Our response to the National Planning Policy Framework consultation

Plymouth City Council Response to the National Planning Policy Framework  (NPPF) and Other Changes to the Planning System

Consultation (30 July 2024)

Plymouth City Council contact: Rebecca Miller, City Planning Manager [email protected]

Introduction

We welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the NPPF. We applaud the government for reversing the previous government’s relaxation of housing targets, and for its commitment to social housing and ‘the biggest boost in affordable homes for a generation.’ It is really encouraging to see that strong action is being taken in relation to the housing crisis which has been getting worse year on year for decades. We also support the government’s intention to get tough on councils who shirk their responsibility to meet local housing need. Plymouth has never been one of those councils, indeed we have for many years had a radical growth agenda, prioritising economic development and having an award- winning Plan for Homes.

We welcome the government’s support for planners and the planning system. We strongly support the government in seeking to tackle the housing crisis by using a plan-led system to help deliver the homes England needs. However, we have serious concerns about some elements of the proposals, particularly in relation to the standard method for housing. We feel that the approach proposed misdiagnoses the problem and therefore is not the solution. Although there are poorly performing planning authorities and they rightly need to be held to account, the problem is not planning per se. A recent Planning Portal Market Index report recently demonstrated that there are circa 1.2 million homes tied up in unimplemented consents in the country (i.e. around 80% of the government’s target of 1.5 million homes); and although some have challenged the accuracy and relevance of this figure, what is clear is that there is very significant number of already consented homes which could be constructed, many of which will be held up through the land banking practices of some volume house builders. The problem is not that planning authorities are not consenting and allocating enough sites, it is that the housing market is failing to deliver enough homes, particularly affordable homes. This is where the attention of the government’s reforms would be most effectively directed.

For Plymouth, the scale of the new housing numbers represents an annual level of growth never before seen in the city in the post war era. We consider it is misleading to imply the proposed (and current) standard method is an assessment of future local housing need when it clearly isn’t. The proposed standard method set out in this consultation is a supply-side mathematical algorithm that does not consider current and future demographic trends i.e. the population and demographic profile that we should be planning for: nor other demand factors such as economic growth plans. Additionally, it takes no account of the deliverability of these homes. We have highlighted in our detailed response a number of potentially significant unforeseen consequences of the proposals and also suggested alternative approaches which we feel could meet the government’s laudable aims more affectively. Plymouth is a proactive council and planning authority, priding ourselves on having up to date local plans, working positively and collaboratively with our neighbours, making timely decisions on planning applications and being a growth focussed Council. We have not shied away from planning for growth, and we understand and recognise the value and importance it plays for the city to realise its vision and ambition and deliver much needed homes, jobs, and infrastructure for our communities. However, the reality of delivering in Plymouth is the real challenge. It is not through the lack of planning permissions or identification and allocation of land in local plans that is the is issue. It is the economic factors and viability of delivering in Plymouth that are the barrier and these are areas that the NPPF does not address. Without significant investment from the state, the ability to deliver housing at the scale proposed through the new methodology will simply not be achieved, but not through lack of trying. Our officers and members work tirelessly to acquire, unlock, and bring sites forward but this isn’t enough to get sites out of the ground.

This is unlikely to be an issue specific to Plymouth and we would therefore strongly urge government to urgently consider what financial support will be made available to councils to get sites delivered if there is to be any realistic chance of hitting the targets set out. Finally, we would welcome the opportunity to be part of future discussions around the changes proposed and how the government plan to take the NPPF forward, as part of its on-going collaborative approach to working with local government who will have to implement the proposed measures.

Chapter 3 – Planning for the homes we need

Question 1: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made to paragraph 61?

Plymouth City Council strongly supports this proposal.

We do agree that the provisions of the December 2023 NPPF relating to the standard method needed to be changed, and that there is perhaps too much scope in how paragraph 61 is worded for local authorities to seek to avoid their responsibilities to meet housing need in their local areas altogether. However, there clearly does need to be some ability to vary from the figure derived from the new standard method locally, where there is robust evidence to substantiate this. This is because circumstances vary greatly across the country in relation to factors that impact on the delivery of housing, including for example housing demand, housing values, and environmental constraints. A one-size-fits all approach simply doesn’t work.

As the new standard method has been decoupled from population projections with an inflated arbitrary affordability adjustment, we strongly recommend that there should be clearer guidance as to the circumstances where a variation from the supply-side methodology will be acceptable to avoid unintended consequences.

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?

Plymouth City Council does not support this proposed change.

We have significant concerns about the new standard method (covered elsewhere in this response). The proposed standard method is a stock based mathematical algorithm that does not consider current and future demographic trends i.e. the population and demographic profile that we should be planning for: therefore, it must only be an advisory starting point if implemented.

However, if there is an appropriate and robust standard method in place, linked to the future demand for housing as informed by ONS population projections and demand driven by economic growth plans, and that is clear about how it is applied and potentially varied on the basis of substantive evidence, then the need to refer to alternative approaches would seem unnecessary.

Simply adopting the standard method as the local housing need assessment without interrogation of how it translates to future population is not sensible planning. There is a significant danger that authorities will be tasked with planning for a population that does not/will not exist and would be predicated on significantly higher levels of net international migration than the ONS projects; or alternatively, it would be planning for a significant decrease in the average population per household figure from 2.4 to around or under 2.0. This would not be credible, deliverable, or sensible in the context of climate change as the country would be planning for more single person households than households with 2 or more people.

Greater provision of affordable housing as a proportion of overall housing will take demand away from the private rented stock which is more likely to improve affordability. Where viability is the hurdle the state must step in to ensure the affordable housing is funded so developments can proceed with maximum levels of affordable housing deemed appropriate which in turn increases housing output. Continuing to allow developments to proceed with reduced levels of affordable housing below policy is not the answer, it does

not result in greater output and improved affordability as can be seen by the continuing rise of the affordability ratio since its inception in 1997. It results in a diminished supply of affordable housing that could otherwise have been provided in developments if the state underpinned their delivery. The costs of hundreds of thousands of people on waiting lists in temporary accommodation or on housing benefit in private rented stock ought to be weighed against the costs of the state providing monies to maximise affordable housing provision in qualifying developments. The affordability crisis needs the provision of 100,000 to 150,000 affordable homes a year to be prioritised, over double the current average output.

Identifying and consenting more land does not translate to increased delivery as the private sector is primarily interested in demand and delivering below demand and is not concerned with the objective to address meeting housing need.

Question 3: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on the urban uplift by deleting paragraph 62?

Plymouth City Council strongly supports this change.

The urban uplift was completely arbitrary and had no regard to the actual deliverability of the extra housing it sought to bring forward. However, the proposed standard method is an inadequate substitute because of the decoupling of the method from demographic projections (see responses to other questions.) The standard method should be grounded in future population projections, demographic profiles of an area, and deliverability if the expectation is that delivery is primarily in the hands of the private sector and substantial state intervention and monies is not envisaged. The standard method should contain no arbitrary uplifts at all as they have no evidential basis. Arbitrary uplifts that are not deliverable nor within the control of LPAs do not translate into delivery, they result in undermining the plan led system, through the triggering of the ‘tilted balance.’ This simply enables the private sector to bring forward more greenfield sites instead of allocations on previously developed land, reducing affordable housing numbers on viability grounds and not increasing output beyond that which they aim to provide to ensure demand is not met. Ultimately such arbitrary uplifts result in poor planning outcomes for communities.

