Dear Sir/Madam

Consultations on the Levelling-Up & Regeneration Bill and revised National Planning Policy Framework

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above proposals.

In summary, while the Council welcomes a number of these measures as a move in the right direction, there is still a significant lack of clarity and cohesion in some key areas, and some of the proposals are either undesirable in terms of proper local planning, unworkable or potentially costly.

The stated intention of the Bill (Ch1, para 2) is to “put communities at the heart of the planning system, offering communities beautiful homes and new neighbourhoods that they will welcome and a greater say in what is built and where… we also need changes to national policy and guidance, regulations and wider support for local authorities, communities and applicants”.

In other words, the aim of this and the other planning changes is to simplify and speed up the Local Plan process, improve community engagement and provide a clearer basis for decision-making.

However, the combined effect of the proposed changes is in fact likely to centralise the planning system further, and introduce new elements that actually lead to longer timetables and lengthier and more costly local plans.

In addition, the lack of clarity about the status of best and most versatile agricultural land and the retention of the 300,000 homes per year top down target, clearly contradict the ambition to give communities more control over where homes are built.

We would like to make the following more detailed comments:

Adjustments to setting housing requirements

Firstly, the Council questions why the Government has not published proposals for reviewing the “standard method” for determining housing requirements. The fact that these proposals are not due to be published until 2024 creates a significant “drag” on the local plan process. There does not appear to be any justification for delaying a discussion about how housing requirements can be sensibly determined.

However, the proposal is that the housing figures generated by the “standard method” should be an “advisory starting-point” for determining housing requirements, and some caveats have been introduced, which might allow authorities to review their housing requirements to some extent. Unfortunately, the caveats set out in the draft NPPF amendments, while supported in principle, are couched in quite vague terms, and it is difficult to see how they can be sensibly applied.

For example, revised para 11 of the NPPF indicates that “such adverse impacts may include situations where meeting need in full would mean building at densities significantly out of character with the existing area”. The only clarification is at footnote 8, which refers to “taking into account any design guides or codes which form part of the development plan for the area”. The Council has adopted the Kent Design Guide as SPD, but it is not clear how that would influence overall housing requirements.

The proposals also appear to include the removal of the requirement to meet the unmet needs in neighbouring districts (although there are contradictory statements on this point).

There is also a reference in the consultation (Ch 4, para 8) about the potential use of “alternative methods”, and seeking views on that. The issues raised in this letter should be addressed in any guidance on alternative methodologies, as should other evidence relating to population change and other matters.

However, the consultation indicates that the Government intends to retain the overall annual housing target at 300,000 dwellings. There does not appear to be any justification for this figure, which of course also affects district housing figures. The Government should review the figure in the light of emerging data from the 2021 Census.

Changes to the application of five year housing land supply test

The Council supports the change that, where there is a Local Plan in place which is less than five years old, the 5-year housing land supply test will not be applied. The Council supports the proposal to remove the requirement for “buffers” in the 5-year housing land supply, but also supports the requirement to identify a robust and deliverable 5-year housing land supply from the intended date of adoption.

In terms of the reference to past over-delivery, the NPPF amendments give no indication as to the appropriate approach if an area has an issue with past under-delivery. If the implication is that areas with past delivery issues will have to “carry over” previous delivery shortfalls, this will simply exacerbate delivery issues in the longer term.

If the Government is serious about accelerating housing delivery, it should recognise that in some areas, the market will bring forward housing at a faster rate, and that this should, to some degree, be factored into strategic decisions about the future location of housing.

Housing Delivery Test

The Council welcomes the changes proposed (draft NPPF) to the way that the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) operates, including the introduction of a “permissions-based” test, which would consider the level of planning permissions granted by the local planning authority, not just the level of completions. This is more appropriate because local planning authorities do not deliver housing.

However, it should be noted that local planning authorities can only grant consent for the applications actually submitted (assuming they are acceptable); the local planning authority has no control over when applications are submitted, or the level of housing development each application would deliver.

In addition, the amended Bill itself includes a proposed requirement for developers to provide development progress reports on housing sites. This is an implicit recognition that local planning authorities cannot be held solely responsible for housing delivery.

While the proposed changes are welcome in principle, the Government needs to go further. A more serious discussion is required about the complex issues affecting housing delivery. It is clear that the HDT is over-simplistic and fundamentally flawed, and requires complete reform.

Affordable housing

The consultation (Q22) asks whether the Government should revise national planning policy to attach more weight to social rent in planning policies and decisions.  This direction of travel is supported by the Council, given the acute need in the district demonstrated in our Local Housing Needs Assessment.

In regard to altering paragraph 65 of the NPPF to support social rent, the paragraph should be overhauled to both promote social rent as a first presumption for affordable housing provision, before then considering other affordable rented and home ownership products (including updating the paragraph to cover first homes following the Ministerial statement).

However, in order to help meet affordable housing needs, the Government should go further. In a Housing Delivery paper submitted to the Government last year, the Council asked the Government to consider a new designation of Affordable Housing land, so that affordable housing providers are more able to compete for land acquisition with developers and housebuilders. This could apply to both portions of larger strategic sites or smaller, affordable housing only, development sites.

Changes to the assessment of agricultural land

The Council supports the need to consider the food production value of best and most versatile agricultural land in decision making. However, the proposed amendments do not achieve what is set out in the LURB, as no guidance is given on what weight should be given to the protection of agricultural land in decision-making. The “relative importance” of different areas is already identified through the agricultural land classification system.

