Toggle menu

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.

 

Share this page

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share by email