Question 4: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on character and density and delete paragraph 130?

Plymouth City Council strongly supports this proposed change.

In order to plan properly for a place like Plymouth the housing need is such that it may be necessary to begin to substantially uplift the densities of existing communities that may be located in sustainable locations but have historically low densities. The accommodation of the overall additional housing proposed by the new standard methodology will inevitably change the prevailing character of some areas. Conservation Area or Article 4 designations can be used to identify particularly sensitive areas, whilst achieving wider ambitions for growth. Well-designed higher density development can complement lower density areas. In any case, the preceding paragraph has sufficient caveats, but it may be worth emphasising that significant changes in density must be sensitively designed (in line with chapter 12 and the National Design Guide) and the implications for supporting infrastructure considered.

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?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal.

The current requirements regarding the extent of design codes are onerous and unachievable for resource-stretched local authorities within the proposed time scales for local plan preparation. This has been proven by the pilots. Design codes should be used to help manage areas subject to major change.

Question 6: Do you agree that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be amended as proposed?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal in part.

There should be further changes in relation to affordable housing delivery. We welcome the clarity in paragraph 11(d) that the presumption in favour of sustainable development only applies in relation to the supply of land. However, we are concerned that the wording may allow for a less desirable interpretation that all policies are out of date when supply policies are out of date. Clarity should be provided to ensure that this interpretation is not supported.

We welcome the stronger emphasis placed on the location and design of development and affordable housing considerations, but the changes provide no indication of how much weight these considerations should be given. There is a risk that this could lead to inconsistencies in decision making. We would support clarity through national policy that decisions under the presumption in favour should not undermine provision of affordable housing and indeed should go further that meeting the affordable housing policy should be a requirement when paragraph 11D is triggered. It’s the under provision of affordable housing that is the primary problem in the country so if the presumption is triggered, high levels of affordable housing should have the utmost priority in the balance and the state should step in to ensure that affordable housing is maximised if viability is proven to be an issue. The tilted balance should no longer be used to reduce affordable housing levels i.e. market housing trumps affordable housing.

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?

Plymouth City Council objects to this proposal, although we welcome the recognition by government that Local Planning Authorities are under-resourced.

We consider that the 5-year housing land supply requirement and the Housing Delivery Test should be abolished. We also suggest that the deliverability test and necessary amendments to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment guidance in respect of the achievability tests should be amended to reflect the supply-side approach if this is to be retained by government. These requirements are excessively onerous for Local Planning Authorities and also unfair as the deliverability of sites and the pace with which developers actually build consented homes is substantially outside of their control. They are also inconsistent with the supply-side methodology the government now advances. If the government retains the supply side methodology the role of the Local Planning Authority in a plan-led system is to allocate sufficient sites by accelerating local plan production. It is simply unfair to then hold the Local Planning Authority to account for the delivery of those sites when they are not directly responsible for their delivery. The 5-year housing land supply requirement and Housing Delivery Test are anachronisms within a

supply-side approach. These sites are clearly part of the available supply and should not be excluded. Furthermore, the current process (with provision for 20% buffer where under-delivery exists over 3 years) takes no account of the reasons for that under-delivery. It seems to assume that it is due to the lack of suitable and available sites, yet it may be entirely due to economic factors (e.g. lack of demand; land values versus cost) or supply-side factors (e.g., insufficient skilled labour; developer slowing down delivery rates to maintain high prices) outside of the control of Local Planning Authorities. Adding an extra 20% would therefore make no difference to actual delivery in these circumstances. The part that planning authorities can play is to make sure sufficient suitable sites are identified for development, including a mix of small and larger sites. This is what they should be tested on.

There is a danger that the proposed changes could inadvertently reduce the importance of a plan led system and could increase the likelihood of ad-hoc development that is not supported by key services and infrastructure. In addition, we are concerned that there could be an increase in applications being subject to complex appeals where there is disagreement over the 5-year housing land supply position, even in areas where there is a recently adopted local plan. This will do nothing to speed up housebuilding.

In the event that the 5-year housing land supply requirement remains, we strongly believe that once a plan is adopted there should be no requirement to have to continuously demonstrate this until the next local plan examination. This acts as a disincentive for developers and landowners to engage in plan making and creates community distrust when a plan’s policies can be considered out of date a year after adoption and developers can bring large windfall sites forward in place of allocated sites. Members and communities will

ask what the point is of producing a plan at significant expense, investing significant time and resources and political capital if it can be cast aside and ignored at the whim of developer interests. The plan led system requires the prioritisation of the regeneration of our town centres and the provision of homes on previously developed land, the 5-year housing land supply requirement and Housing Delivery Test together pull in the opposite direction and can be categorised as greenfield first policies.

Additionally, if the 5-year land supply requirement remains, we argue that developers should only get the benefit of the tilted balance where they can demonstrate delivery can be expedited to ensure significant delivery within the 5-year land supply requirement . Commencement and completion notices should be used to ensure development occurs as argued by the developer.

Government should consider the use of financial penalties where delivery is not expedited as envisaged where a development has had the benefit of the tilted balance, and monies should be recycled into the provision of affordable housing. Where a developer has had the benefit of the tilted balance when securing consent but has failed to deliver the development as expeditiously as envisaged then the tilted balance should not apply to the same developer on any future developments. The system should not reward those who have failed to implement consents. This brings the whole planning system into disrepute.

Although we believe for the reasons stated that the 5-year housing land supply requirement and Housing Delivery Test are a flawed approach and should be removed. In the event that the Housing Delivery Test is removed but the 5-year housing land supply requirement is retained, we strongly urge the government to amend the deliverability test so that it is focussed more on the practical deliverability of a site rather than current viability and the proposed build out rates of a developer. It is essential that Local Planning

Authorities are only made accountable for what is in their control, not what isn’t in their control; and the current deliverability test does not achieve this.

The following change to the definition of “deliverable” in Annex 2 would help:

Deliverable: To be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be practically achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years. In particular:

1. Sites which do not involve major development and have planning permission, and all sites with detailed planning permission, should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that homes will not be delivered within five years (for example because they are no longer viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sies have long term phasing plans).
2. Where a site has outline planning permission for major development, has been allocated in a development plan, has a grant of permission in principle, or is identified on a brownfield register, it should only be considered deliverable where there is clear evidence that housing completions could will begin on site within five years.

Question 8: Do you agree with our proposal to remove wording on national planning guidance in paragraph 77 of the current NPPF?

Plymouth City Council objects to this proposed change.

To not account for oversupply early in the plan period against the supply required in the remainder of the plan period is artificially increasing the housing requirement without justification. It is not logical that we would be required to continuously demonstrate a 5 years’ worth of the annual housing requirement plus a buffer if over-delivery against the annual housing requirement has occurred early in the plan period. This is completely contrary to the supply-side approach now advocated by government. It needs to be recognised that the housing requirement is the requirement over the plan period that is than annualised for monitoring purposes. We do not and should not be required to deliver and plan for the annualised figure every year.

