To receive a briefing paper.

The Assistant Director, Planning and Strategic Infrastructure updated Members on the background to the government issuing an updated draft to the policy in December 2022.  This update was due to Parliamentary back bench concern with regards to development on green field sites and the emphasis on the concept of ‘beauty’ and strengthening design policies; other issues included changes to affordable properties, improvements to biodiversity, developer reputation, windfarms and the need for community consultation and support.  The Assistant Director, Planning and Strategic Infrastructure explained that officers across the Partnership had looked at this regarding what it meant in real terms and largely there was officer agreement with the proposed changes.  The result of this was the draft response, pages 19–34, following which Members were requested to put forward any further points they wished to make

Members put their comments and questions forward.

·       The Chairman noted the changes to the planning system over the last 15 years and concerns with regards to the subjectivity of ‘beauty’ and how this would be defined in real terms and suggested the need for the insistence for more spacious developments.  He expressed concern about the concept of reputation being incorporated into the process, as this wouldn’t necessarily eradicate the developers who may have more unscrupulous ways of working. 

·       A Member also noted the transient nature of ‘beauty’ and considered that it was more important to look for quality.  Regarding disreputable builders/developers, he highlighted the importance of local information, including local Members attendance at Planning meetings and considered that this should be addressed in conjunction with Enforcement policies.   Whilst acknowledging the pints made, the Chairman pointed out that this may go against the principle that every planning application ‘should be considered on its own merit’. 

·       The Assistant Director, Planning and Strategic Infrastructure emphasised the need to always adhere to planning law and due process, and to be aware of creating something too unwieldy to manage.  He noted that the government may be trying to solve a perceived problem and as a result of this was inadvertently creating something that was unwieldy and difficult to manage. 

·       There was a question from a Member regarding social housing, and whether a parish council could potentially become a registered housing provider.  The Assistant Director, Planning and Strategic Infrastructure acknowledged the difficulty on becoming a registered social landlord and the limited number of registered providers in East Lindsey and confirmed that the NPPF was moving towards widening the number of bodies who could register as social housing providers.   

·       A Member queried whether any comments had been received regarding housing allocations that dated back to 1960s.  The Assistant Director, Planning and Strategic Infrastructure explained that regarding how these were accounted for, the government was moving towards a ‘use it or lose it’ position on some sites to remove uncertainty for communities and councils as it impacted urban areas in particular. 

·       A Member noted some issues relating to Item 52 - ‘Are there any other issues which apply to all or most of England that you think should be considered as possible options for National Development Management Policies’ (page 31):  and whether there was an opportunity to insist that all developments needed a certain number of houses with solar panels.  The Assistant Director, Planning and strategic Infrastructure responded that this was a very valid point, but more of an issue for Building Control and Regulations.  However, it was agreed that there should be a national consideration, and this could be included in the consultation response.  The Chairman agreed that solar panels should be accommodated, following which a discussion ensued among Members at to how solar energy could benefit the wider community to encourage local residents to accept new developments. 

·       A Member, referring to Item 30 from the report, ‘Do you agree in principle that an applicant’s past behaviour should be taken into account in decision making’ (page 26), noted that the issue of the quality of the internal build being of equal importance to the external build, considered that this was frequently overlooked. 

·       In relation to Item 26, ‘Should the definition of ‘affordable housing to rent’ in the Framework glossary be amended to make it easier for organisations that are not Registered Providers…to develop affordable new homes?’ (page 25), there was some discussion about the definition of ‘affordable’ and that this should be defined in terms of local and not national wages or market rate.  The Chairman highlighted how MPs were discouraged from taking a position on local decisions. 

·       There was further discussion around Item 52 -‘Are there other issues which apply across all or most of England that you think should be considered as possible options for National Development Management Policies?’  There was some discussion among Members as to what was appropriate nationally, and what was more suitable for consideration at a local level.  One Member highlighted the issue of solar panels, considering that the threshold should be mandatory on new building developments, and what the threshold should be before this was included.  The Assistant Director, Planning and Strategic Infrastructure reflected that anything added into the NPPF would mean a simplification of the Local Plan.  He also noted that in terms of solar panels, that this was also something for Building Control to decide.  A Member queried whether these could be amended, following which he was advised that this was open to debate.  The Chairman highlighted that many Members, including himself, did not agree with some of the responses to Point 52, as many of these issues were already addressed by the Council’s current policies, and that in relation to this point, considered that the current balance was correct.  The Chairman further highlighted the importance of rural developments being included in any sustainable transport policies. 

·       The importance of National Plans to support sustainable transport programmes, through a national framework, was emphasised by aMember who considered that this process could be a means to influence national policy.  It was further noted that enforcement was underfunded.  There was also some discussion on what was classified as ‘sustainable transport’.  The Assistant Director, Planning and Strategic Infrastructure acknowledged that Point 52 could be revised in response to feedback prior to the final response being submitted. 

·       There was further discussion on the practicalities of a register for ‘good’ and ‘bad’ building companies and whether it was open to exploitation as well as the likelihood of it being underfunded, and consequently unable to carry out its role effectively.   It was also noted that precise definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ may be difficult to pin down, and a Member highlighted the importance of the internal build quality.  Concern was expressed that smaller, local builders would be more negatively impacted by any proposed scheme, for example, with administrative costs.  A Member asked whether this was an opportunity to strengthen Section 106 agreements.  The Assistant Director, Planning and Strategic Infrastructure agreed that it could, but advised Members that it would also likely be the subject of a separate consultation, however agreed that it would add to Point 52.  Another Member emphasised that the issues relating to poor build quality were more likely to be linked to larger, national builders than local firms and the current underfunding of enforcement teams to mitigate.  There was disagreement from one Member on whether a list for either large and/or smaller builders would be ineffective, following which adiscussion ensued with regards to how a list would be managed and administered.

·       There was further discussion amongst Members with regards to the outcome of the Carbon Reduction Plan and Housing Scrutiny Panel.  A Member noted that the need for a political leaver was repeatedly mentioned in scrutiny panel meetings and the need to press for community heating and shared power systems as smaller communities may be happier to have developments if there were shared benefits.  The Chairman noted the poor public transport system and his reservations about the placement of solar panels.

·       The Chairman summarised the suggested amendments to the report following feedback from Members.  The Assistant Director, Planning and Strategic Infrastructure advised Members that he would work with the Planning Policy Team to provide examples from the feedback received regarding Points 30, 31, and 52. 

No further comments or questions were received.

Following which, it was

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the Draft Reply to the National Planning Policy Framework Consultation 2023 be noted.