Agenda item

(Director of Neighbourhoods) to consider the attached report.

The Interim Assistant Director (Forward Planning) introduced the report on the government’s consultation on the Housing White paper. The White Paper provided an analysis of the issues and challenges facing both the delivery of and access to housing.  The document comprised a range of 'proposals' which were the subject of consultation and issues on which it was seeking comment.  It also provided a range of questions for comment.  The questions posed have formed the basis of the suggested response to the consultation, which was attached to the report.

The White Paper covered four key areas as follows:

·      Planning for the right homes in the right places,

·      Building homes faster,

·      Diversifying the market; and

·      Helping people now.

At this stage many of the proposals carried no firm commitment to implement, as drafted.  They would be considered further having reviewed the responses made to this consultation. Some proposals would require changes to regulation, whilst some would require amendments to national policy, including to the National Planning Policy Framework. (NPPF).

Some of the matters raised in the White Paper had already been taken into account in developing the Council’s Draft Local Plan, in part because they related to good practice in planning for places or because, as can be seen from the detailed response by officers, these were matters that EFDC already consider to be clear within the NPPF.  There were, however, a number of proposals which were likely to have implications for the development of the Council’s Local Plan, depending on the outcome of the consultations and any subsequent changes to the NPPF.

It had been announced in the White Paper that planning application fees would be increased by 20% from July 2017 if local authorities committed to investing the additional fee income in their planning department.  Many of the proposals were out on consultation and were reported to the Cabinet on 9 March 2017. It was reported that: “The service is anticipated to have a net cost to the Council of approximately £400,000 in both 2016/17 and 2017/18.  If fees were to be increased from July 2017 this would be likely to generate additional income in 2017/18 of £150,000.  As this income would have to be spent on planning functions there would not be any reduction in the net cost of the service but an enhanced service could be provided.”

It was therefore recommended that as part of the response to DCLG on the White Paper that the following was submitted:

‘The Council welcomes the increase in planning application fees and is committed to spending the additional income on planning functions.  However, EFDC wish to advise that the increase in planning application fees would be insufficient to cover the current cost of the Development Control Service.  Therefore, whilst the additional fee income would support an enhancement of the Service at no extra cost to Council Tax payers, those payers are part funding and will continue to, part fund the service even though the majority of them do not use the service.  In the context of the move towards local authorities becoming financially ‘self-sufficient’ from 2020 onwards, charges for planning applications are, as far as the Council is aware, the only service where fees are still set nationally.  EFDC would therefore strongly request that Government reviews its position on this matter.  Furthermore, this does not take into account the costs of the plan-making process which is not just about the development of EFDC’s Local Plan, but also other activities such as the  Masterplanning of strategic sites which seek to ensure the speedy delivery of the high quality housing that the District needs.’

It was also noted that the White Paper removed the expectations that each planning authority produce a single Local Plan. Officers would nevertheless press ahead with the draft Local Plan.

The Committee went through the proposed draft response to the Housing White Paper, noting that: small sites were to be treated positively; that local planning authorities were to determine what their Green Belt policy was; the Green Belt review to look at brown field sites; the 20% increase in fees for planning applications (now agreed by the Cabinet); and Section 106 restrictions to be removed.

The draft response answered 38 questions. The response to question 3(b) being highlighted - the question being: “from early 2018, use a standardised approach to assessing housing requirements as the baseline for five year housing supply calculations and monitoring housing delivery, in the absence of an up-to-date plan?” Officers basically responding that without having the opportunity to see and make comment on the methodology proposed it was not possible to respond to this. Notwithstanding this, there was a need for clarification as to how such an approach would apply to local plans.”

The following questions were raised by the Committee:

Councillor Bassett asked if the use of small sites would result in in-filling. The Planning Policy Manager said that it would not apply to us as none were allocated in our local plan.

Councillor Bedford asked if we could stipulate if land in the green belt had to have its trees put back. He was told that that officers were already making provision in the Local Plan for this.

Q3 – on having clear policies for addressing the housing requirements of groups with particular needs, such as older and disabled people? Councillor J H Whitehouse said that we needed better polices, especially for older people and needed to cater for downsizing, flats and the need for lifts. And, to cater for the loss of smaller houses as older people did not have anywhere to move to. The Planning Policy Manger replied that they agreed with increasing the choices for sections of the community, and that we needed houses of all sizes.