There are peaks and troughs in housing delivery due to macroeconomic factors beyond the control of Local Planning Authorities, therefore any assessment of supply has to relate to the plan’s housing requirement over the plan period. It would be a perverse outcome for a Local Planning Authority to have the tilted balance triggered due to not demonstrating a 5-year housing land supply requirement against a figure higher than the adopted housing requirement and where the Local Planning Authority’s area is ahead of target i.e. 1,000 dwellings ahead, 3 years into the plan period, sufficient supply identified over the next 5 years to ensure still ahead in 5 years’ time yet 5-year housing land requirement not demonstrated because it is arbitrarily required to still be 1,000 dwellings ahead in 5 years’ time.

This approach assumes there would never be a downturn in the housing market which history suggests is an extremely questionable assumption and acts as a disincentive to over delivering.

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?

Plymouth City Council objects to this proposal.

The buffer is unnecessary and in and of itself won’t create additional available and deliverable sites where these don’t exist. If reintroduced, then the Housing Delivery Test must be removed and the deliverability test must be amended as set out above, to enable allocated previously developed land sites to remain in the 5-year housing land supply. The framework and guidance must be clearer to Inspectors in the way this is interpreted i.e. too many sites are removed from 5-year housing land supply because there is some doubt a development might not happen, but the purpose of the buffer is to account for the fact that some developments may not happen so sites should not be removed because there is no certainty. In addition,

delivery rates are reduced on the basis that the developer might not increase delivery rates due to market absorption i.e. demand. This cannot be used as a reason to reduce the supply identified as that is the choice of a developer to restrict output below demand. The government expects delivery and delivery rates to increase, therefore 5-year housing land supply calculations should assume delivery rates will increase i.e. the bar should be set at what is capable of being delivered in the absence of macroeconomic factors and developers’ intentions to maximise profits. If a site and developer is capable of delivering 100 dwellings per annum then that should be assumed in the 5-year housing land supply and not what they intend to deliver influenced by changing demand side factors.

Question 10: If yes, do you agree that 5% is an appropriate buffer, or should it be a different figure?

N/A.

Question 11: Do you agree with the removal of policy on Annual Position Statements?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal.

The Annual Position Statements add an unhelpful layer of complexity to the system, have little value and create resourcing pressures.

Question 12: Do you agree that the NPPF should be amended to further support effective co- operation on cross boundary and strategic planning matters?

Plymouth City Council strongly supports this proposal.

We welcome the recognition of the value of strategic planning and would like to see further details on this imminently to help local authorities when considering the options available for plan-making at a larger than local scale. We would welcome the opportunity to be involved in discussions about developing Spatial Development Strategies outside of Mayoral areas.

We have some concerns about the implications of the wording at paragraph 27 (b) of the NPPF which states that if you are unable to meet your needs your neighbours have to deal with that unmet need. This seems to imply that those who get a plan in place first can just pass their unmet need to neighbouring areas. We are not sure that this is what is envisaged and would therefore suggest revisiting the wording to improve the clarity. We would also suggest that Spatial Development Strategies should strongly align with housing market areas and functional economic areas.

Question 13: Should the tests of soundness be amended to better assess the soundness of strategic scale plans or proposals?

Plymouth City Council would support clarification of how the tests of soundness are applied.

We have no issue with the principle of tests of soundness but more so the way in which they are applied by PINS. We would strongly advocate for a return to the lighter touch approach introduced and used by Inspectors in relation to the Local Development Framework process under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, where a plan was deemed sound unless proved otherwise. This would make a huge contribution to speed up plan making, especially if there was a significant streamlining in the evidence base required for plan production.

The way in which the tests have been applied more recently, particularly in relation to justification, has been a major issue which has impacted plans being found sound. It is our view that Inspectors take an approach that is risk averse and leads to excessive evidence base requirements. This is very costly, slows the process down and under-values the planning judgments made by Local Planning Authorities.

We would therefore strongly object to any measures and changes which sought to make compliance with the tests of soundness even harder.

Question 14: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

Yes. We consider that to maintain effective co-operation and the move to the new strategic planning approach being advocated by government that it will be essential for delivery partners: strategic transport authorities, health providers (NHS/ICBs), government agencies National Highway, Homes England and Historic England and utility providers (National Grid and, Water & Sewerage Undertakers) to have a duty to align their infrastructure investment strategies with the statutory development plan process and to fully commit to supporting ensuring the necessary infrastructure is funded and delivered in a timely way.

Chapter 4 – A new Standard Method for assessing housing needs

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?

Plymouth City Council objects to this proposal.

The principle of having a standard method in place is supported, but it should be a demand-led approach, not a supply-led one. It should start with the most up-to-date population and household projections for each area, and then include appropriate adjustments relevant to determining the need to be planned for. The Local Growth Plans the government is proposing and other local economic interventions will also have an impact on housing need and there should be some mechanism for factoring this in.

The NPPF (current and proposed) is quite clear in paragraph 11 that plans should ‘provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses’. Yet the proposed standard method takes no account of need. The number of existing homes in an area is no guide to what the future demand/need is for housing in the future. By linking the local housing requirement to the current supply of homes in an area, and not to actual need, a number of unforeseen outcomes will follow. For example:

• It reduces the housing requirement in areas (e.g. many London Boroughs) where there is very high demand in comparison to their current housing stock, which can only exacerbate the affordability problem in these areas.
• It increases the housing requirement, sometimes very substantially, in areas which have low demand in relation to the current housing stock, or where the values are so low that development is not commercially viable.
• As a result, many areas will be forced to plan for homes significantly above the real demand/need, and therefore also for the infrastructure (schools, transport links, health facilities etc.) and economic provision associated with these theoretical homes that will never be built.
• By its likely consequence of delivering a huge increase in easier-to-develop greenfield allocations, it could even work against urban intensification and regeneration. There would be little incentive for developers in a constrained sector (e.g. construction skills and labour) to focus on more costly and harder-to-deliver sites when there are many far more profitable options available to them.
• Additionally, because it is linked to existing dwelling stock, the figure generated by this standard method will increase every time there is a net increase in housing numbers; the figure will just get larger and larger.

The breaking of the link between population and economic driven need and planning for homes is therefore a major concern, as is the lack of any recognition of the deliverability challenge. The high levels of delivery being sought will not be realised simply by allocating more sites.

Plymouth has been recognised for over two decades for its proactive positive planning approach, its radical growth agenda, and for its commitment to and innovation in driving growth. Yet the new standard method will increase its target to a figure that has never been achieved in the city in its entire history, one that is about 500% above its actual delivery in 2023/2024!

The approach seems to be based on a false premise that the major problem to delivery is the planning system. That is not the case. Planning permission for circa 2.7 million homes has been granted since 2015 yet only 1.5 million have been completed (Planning Portal Application Index). In the Joint Local Plan Area for Plymouth and South West Devon, 11,439 homes are tied up in unimplemented planning consents, which is 43% of the JLP’s total housing requirement over a 20-year period. Although there are planning authorities that perform well and that perform poorly in relation to housing, the primary problem isn’t the planning system per se. It is the operation of the housing market and its failure to deliver. The government should hold Local Planning Authorities to account for what they are in control of (i.e. the allocation of suitable sites to meet genuine housing need), not what is outside of their direct control, namely the construction of the homes from those allocations.

The government is to be applauded for wanting to take a tough line on housing delivery to meet its 1.5 million new homes target, but a supply-led standard method and holding planning authorities to account for delivering what is impossible for many is not the way to do it; it is an approach that is set up to fail from day one. Instead, the main focus should be on helping unlock the circa 1.2 million homes already with planning consent but not being delivered (including measures against developers with slow build out rates or land banking), providing local authorities with the tools they need to drive delivery locally, and focussing on the delivery of affordable housing (including a major programme of social housing development), which is where the real housing crisis is.

