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

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:

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 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