criteria with the revised criteria set out in this consultation?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Local authorities should in any circumstance where potential government local plan intervention is considered not only be given the opportunity to set out any exceptional circumstances that exist but also the opportunity to outline their plan to improve performance thus avoiding the need for intervention. Intervention should be a last resort.

On the face of it, having regard to the proposed local plan intervention policy criteria - a. local development needs; b. sub regional, regional and national development needs; or c. plan progress - is reasonable. Applying these flexibly, taking into account the individual circumstances of the relevant area before making a decision to intervene is important.

Question 88

Alternatively, would you support us withdrawing the criteria and relying on the existing legal tests to underpin future use of intervention powers?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

No, policy criteria help to clarify what the Government will take into consideration when applying intervention powers. They would benefit from being updated.

See response to Question 87

Changes to planning application fees and cost recovery for local authorities related to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (questions 89 to 102)

Question 89

Do you agree with the proposal to increase householder application fees to meet cost recovery?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Agree. We support this change for a planning application to be self-funding in terms of its administration and consideration. It should be remembered that the cost of a householder planning application fee represents a tiny fraction of the overall build cost.

Question 90

If you answered No to question 89, do you support increasing the fee by a smaller amount (at a level less than full cost recovery) and if so, what should the fee increase be? For example, a 50% increase to the householder fee would increase the application fee from £258 to £387.

Answer: no

If yes, please explain in the text box what you consider an appropriate fee increase would be:

Not applicable.

Question 91

If we proceed to increase householder fees to meet cost recovery, we have estimated that to meet cost-recovery, the householder application fee should be increased to £528. Do you agree with this estimate?

Answer: no - there should be no fee increase

If no, please explain in the text box below and provide evidence to demonstrate what you consider the correct fee should be:

The setting of planning application fees locally introduces complexities that have been considered previously. The Planning Advisory Service carried out a lot of work with local authorities on cost recording, but the proposals were eventually abandoned. The existing system ensures fairness for developers and agents and is a much simpler approach.

Question 92

Are there any applications for which the current fee is inadequate? Please explain your reasons and provide evidence on what you consider the correct fee should be.

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

Not applicable.

Question 93

Are there any application types for which fees are not currently charged, but which should require a fee? Please explain your reasons and provide evidence on what you consider the correct fee should be.

Answer: yes

Please explain your reasons and provide evidence on what you consider the correct fee should be:

Any planning application should require a fee commensurate to the work that a local planning authority is required to carry out for its assessment and determination. Standalone Listed Building Consent applications should be charged at the same rate as the equivalent Full planning application fee, but no charge if accompanied by a Full planning application with a fee. Modification of Planning Obligations should be the same as Variation of Condition application fees. Applications for works to trees in a Conservation Area and applications for Trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders should be charged at £264, i.e. half of the Householder planning application fee.

Question 94

Do you consider that each local planning authority should be able to set its own (non-profit making) planning application fee?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

The current system ensures consistency and fairness. It avoids the need for authorities to carry out complex cost calculations and avoids wide disparities in approach from one council to another. A nationally based charging system is the preferred approach.

Question 95

What would be your preferred model for localisation of planning fees?

Answer: neither

Please give your reasons in the text box below:

National planning application fees is the preferred option.

Question 96

Do you consider that planning fees should be increased, beyond cost recovery, for planning applications services, to fund wider planning services?

Answer: yes

If yes, please explain what you consider an appropriate increase would be and whether this should apply to all applications or, for example, just applications for major development?:

Yes, a proportionate increase in planning application fees should be applied, beyond cost recovery, to reflect the need for service improvements and to fund other 'supporting' services.

Question 97

What wider planning services, if any, other than planning applications (development management) services, do you consider could be paid for by planning fees?

Please explain your answer:

Planning fees could fund specialist services that support the development management function, such archaeology, landscape, ecology and climate change who's technical advice is essential to effective decision-making.

It needs to be recognised that some local authorities will have more of certain types of planning applications (higher or lower application fee generators) than others and this affects fees income.

Question 98

Do you consider that cost recovery for relevant services provided by local authorities in relation to applications for development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008, payable by applicants, should be introduced?

Answer: yes

If yes, please explain any particular issues that the Government may want to consider, in particular which local planning authorities should be able to recover costs and the relevant services which they should be able to recover costs for, and whether host authorities should be able to waive fees where planning performance agreements are made.