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?

Plymouth City Council objects to this proposal.

The baseline is not part of a demand-based assessment. The affordability adjustment is not evidence based and is predicated on the assumption that the private sector will deliver significantly more homes in the most unaffordable locations to bring house prices down and make property more affordable. It also fails to acknowledge or address why the property prices are high in certain locations e.g. national designations, environmental constraints and limited suitable land and the desirability to live in small rural towns and villages and coastal locations.

We therefore would advocate that if any adjustments need to be made to a housing need figure that is grounded in population projections, it should be based on affordable housing need, i.e. an uplift for increases in affordable housing, not open market increases.

Question 17: Do you agree that affordability is given an appropriate weighting within the proposed standard method?

Plymouth City Council objects to this proposal.

We disagree with the affordability weighting for the reasons set out in our response to Question 16 above. The affordability uplift should be removed: it’s arbitrary, unevidenced, largely undeliverable and undermines plan making and the delivery of affordable housing. Any uplifts to housing numbers should relate only to an uplift in the delivery of affordable housing as the priority.

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?

Plymouth City Council objects to this proposal.

Reiterating points made in previous responses, we consider that the arbitrary unevidenced affordability uplift should be removed. As such, the inclusion of other factors such as rental affordability would give rise to similar concerns. It is not clear to us how including another factor such as this in the calculation would improve the method, which is one that should be about demonstrable housing need rather than a supply- led approach.

Question 19: Do you have any additional comments on the proposed method for assessing housing needs?

Plymouth City Council would strongly urge the government to replace the proposed supply-side methodology with one that responds to the actual drivers of need, starting from the most up to date population and household projections. We are very concerned that the supply-side methodology will not only fail to deliver the government’s ambitions for housing delivery but will have several unintended consequences such as:

1. It doesn’t differentiate between those areas who try to avoid housing growth with those (such as Plymouth) who are highly growth orientated. If it remains unchanged, Plymouth will be significantly penalised. It requires us to deliver a level of housing higher than we have ever achieved in our history, 500% more than we delivered in 2023/2024.
2. The calculation is derived from the existing supply of homes in an area and therefore it takes no account of the actual need or demand for housing. Many areas are being asked to plan for a much larger number than they actually need – and this has consequences for infrastructure planning (schools, health, transport etc.). A smaller number of areas are being asked to plan for fewer houses than they actually need, which will just exacerbate affordability problems in those areas.
3. It takes no account of the deliverability of those homes. Simply identifying sites in a plan will not increase delivery without both the allocation of additional government funding from the Affordable Housing Programme and the incentivisation of local plan allocations through aligning infrastructure and other grants to enable the acceleration of those sites.
4. It could actually make it more difficult for cities to deliver the regeneration and urban intensification we know the government wants to see, because it would greatly increase the supply of more profitable greenfield sites that are likely to draw away from costly brownfield sites the limited investment available and capacity in the construction sector (e.g. skills, labour). This is already an issue in the Plymouth sub-region.

Whilst we strongly support the government to be ambitious in address the housing crisis that has existed in England for decades, disenfranchising the poorest and most vulnerable in society, we believe the government has misdiagnosed the problem as one relating to the supply of sites through the planning process rather than an affordable housing crisis linked to the failure of the housing and development market. As the Lyons Review advocated, we believe there should be direct state intervention in the delivery of affordable and social rented homes as part of a new central-local government settlement through devolution.

Chapter 5 – Brownfield, grey belt and the Green Belt

Question 20: Do you agree that we should make the proposed change set out in paragraph 124c, as a first step towards brownfield passports?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal in part.

We support the proposed change to paragraph 124(c). Arguably the NPPF and local plans already provide sufficient policies to ensure the efficient re-use of brownfield land.

We have reservations that the concept of ‘brownfield passports’ on their own will lead to an increase in the delivery of homes on brownfield land even with development of this nature being acceptable in principle. The key barriers to delivering homes on brownfield land are not addressed by this amendment, namely: viability, abnormal site costs, deficient infrastructure, fragmented land ownerships, and the need for land assembly.

For decades, Local Planning Authorities have been prioritising the re-use of previously developed land seeking to ensure the efficient re-use of land through appropriate densities in allocations and in decision making. Place making and sustainability underpins the appropriate densities that should be achieved in combination with, other uses, necessary infrastructure, quality of living and deliverability.

In Plymouth, we have consistently seen a high percentage of homes delivered on brownfield sites, with the delivery of high densities in appropriate locations. There are also considerable number of homes in our supply that are consented and not yet started which are to be built on brownfield sites.

Questions 21 – 46

No comments.

Chapter 6 – Delivering affordable, well-designed homes and places

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?

Plymouth City Council strongly supports this proposal.

The proposed new emphasis on social rent is welcomed. We would also like to see better evidence produced in local plan preparation processes which map housing needs across social rent, affordable rent, and intermediate tenures, and which can inform benchmark tenure mixes in local plan policy and guidance.

Question 48: Do you agree with removing the requirement to deliver 10% of housing on major sites as affordable home ownership?

Plymouth City Council strongly supports this proposal.

It was always unclear what evidence supported the 10% figure in the first instance. Authorities should be able to determine the right mix of affordable housing tenures in local plan policy to reflect evidence identifying housing needs in their areas. Local plan policy can also allow flexibility for specific projects where evidence suggests a different mix is necessary and appropriate. Setting thresholds nationally will rarely result in the correct approach at a local level.

Question 49: Do you agree with removing the minimum 25% First Homes requirement?

Plymouth City Council strongly supports this proposal.

Authorities should be able to determine the right mix of affordable housing tenures to reflect evidence identifying housing needs in their areas. There isn’t sufficient evidence of demand for First Homes over other intermediate tenures, and so the 25% approach risked over-provision. First Homes require a higher upfront deposit relative to shared ownership. In Plymouth, our experience suggests those most in need of support into home ownership require lower upfront costs. Our experience also suggests First Homes are not an attractive tenure to developers, relative to other intermediate tenures, because of a longer disposal process delaying returns. First Homes also bring significant monitoring and enforcement responsibilities for Local Planning Authorities to ensure future sales are controlled: with council revenue budgets under considerable pressure, it’s unclear how this could be achieved effectively at the scale proposed.

Question 50: Do you have any other comments on retaining the option to deliver First Homes, including through exception sites?

No comments.

Question 51: Do you agree with introducing a policy to promote developments that have a mix of tenures and types?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal.

Subject to the comments below regarding mixed communities in Question 53, the amendments put a welcome emphasis on local policy and approaches to establish appropriate tenure mixes and types, particularly paragraph 66 and 69. We would caution about overstating the benefits of mixed communities, but generally agree that mixing housing tenures and types is a tool which can help in the creation of inclusive, balanced and safe communities. Government should be aware there are other factors which are likely to have a greater impact on creating successful communities, and the effectiveness of mixing in promoting diverse communities depends significantly on a development’s detailed design, for example avoiding zoned or gated enclaves and promoting clustering and permeability. We would welcome policy and guidance which acknowledges that tenure mix is one element amongst a myriad of factors which need to combine to successfully deliver diverse and integrated communities.

Question 52: What would be the most appropriate way to promote high percentage Social Rent/affordable housing developments?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal.