If it is the Government’s intention to protect the best and most versatile farmland as a national resource in the long-term, this should be clearly stated in the NPPF. In addition, the policy should be applied at a strategic level, so that districts with a high proportion of such land (like Thanet, where Grade 1 agricultural land comprises some 40% of the district) can effectively protect it as such.

It is noted that while the protection for best and versatile farmland remains qualified, the Bill indicates (Ch4, para 9) that local planning authorities will no longer be required to review and alter Green Belt boundaries if this would be the only way of meeting their housing need in full. The implication of this is that more housing will inevitably need to be provided in other non-Green Belt areas.

This seems to be inconsistent with the approach to best and most versatile farmland, despite the fact that the consultation acknowledges the importance of food security. The Council believes that best and most versatile agricultural land should be afforded the same level of protection as green belt land.

Shortening the local plan preparation timetable

In the Planning White Paper, the Government proposed that there should be a  statutory timetable for the preparation of Local Plans of just 30 months.  However, there was no explanation as to how the Government believed this could be achieved, and the Council does not believe this is feasible under the current system.

The Government is now suggesting that the timetable would be reduced further to a “swift two years“, at the same time adding a requirement for increased community engagement (Ch 2, para 4).  This conflicts with a separate reference to 30 months (Ch9, para 6).  Either way, this is simply not possible, especially with the requirement for increased community engagement.

There is still no explanation provided as to how the Government thinks this could be achieved. It may be that the Government believes that, with the introduction of some national development management policies (see below), and the increased level of digital engagement, this reduces the amount of time needed for local plan preparation.

However, this does not address the statutory processes that have to be met to prepare and adopt a Local Plan. It is these processes that determine the timetable for local plan preparation, rather than the scope of plans, or the nature of consultation and engagement).  With the proposed changes to design guides and supplementary planning documents (set out below), this is likely to extend the timetable, rather than shorten it.

Removal of the “justified” soundness test

While there is a general acceptance that the evidence base requirements for Local Plans can become excessive and over-detailed, it is nevertheless important that Local Plan policies are soundly based on the available evidence, and this is equally true of the NPPF. This is a retrograde step as currently formulated, but it would help if there was clearer guidance on what constitutes “proportionate evidence”.

Requirement for a Design Code

The consultation states that the Bill will go further and require every local planning authority to produce a design code for its area. These will set simple clear minimum standards on development in that area – such as height, form and density (see also draft NPPF, para 135). These codes will have statutory status when making decisions on development, either through forming part of local plans or being prepared as a supplementary plan.

In principle, this proposal is welcome, and should be supported. However, there are two issues of concern that it would be helpful for the Government to address:

• Resourcing - experience elsewhere (as part of pilot schemes) indicates that the Design Code process is likely to be significantly resource-intensive, in terms of both staff time and budgets. It would be helpful if the Government could confirm that additional resources will be available to help bring this forward; and

• Timescales - related to the above point, the preparation of a Design Code would be a significant component of the work necessary for a Local Plan, unless undertaken after a Plan is adopted. Ideally, this would be done as part of the Local Plan process to give certainty in terms of new development sites (see also comments below in relation to supplementary plans).

National Development Management Policies

The Council has no “in principle” objection to such a suite of national policies on genuinely core issues which are replicated across the country.

However, there are two caveats to this position:

• If these policies are to replace existing local plan policies and carry the same weight in decision-making, they should be clearly supported by evidence, assessed against the same sustainability criteria as Local Plans, and tested independently in the same way as Local Plans; and

• Where evidence indicates that a different approach is justified, local authorities should not be precluded from doing so.

Furthermore, Local Plans must be able to respond to planning issues in a locally-specific way, where the evidence suggests it is required (for example, the new Thanet Local Plan contains policies for Habitat Regulations mitigation through the SAMM project - which is actually designed to make the HRA process simpler for developers; retaining important employment sites and encouraging flexible uses; foster homes; Green Wedges; etc).

Replacing Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) with supplementary plans (LURB)

The consultation on the Bill indicates (Ch9, para 13) that, in the reformed planning system, authorities will no longer be able to prepare supplementary planning documents (SPDs). Instead, they will have to prepare Supplementary Plans, which will be afforded the same weight as a local plan. Rather confusingly, the draft NPPF continues to refer to supplementary planning documents.

It is proposed that when the new system comes into force, existing SPDs will remain in force for a time-bound period; until the local planning authority is required to adopt a new-style plan. Current SPDs will automatically cease to have effect at the point at which authorities are required to have a new-style plan in place.

It is not clear what the purpose of this proposal is. The loss of SPDs would require those SPDs to be re-adopted, with additional consultation. This would add to the workload, rather than simplifying the Local Plan process.  Their adoption as “plans” rather than “documents” appears to indicate that they would have to be subject to the Examination process (and advice from the Planning Advisory Service confirms this).

The purpose of SPDs is to provide additional guidance on the implementation of Local Plan policies, which is why they are “supplementary”. The Council has a number of SPDs which do that, and these would have to be re-adopted if this proposal were to go ahead.

This proposal does not seem to serve any real purpose, and would create additional work, just at the point where we will be moving to a new-style local plan process and needing to produce a district Design Code.  It would also, after a short period of time, remove some important local guidance, such as the Thanet Landscape Character Assessment, which includes guidelines for new development in different landscape character areas.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposals.  The Council would be happy to discuss any of the issues raised.

Yours sincerely

Bob Porter

Acting Corporate Director of Place