Councillor Bedford asked if we could include a reference to people with mental health needs in our reply to this question (Q3).  He was told that could be added.

Q4 (a) -Do you agree with the proposals to amend the presumption in favour of sustainable development so that: a) authorities are expected to have a clear strategy for maximising the use of suitable land in their areas? Councillor C P Pond said that we should be more firmer and saying we did not agree at the start of the answer and then keep the text as was by way of an explanation.

Q6 - How could land pooling make a more effective contribution to assembling land, and what additional powers or capacity would allow local authorities to play a more active role in land assembly (such as where ‘ransom strips’ delay or prevent development)? Councillor C P Pond was not happy with this response and would like to say, as a council, we did not carry out compulsory purchases. She was told that the government was asking what powers could be given to local councils, other that the use of money, after we had exhausted all other routes. Councillor Bedford added that we needed a safeguard. Councillor Sartin said that she was not comfortable with this either. The Planning Policy Manager emphasised that this would be for a “ransom strip” and not just for general compulsory purchases. The Director of Neighbourhoods added that it was about having an extra means to help us. Councillor Sartin said that she was worried about its use on green belt land. The Chairman agreed that the answer would stand as was.

Q7 - Do you agree that national policy should be amended to encourage local planning authorities to consider the social and economic benefits of estate regeneration when preparing their plans and in decisions on applications, and use their planning powers to help deliver estate regeneration to a high standard? Councillor Bedford asked that something was added to take in the need for similar/ sympatric designs to balance with existing housing. This was agreed.

Q8 (b) -Encourage local planning authorities to identify opportunities for villages to thrive, especially where this would support services and help meet the authority’s housing needs? Councillor Patel said that he did not follow the response; he was not sure how we could do this without having an adverse effect on the villages. Councillor Brady said it was aimed at making things slightly better and supportive rather that having whole scale change. The Planning Policy Manger added that it would be for local authorities to determine the effect and how it would be carried out.

Q12(d) -Makes clear that design should not be used as a valid reason to object to development where it accords with clear design expectations set out in statutory plans? Councillor Patel noted that design was often used as an objection in planning applications. Councillor Sartin said that this fell into what Councillor Bedford said earlier about harmonious design within a street scene.

Q13 (a) -Make efficient use of land and avoid building homes at low densities where there is a shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs? Councillor Whitehouse asked if this meant no more bungalows. She was told that it was not as specific as that, but about moving to high densities.

Q13(b) -Address the particular scope for higher density housing in urban locations that are well served by public transport, that provide opportunities to replace low-density uses in areas of high housing demand, or which offer scope to extend buildings upwards in urban areas? Councillor Whitehouse commented that this seemed to be looking for rows of flats. She was told that it was the government saying that; we were not. Councillor Patel said we needed to make a strong point about car parking spaces. The Director of Neighbourhoods said that this question specifically mentioned public transport.  Councillor Whitehouse supported Councillor Patel; we needed something in there about parking. The interim Assistant Director said that this was for national policy, but you were talking about how we apply it locally.  Councillor Bassett asked if we could add we have concerns about parking and say their proposals would lead to a lot of problems. Add a sentence at the end of our response saying that we appreciate this sentiment but need consideration to be given to car parking. This was agreed by the officers.

Q14 -In what types of location would indicative minimum density standards be helpful, and what should those standards be? Councillor Pond said that in parts there was no public transport and existing services could not cope with any additional demand. There was a need to increase capacity. She was told that the response did say that a one size fits all was not appropriate.

Councillor Whitehouse made a general comment that we needed to be stronger in our response especially on the things we felt strongly about. She asked if this had been in the Council Bulletin. She was told that it had gone to a member’s workshop in February. But a draft of the response could be put in the Council Bulletin. The Director of Neighbourhoods agreed that the response should be shared with all members via the Council Bulletin. If there were any material changes made then officers would review the situation. He then reminded the Committee that members could also respond personally to this consultation.

RESOLVED:

That the response to the Government’s consultation on the Housing White Paper be agreed with the addition of the comments agreed at this meeting.