We consider that Local Housing Needs Assessments should be used to develop policy to determine the tenure required to meet the needs of the local area.

High percentage affordable housing developments inevitably have significant viability challenges. This is especially true in Plymouth where we have relatively low values and a high proportion of brownfield sites which typically have significant abnormal costs that compound development funding gaps. Finding sufficient funding to overcome these obstacles is key to uplifting delivery. In recent years, the City Council have made effective use of Brownfield Land Release Funding matched with our own funding to assist overcoming abnormal costs on local authority-owned brownfield sites. Our Registered Provider partners have used this with Homes England funding and private financing to bring forward brownfield sites with a high proportion of affordable housing. This delivery pathway has been successful but is highly reliant on public land and public subsidy to overcome abnormal costs and inherent viability challenges associated with affordable housing development. In low value areas, this is not a development activity that can be undertaken by the market alone. Furthermore, as development conditions have worsened in recent years (due to borrowing and build cost increases), it is an increasingly difficult activity even with public subsidy.

The most effective way to promote high percentage affordable housing developments in Plymouth would be to bring forward proposals that tackle these issues:

• Increase the subsidy available for addressing abnormal costs on brownfield sites in low value areas, beyond sites in public ownership.
• Significantly increase Homes England subsidy available for affordable housing development, retaining eligibility for regeneration projects.
• Make funding available to support the City Council to purchase or compulsorily acquire stalled housing sites to enable us to bring forward land with enhanced outputs for affordable housing delivery.

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?

Plymouth City Council would not support the setting of an arbitrary national maximum site size.

There is a need for better evidence and long-term research which explores how the provision of different concentrations of affordable housing at different scales effects the livelihoods of households and communities. The housing crisis has led to significant structural changes in how we occupy our housing stock and, particularly in young people, the demographics in need of affordable housing have changed so significantly that what was true in the past may not be true now.

Furthermore, there is little consensus within existing research on the benefits of mixed communities. Plymouth City Council commissioned Plymouth University to conduct a literature review of mixed communities to better understand the outcomes of mixed tenure policies and developments for occupants. The review found that while mixed communities rightly seek to avoid the well-documented issues of concentrated poverty, research has not generally found a strong basis for the claims that mixed communities inherently enhance the life chances of residents or necessarily encourage social mixing to the benefit of communities. That said, there is support for new mixed tenure developments and in turn their occupants facing less negative stigma in wider society, relative to single tenure affordable housing estates, and positive social mixing occurring around social institutions (e.g. schools) and community activities (e.g. playgrounds and clubs). Mixed tenures can also support timely delivery by diversifying demand.

We would not support an arbitrary threshold for these sites applied at the national level, as we do not think there is the evidence to justify it. We would rather maintain the flexibility to determine an

appropriate tenure mix using officer’s professional judgement in consultation with affected communities, their representatives and emerging evidence.

Question 54: What measures should we consider to better support and increase rural affordable housing?

No comments.

Question 55: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 63 of the existing NPPF?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal.

The inclusion of reference to looked after children is helpful.

Question 56: Do you agree with these changes?

There are no changes which significantly change existing support for community-led housing development in the proposed framework.

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?

Plymouth City Council would like the flexibility for non-Registered Provider affordable housing for rent to extend to community-led development, in addition to Build to Rent. As it stands the requirement for Registered Provider-operated tenures creates a significant obstacle for community-led groups looking to meet affordable housing needs while championing innovative construction techniques. Registered Providers generally seek standard construction methods and are not able to support community groups pursuing alternative methods. It is beyond the capacity of most community groups to apply for Registered Provider status. As a result, the regulatory framework is having the effect of stifling innovation and the ambition of community-led groups. Plymouth City Council considers that an exception should be allowed for community groups meeting minimum standards assessed by Local Planning Authorities as this would encourage more groups to pursue this important delivery route.

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?

We agree that small sites are crucial to the overall mix of housing supply, as they bring a wider range of options for delivery, with fewer infrastructure requirements and more developers in the mix. This adds resilience to an area’s housing delivery potential. An over-dependence on a few large / strategic sites has the opposite effect and is high risk.

Volume housebuilders who tend to hold these consents carefully manage the delivery and often at low build-out rates significantly lower than rates advised for the 5-year land requirement. This has been the experience of Plymouth, South Hams, and West Devon in their Joint Local Plan, with large sites such as Sherford, Saltram Meadow and Seaton being built out at much slower rates than the developers had suggested when local plan trajectories are set.

However, any percentage figure chosen is purely arbitrary as each area is so different. A better approach would be for national policy to attempt to break up the volume house builders’ control of land by requiring developments of certain size to be required to split up the site. If national policy could require that large sites are required to provide parcels of less than 1 hectare for small and medium size local housebuilders to bid for, this better addresses the issue raised in the Letwin Review of enabling increased delivery rates through a wider mix of tenures and types and prices.

In Plymouth we have worked with small and medium sized builders and the Federation of Small Businesses to seek to facilitate approved approaches to the delivery of small sites including a small sites initiative under our Plan for Homes. The two fundamental issues for small builders are cashflow and certainty of sales. If a fund could be stablished to support small builders then delivery on a vast number of small sites could be substantially increased.

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?

Plymouth City Council strongly supports this proposal.

Aesthetics are important but have always been considered through design policy under “character” alongside the consideration of materials and details. This is a much more sophisticated and useful framework. Elevating this above other (more functional) design considerations reinforced the false view that design is subjective and “just about how something looks.”

The changes to paragraph 138 are therefore supported. Design codes should not be the primary means of assessing and improving the design of development. The whole suite of tools (including national, regional, and local policy guidance) should be used as appropriate to the development under consideration .

Question 60: Do you agree with proposed changes to policy for upwards extensions?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal.

A focus on mansard roofs showed a concerning lack of understanding of the importance of context and character, which is the fundamental starting point for good design. Reference to mansard roofs should be removed altogether as it wrongly emphasises a single type of upward extension. This is a level of detail that should never be in national planning guidance.

Changing the requirement for development to be consistent with the prevailing form (as opposed to

“height and form”) of neighbouring properties is a neutral change: height is a component of form. However, there are circumstances where consistency (i.e. the same) is not needed. Given the need to accommodate significant new housing numbers this will inevitably result in more intensive forms of development so we would suggest changing this to:

“...where the development would be complementary to the overall street scene, is well-designed. ”

Question 61: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

A reference in the opening paragraph to “functional” places would be welcomed. This was in a previous

version of the NPPF and emphasises the importance of function in design.

Chapter 7 – Building infrastructure to grow the economy

Question 62: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraphs 86 b) and 87 of the existing NPPF?

Plymouth City Council supports the proposed changes. Paragraph 86(b):

Plymouth’s emerging Local Economic Strategy places an emphasis on productivity and high value jobs growth. As such we would broadly agree with the changes to paragraph 86 b) which include land uses which support this aim. The uses identified tend to create higher value jobs however, the density of employment supported can be lower than other alternative uses such as traditional manufacturing and as such careful consideration would need to be taken when identifying sites locally for these uses to ensure adequate employment opportunities exist for the population. This is important when considering changes of use to existing buildings / brown field sites.

Paragraph 87(a):

We are supportive of the changes proposed. Locally this could support opportunities for greater shore side electrification infrastructure to support the move from fossil fuels to renewable sources for marine vessels. Equally, this could provide scope in building clusters of marine innovation focused businesses in areas close to access points to the water to allow for R&D activities. Further, it could help in identifying sites to further develop opportunities around the defence supply chain in the city.