We believe that planning authorities should be able to cover costs for all planning applications and should not be able to waive such fees under any circumstances. We believe that cost recovery is reasonable and should be introduced.

Question 99

What limitations, if any, should be set in regulations or through guidance in relation to local authorities' ability to recover costs?

Please explain your answer:

We consider that there should be no limitations on local authorities' ability to recover costs.

Question 100

Please provide any further information on the impacts of full or partial cost recovery are likely to be for local planning authorities and applicants. We would particularly welcome evidence of the costs associated with work undertaken by local authorities in relation to applications for development consent.

Please explain your answer:

We consider that there should be no limitations on local authorities' ability to recover costs.

Question 101

Please explain your answer:

No further comments.

Question 102

Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this section?

Answer: no

The future of planning policy and plan making (questions 103 to 105)

Question 103

Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements? Are there any alternatives you think we should consider?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

We agree that there should be transitional arrangements in applying the policies in the revised Framework and its associated Local Housing Need figure for the purpose of plan-making.

We agree with the statement that 'local planning authorities should continue to progress their plans to adoption under the existing system without delay', where they at more advanced stages, and for those plans to be submitted that have the biggest challenges in terms of needing to plan for significantly higher housing numbers. However, the transitional arrangements should be improved to give authorities that are well advanced the best prospect to achieve this rather than an arbitrary cut off - only one month post publication. This should be increased to three months.

Once up to date plans are in place through the transitional arrangements, the move to higher housing numbers would logically be less onerous as local planning authorities should be able to focus on additional policies necessary to achieve these; having already updated other policies relating to the development of their area.

Use of 200 homes as a difference between old and new targets is unreasonable, as levels of homes vary significantly across local authority areas depending on their size and geography. A percentage increase would be a more reasonable approach to take.

Question 104

Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

The proposed transitional arrangements to allow more time for plans to be prepared under the current system, with submission by December 2026, is welcomed and necessary allowing for plans at earlier stages to take into account changes to the revised NPPF.

Clarity on which version of the NPPF applies is helpful.

Question 105

Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this section?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

In terms of future planning policy, more needs to be done by Government to require developers to implement committed land (allocations and planning permissions) for the use intended in a timely way; and for a greater proportion of the uplift in land value to go towards the delivery of infrastructure and affordable housing.

The continued use of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments as the basis for future growth is questioned, as the sites they contain don't necessarily relate to the most logical parcels of land to support sustainable expansion of a town or address the issue of ransom sites. More needs to be done to enforce equalisation of land values across strategic parcels of land to facilitate timely delivery of sites

Public Sector Equality Duty (question 106)

Question 106

Do you have any views on the impacts of the above proposals for you, or the group or business you represent and on anyone with a relevant protected characteristic? If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, or which businesses may be impacted and how. Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified?

Please explain your answer:

It is considered that the combined effect of proposed higher housing numbers and application of the 5-year housing land supply will be detrimental to rural communities; as they are more reliant on the private car and have less access to a choice of affordable transport modes, services and jobs than other areas leading to inequalities for these communities

This website uses cookies

Wiltshire Council's response to the government's National Planning Policy Framework consultation

Planning for the homes we need (questions 1 to 14)

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Question 5

Question 6

Question 7

Question 8

Question 9

Question 10

Question 11

Question 12

Question 13

Question 14

A new Standard Method for assessing housing needs (questions 15 to 19)

Question 15

Question 16

Question 17

Question 18

Question 19

Brownfield, grey belt and the Green Belt (questions 20 to 46)

Question 20

Question 21

Question 22

Question 23

Question 24

Question 25

Question 26

Question 27

Question 28

Question 29

Question 30

Question 31

Question 32

Question 33

Question 34

Question 35

Question 36

Question 37

Question 38

Question 39

Question 40

Question 41

Question 42

Question 43

Question 44

Question 45

Question 46

Delivering affordable, well-designed homes and places (questions 47 to 61)

Question 47

Question 48

Question 49

Question 50

Question 51

Question 52

Question 53

Question 54

Question 55

Question 56

Question 57

Question 58

Question 59

Question 60

Question 61

Building infrastructure to grow the economy (questions 62 to 66)

Question 62

Question 63

Question 64

Question 65

Question 66

Delivering community needs (questions 67 to 71)

Question 67

Question 68

Question 69

Question 70

Question 71

Supporting green energy and the environment (questions 72 to 86)