Paragraph 87(b):

We are supportive in principle of the changes proposed, especially in regard to development and innovation of port related activities. We would caveat this support with a desire to have local controls in place to ensure an appropriate mix of employment is available locally.

Paragraph 87(c):

We are supportive of the proposed changes as long as there is capacity locally to manage this activity.

Question 63: Are there other sectors you think need particular support via these changes? What are they and why?

High energy users to cluster around high renewable energy production facilities would help reduce the burden on the grid to free up capacity elsewhere. It would also be more cost effective from an energy infrastructure perspective if the distance between source and off-taker can be shortened.

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?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal in principle.

We have some concerns that the inclusion of this type of development into the NSIP regime would remove/limit opportunity for local opinion to be fed into discussions and inform decision making. It is therefore vital that the NSIP regime thresholds are set at a level that relates genuinely to nationally significant and important infrastructure.

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?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal in principle.

If the direction power is to be extended then these developments should be limited by scale, which itself should be the subject of a consultation.

Question 66: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

We broadly are supportive of the proposed changes to the chapter and see them as having a positive

impact on ‘Building a strong, competitive economy,’ the key for us is that there is enough determining power held locally to ensure developments that happen are in the best interest of the local community as well as nationally.

We also note that there is a lack of change to Part 7 of the NPPF concerning town centres that do not reflect the numerous changes that have taken place in recent years to the Use Classes and Permitted Development Rights. We would suggest this should be reviewed to consider the impact of these changes on the scope and content of future local planning policies. Indeed, we would go further and suggest that the rapid extension of permitted development rights and the wider use of Prior Approval processes should be the subject of a review jointly with the Local Government Association to ensure that the retention of

these provisions do not continue to undermine the current government’s aspirations for a new modern

planning system which will be central to delivering the national mission for growth.

Chapter 8 – Delivering community needs

Question 67: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 100 of the existing NPPF?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal in principle.

We are generally supportive of the proposed changes to facilitate the delivery of public service

infrastructure, however the placing of “significant weight” should only be made where there is evidenced need for such infrastructure. Crucially, the delivery of public service infrastructure needs to be supported by adequate funding from central government rather than further leaning on Section 106 contributions.

Lack of such state intervention could become a constraint to development and the ability to deliver high quality, healthy sustainable communities.

Question 68: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 99 of the existing NPPF?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal.

The inclusion of reference to early years and post-16 places is a welcome recognition of that sufficient choice for these places needs to be planned for. We agree that the planning system should support and accommodate the proper planning of such infrastructure, however, it would be useful to clarify that it is not solely - or even primarily – the responsibility of the planning system to fund such infrastructure through planning obligations.

Question 69: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraphs 114 and 115 of the existing NPPF?

Plymouth City Council supports the proposed change to paragraph 114. Plymouth City Council objects to the proposed change to paragraph 115.

Paragraph 114

Most Local Highway Authorities (Plymouth City Council included) accept the general principles of a “decide and provide” or “vision-led” approach when assessing the transport impacts of new development coming forward. However, in order to do this successfully there needs to be clearer guidance from government/DfT. Guidance on the preparation of transport assessments and more importantly travel plans using the “vision and validate” approach are very-much needed. We would also suggest that there should perhaps be some thresholds relating to when the “vision and validate” approach can be adopted (“vision and validate” is unlikely to be something which would be appropriate for smaller-scale development by simply not having the critical mass to make it work). For example, in paragraph 117 (proposed new paragraph 115) it is stated by all developments that will generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a travel plan. In our view the travel plan will supersede the transport assessment and transport statement in the context of “decide and provide” or vision-based approaches, and so detailed guidance on how this approach is to be applied is essential for this to have the desired effect to support growth.

Paragraph 115

We object to the proposed changes to paragraph 115. We are extremely concerned in relation to the

inclusion of the wording ’…., in all tested scenarios.’ Traffic modelling included in Transport Assessments in support of larger development sites coming forward often include multiple testing scenarios. To suggest that a development could be approved on the basis of the results of just one of those tests providing a positive outcome (even though all of the remainder suggest a negative impact), would lead to unsound decisions being made that are open to legal challenge. For this reason, we suggested that the additional wording proposed is removed.

The phrase ‘severe impact’ is the principal yardstick used to date to trigger a refusal on transport grounds and this is unchanged in the draft, and we suggest that applying this to the ‘Decide and Provide’ or ‘Vision- led approach’ is inappropriate.

As a Vision-led approach differs considerably from the more traditional ‘Predict and Provide’ approach, it is our view that the inclusion of the following wording relating to the refusal of planning applications on transport grounds would be helpful:

‘…….Failure to fully maximise the potential to access a site by all sustainable modes of transport.’

This should be included as a refusal yardstick with guidance on the practical application of such alongside the potentially unchanged phrase ‘severe impact’ which by its nature is more suited to motorised highway infrastructure.

Annex 2: Glossary

We consider that the glossary definition of a travel plan should be updated to suggest that a travel plan is not only a long-term management strategy but under the decide and provide or vision and validate approach will become a short medium- and long-term management strategy.

A travel plan will not only seek to deliver sustainable transport objectives but will be a key document with a variety of assessed measures with appropriate funding attached to each measure which can be unlocked depending on a related trigger that is released following a thorough monitoring process to achieve the mode split scenario identified at the pre-commencement stage.

Question 70: How could national planning policy better support local authorities in (a) promoting healthy communities and (b) tackling childhood obesity?

(a) The spaces we live and work in have a significant impact on our health and wellbeing. Homes and spaces that are well-designed, safe, and prioritise health are a crucial part of setting communities up to thrive and reducing health inequalities.

We would encourage the Government to consider:

• Making the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) mandatory.
• Requiring that all new build homes are built to meet the M4(2) building regulations as a minimum.
• Requiring Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) for all major planning applications and clearer guidance provided.
• Other guidance documents and assessment frameworks relating to healthy environments (such as those referred to as footnote 55 of the NPPF).
• The need to ensure that places are carefully designed and do not exacerbate existing problems or miss opportunities to improve health and wellbeing for communities.

(b) Planning has a key role in ensuring that future development is well planned to encourage an active life and to ensure access to healthy food, recreation and play spaces and good jobs.

We would encourage the Government to consider providing much stronger policy support that will result in significantly restricting the number of hot food takeaways or businesses that negatively impact upon health and wellbeing being located near to schools and other educational establishments.

Question 71: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

No.

Chapter 9 – Supporting green energy and the environment

Question 72: Do you agree that large onshore wind projects should be reintegrated into the NSIP regime?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposed change.

Plymouth is an urban authority bounded by the sea, rivers, and a National Park so opportunities for large onshore schemes are limited, however the City Council has declared a climate emergency and is supportive of the move towards green energy. So, while opportunities are limited within the Local Planning Authority area, onshore wind projects provide an opportunity to provide an increase in green energy production. We would suggest that it would be useful to set out clearly what scale of development that constitutes “large.”

Question 73: Do you agree with the proposed changes to the NPPF to give greater support to renewable and low carbon energy?

Plymouth City Council strongly supports this proposed change.

Plymouth City Council has declared a climate emergency and is very supportive of changes that will bring forward renewable and low carbon energy.

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?

Plymouth City Council does not consider further mechanisms should be put in place.

We consider that the NPPF in Chapter 15 puts safeguards in place which enable planning authorities and developers to understand these considerations and therefore consider proposals against the planning balance when assessing proposals for renewable energy development. Therefore, we suggest additional protections are not required.

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?

Plymouth City Council does not support this proposal.

Plymouth is an urban authority bounded by the sea, rivers, and a National Park so opportunities for large onshore schemes are limited, however the City Council has declared a climate emergency and is supportive of the move towards green energy. However, we consider that 50MW is still the correct definition for nationally significant schemes. In order to ensure consistency and drive the move to towards low carbon it would be useful to set out guidance on balancing the potential impacts on landscape/heritage against the benefits of proposals.

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?

Plymouth City Council does not support this proposal.

We consider that 50MW is still the correct definition for nationally significant schemes. In order to ensure consistency and drive the move to towards low carbon it would be useful to set out guidance on balancing the potential impacts on landscape/heritage against the benefits of proposals.

Question 77: If you think that alternative thresholds should apply to onshore wind and/or solar, what would these be?

See responses to questions 75 and 76.

Question 78: In what specific, deliverable ways could national planning policy do more to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?

It is important that both the NPPF and local plans should be assessed for compatibility with climate change and carbon reduction legislation. As the TCPA have argued, Local Plans should be aligned with the requirements of the Climate Change Act 2008. New house building will only increase the ongoing issue of significant amounts of additional emissions unless embodied carbon in buildings is monitored and restricted.

Strong and clear Building Regulations standards (with a clear pathway to net zero) can negate the issues raised through proposals and potentially speed up the application process for both developers and the Local Planning Authority.

The NPPF has the opportunity to prioritise and support the move towards making real progress by ensuring that all new development supports and provides low carbon development and green energy, this can make a real impact on our future resilience as we adapt to climate change. This includes the greater consideration of integration of future cooling demands alongside heating being factored in at the planning stage and the opportunity to provide clear guidance on embodied carbon impacts.

This approach should not be restricted to house building but to include the potential emissions from commercial development. Where emissions increase and impacts are identified, mitigation measures should be secured through appropriate planning conditions or via Section106 agreements to limit the wider impact of the proposals.

There is a real opportunity to stimulate the economy and reduce carbon emissions from existing buildings through a national programme of retrofit that sees investment in training and education.

The production of low emissions building materials, can improve the thermal efficiency of existing buildings and significantly reduce the emissions impacts of well over 20 million homes, improving the quality of our existing buildings, making them more resilient to climate change whilst improving the health and well-being of occupants and reducing running costs.

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?

Local Planning Authorities already seek guidance from experts when considering the impacts of development and given the very technical nature of carbon accounting it would be useful for the Government to adopt a standard approach to this element and to provide clearer guidance on embodied carbon impacts both for plan making and at the application stage.

This would allow the carbon impact of local plans to be tested at examination and allow them to test strategies and policies that seek to mitigate and adapt to the challenges of climate change.

This would provide consistency, avoid confusion, and speed up the application process for both developers and the Local Planning Authority.

Question 80: Are any changes needed to policy for managing flood risk to improve its effectiveness?

No, we consider the current policy for managing flood risk through the continued implementation of a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy and partnership working with the Environment Agency and Water Companies to be effective. However, we do consider that the government should state whether it intends to enact the provisions of Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and create properly funded Sustainable Urban Drainage Approval Bodies which would ensure surface water is appropriately considered and managed.

Question 81: Do you have any other comments on actions that can be taken through planning to address climate change?

To adequately address the need to rapidly deal with the issues of climate change for all new development, it is essential that building regulations and planning policy require very ambitious energy performance standards and a planned approach to implementation. This will prevent the need for costly retrofit at homeowner and other building owner and users' expense late. If these standards are to be consistently applied then consideration needs to be given to what extent viability assessments should be allowed to reduce those requirements being delivered through the determination of a planning applications.

The Government has the opportunity to provide a clear pathway to net zero through both Building Regulations and planning legislation, perhaps similar to the earlier ‘Building a Greener Future’ approach which had a 2016 target and used the Code for Sustainable Homes standard as a clear building metric which all developers would have to meet – and know in advance of a planning application that this was the baseline standard to be met.

Question 82: Do you agree with removal of this text from the footnote?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal.

We agree that the text can be removed from the footnote, provided the safeguarding of the best and most versatile land remains an important consideration.

Question 83: Are there other ways in which we can ensure that development supports and does not compromise food production?

See our response to Question 82.

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?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal.

Expanding the definition of NSIP for infrastructure that is of national importance is understood. However, care should be taken to ensure that decision making is retained at the most local appropriate level. There is also a risk with some of the categories suggested that they could inadvertently bring under the definition of NSIP infrastructure that is commonplace as part of (for example housing) development or householder interventions. This should be avoided.

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?

See comments in relation to Question 80 regarding the provisions of Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

Question 86: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

No.

Chapter 10 – Changes to local plan intervention criteria

Question 87: Do you agree that we should we replace the existing intervention policy criteria with the revised criteria set out in this consultation?

Plymouth City Council supports the proposed change in principle.

We would agree with the revised criteria but only on the basis that there was a genuine needs-based approach rather than one based on supply.

Question 88: Alternatively, would you support us withdrawing the criteria and relying on the existing legal tests to underpin future use of intervention powers?

See response to Question 87.

Chapter 11 – Changes to planning application fees and cost recovery for local authorities related to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects

Question 89: Do you agree with the proposal to increase householder application fees to meet cost recovery?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposed change in principle.

Given the resourcing challenges in Local Planning authorities which have seen the largest reductions of any services in local government since 2010 as highlighted by the IFS, CIPFA and the Royal Town Planning Institute this proposed change in the householder fee is welcome – but needs to be implemented at the earliest opportunity and far faster than the last fee increases under the last government.

We fully support a move to full cost recovery (as originally envisaged by the introduction of planning fees in 1981) for all types of planning applications. Consultations under the previous government highlighted that the recent 25% fee increase would still leave a notable shortfall for householder applications, which would continue to be subsidised by the taxpayer. In the context of wider pressures on local authority budgets this is increasingly difficult to justify. Those who benefit from the development should be required to bear the full cost, which represents only a very small fraction of the overall cost of the development itself. Whilst fees continue to be set nationally, we strongly urge the government to review the need for the affirmative Parliamentary procedure which delays much needed resources actually being received by local authorities from any new charging regime.

Question 90: If no, 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.

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

Plymouth City Council would advocate the fee being set at the highest possible level to achieve full cost recovery in as many Local Planning Authorities as possible.

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?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal in principle.

It is our understanding that the fee has been set at £528 on the basis of an “average” cost of dealing with a householder application. If that is correct then by definition then the true full cost recovery position may well be higher in some authorities than others. We would advocate increasing the fee to the highest level possible to achieve full cost recovery in as many authorities as possible, even if that is higher than the £528 fee proposed.

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

The scope of a householder planning application can vary greatly and therefore a flat rate fee for all types of development may not be the fairest and best method to recover costs. As an example, someone applying for a new porch slightly larger than the permitted development allowance would be charged the same amount as someone undertaking a large wrap-around two-storey extension, loft conversion and detached garage. However, as an average, the suggested fee is considered appropriate. The decentralisation of planning fees would allow a more flexible and nuanced approach to be taken by Local Planning Authorities.

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.

Planning application fees for all types of applications remain far below full cost recovery levels. Fees should therefore be increased across all areas to address this. However, the prior approval regime is now extensive, with the required fee considerably below the level of a planning application. These applications still require registration, validation, publicity, assessment, and evaluation, and still have the potential to be determined by Planning Committee at greater cost (and therefore subsidisation) for local council tax payers.

Developers already enjoy substantial cost savings from these applications as a result of the reduced supporting documents needed alongside the potential removal of Section106 obligations, including the delivery of much needed affordable housing. Adjusting the fee for prior approval applications to accord with the charge for an equivalent planning application would therefore appear fair and just.

In addition, the fees of the discharge of conditions are wholly inadequate and again effectively result in local council tax payers subsidising large developers. These fees should be substantially uplifted.

The fees for Section 73 and Section 96a area also wholly insufficient for the required work necessary –

including meeting statutory requirements for notifications. These fees should be substantially uplifted.

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.

As a matter of principle, it is our considered view that there should be no free applications in a nationally set planning fee regime. By having any free applications this effectively passports a cost and a pressure to the Local Planning Authority. In the context of huge cust since 2010 the continuation of such an approach is completely unjustifiable.

In relation to listed buildings whilst we recognise the overwhelming public interest in their protection, the costs associated with processing them can be extensive and so there should be a charge based upon the nature of development proposed. These applications are subject to greater publicity requirements and necessitate the input from specialist officers.

Question 94: Do you consider that each local planning authority should be able to set its own (non-profit making) planning application fee?

Plymouth City Council very strongly supports Local Planning Authorities setting their own planning application fees.

The decentralisation of planning fee setting would allow a much more flexible and nuanced approach to fee setting for development types than is possible under a nationally set fee regime – particularly one that is subject to the affirmative Parliamentary process. In our view the decentralisation of fees is long overdue, has widespread public and private sector support, reduces the burden on local government council tax payers and would be entirely consistent with a place-leadership role which is likely to be advocated through the proposals for the devolution of powers in England highlighted in the Kings Speech. The ability to set our own fees in order to deliver true full cost recovery (as originally envisaged in 1981 when they were first introduced) will also enable us to provide a responsive, customer-focussed service that helps to deliver the much-needed growth the country needs.

Question 95: What would be your preferred model for localisation of planning fees?

• Full Localisation – Placing a mandatory duty on all local planning authorities to set their own fee.
• Local Variation – Maintain a nationally-set default fee and giving local planning authorities the option to set all or some fees locally.
• Neither
• Don’t Know

Plymouth City Council strongly supports the full localisation model.

Question 96: Do you consider that planning fees should be increased, beyond cost recovery, for planning applications services, to fund wider planning services?

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?

There are many statutory functions that are not fee-generating but require substantial resourcing within Local Planning Authorities, these include plan preparation, design codes and planning enforcement. Whilst cost recovery for planning applications would be welcomed, a more fundamental review of funding for the whole planning system is needed. If growth is to be at the heart of the government’s aspirations then all aspects of planning departments need to be suitably resourced to direct development to the right locations, to ensure it is of a high quality and provides the necessary supporting infrastructure, and to hold developers to account and maintain faith in the system.

Previously it has been acknowledged that those submitting and developing large scale developments are able to carry a higher cost burden. They would also be the users that would benefit the most from a fully funded system, with local plans prepared at pace and applications determined in accordance with agreed timeframes without delay. However, it is acknowledged that not all authorities would receive a large number of major applications, and therefore these authorities would continue to suffer from underfunding, with monies needing to come from the general taxpayer. A sliding-scale set charge in addition to the standard application fee could therefore be applied to fund other services. In addition, previous proposals to potentially increase the fee for retrospective applications alongside greater enforcement penalties could help to support the wider planning service.

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?

As noted above there are a number of planning functions that require further funding these include plan preparation, plan monitoring, design work, historic environment review and assessment, biodiversity net gain, viability, drainage, and planning enforcement to name a few.

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?

Plymouth City Council supports this proposal in principle. Although we have not had direct involvement in relation to applications for development consent orders, we support a fully funded planning service, with cost recovery at its heart, in order to deliver the much-needed infrastructure and growth the country needs.

Question 99: 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.

Please see response to Question 98.

Question 100: What limitations, if any, should be set in regulations or through guidance in

relation to local authorities’ ability to recover costs?

Plymouth City Council does not believe any limitations should be placed on Local Planning Authorities in the regulations to allow the simplest system of local cost recovery to be implemented in the shortest possible time given the severity of the funding position most councils face in delivering planning services.

Question 101: 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 see response to Question 98.

Question 102: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

We strongly welcome the fact that the government has already recognised the positive role of planning in helping to deliver growth.

We consider that the government needs to work with the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Environment, Planning and Transport (ADEPT) and local councils to attract people to the profession and support the retention and development of those already within it. The current MHCLG “Capacity and Capability” programme being led by the Chief Planner could be expanded to enable key retention and development issues to be addressed.

As noted throughout the responses in this chapter, a planning service where all reasonable costs can be fully recovered should be the primary objective of any changes to legislation. For many years, local planning authority resourcing has been reduced, departments have shrunk, and services have suffered. To support the government to deliver the much-needed new homes and infrastructure the country requires the

additional fees and charges should be ring-fenced to the Local Planning Authority. Furthermore, following the many years of underfunding, the government should acknowledge that improvements in performance could take time to come to fruition. Whilst further funding will deliver service improvements, changes to the monitoring regime should be incremental and take account of the time needed to create further resource. Whilst further funding will help to improve service delivery in Local Planning Authorities there should be acknowledgement that money is not the only factor hampering performance. Planning as a profession is not as attractive as it could be and retention of experienced staff can be difficult in the face of public criticism, there are a lack new entrants into the profession, services need to be modernised and digitised to improve productivity, and this requires specialist input. Wider support for the sector should therefore be a priority, and could be achieved through collaborative working with PAS, RTPI, TCPA etc.

Chapter 12 – The future of planning policy and plan making

Question 103: Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements? Are there any alternatives you think we should consider?

No comments.

Question 104: Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements?

The NPPF itself is not entirely clear on the proposed transitional arrangements. It is only the consultation document itself that references the December 2026 transitional period for plans like ours. We therefore recommend that these changes should be elevated into the NPPF itself.

Question 105: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

We would urge the government to advance proposals for future changes to the NPPF as soon as practically possible after giving detailed consideration and making the necessary amendments in relation to the responses provided to enable some much-needed clarity for plan making to progress in an effective and efficient manner.

Chapter 13 – Public Sector Equality Duty

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?

The impact the scale of the delivery of the housing proposed will inevitably have impacts on the community, both positively and negatively, including those with protected characteristics and some of these impacts could be severe. The negative impacts are considered to have the potential to be broad and relate to the ability to deliver other land use requirements for economic development, infrastructure, renewable energy generation and greenspace provision, key components of delivering high-quality healthy and sustainable communities.

The positive impacts are providing housing for those who need it- the most deprived and vulnerable in society (and putting to one side our comments regarding a supply-side methodology as opposed to one based on up-to-date population and household projections – we have concerns about who these new homes are being built for, the consequential unintended impacts of development that will be delivered and potentially no population to live in them. This could give rise to an increase in social issues and have negative impacts on local communities.

Download this document