Agenda item

In July 2011, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation.  The NPPF would replace up to 1000 pages of existing planning policy. 

Members were asked to agree that paragraphs 3.5, 3.6 and Appendix 1 of the report, form the basis of the Council’s response which should be agreed by the Chief Planner in consultation with the Chairman of Development Control Committee and submitted by the 17 October deadline.

Councillor Scoates commented that he was frustrated by and disappointed with the NPPF and considered that the proposals would be disastrous for the Green Belt.

Whilst Councillor Scoates was in favour of reducing planning policies to make them clearer for people to understand, a reasonable balance had to be sought between over-regulating every likely possibility and under-regulating with the combination of an appeals service where there was so much ambiguity that neither the applicant, objecting local residents, planning officers or Members would know which way the policies were directing them.  Instead of making planning policies localised and assessing the applications in terms of what was best for local communities, it was likely that Members would approve inappropriate applications to avoid paying costs awarded by the Planning Inspectorate. 

Councillor Scoates believed that planning would only appear to be localised through the Local Development Framework but would, in fact, be under greater control by the Planning Inspectorate, as highlighted in paragraph 7.3 on page 80 of the report.  If Members wished to have 60 pages of ambiguity and true localism, then the Planning Inspectorate should be replaced with a separate appeals committee within the Council.

Councillor Scoates commented that he understood the Government's aims for a presumption in favour of development in inner-City London even though Government should never be permitted to use the planning system as a tool to instigate an economic recovery.  Many residents in rural and Green Belt communities were likely to feel deeply betrayed unless adequate Green Belt protection was ensured by applying a clearer variance between the countryside and urban areas.

Councillor Scoates proposed that the Chairman write a letter on behalf of the Committee (to be submitted in conjunction with the consultation document), to remind the government of the vital points he had raised and should seek assurances as to how the Green Belt could be protected in the strictest way possible thereby allowing many of those elected in the Council and Parliament to abide by their political mandates.

Councillor Michael stated that she was happy when the Government amended PPS3 and talk of localism was welcomed however, the NPPF  appeared to be saying something entirely different.  Councillor Michael agreed with Councillor Scoates on the need to ensure there was good balance between over-regulating and under-regulating and shared his concern regarding presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 2.3) which did not appear to be localism and undermined planning authorities.

Councillor Michael would like to see the response at paragraph 2.4 strengthened  in relation to power being taken away from the local authority.

Councillor Michael commented that the responses relating to the Green Belt should be strengthened to emphasise how the Green Belt would become weakened and compromised.

Councillor Mellor was disturbed by the NPPF and believed it to be a contradictory and obscure document.  He suggested that Bob Neil MP should be contacted to clarify exactly where Bromley stood as a borough.  Members agreed and suggested that all three local MPs should be approached.

Councillor Mrs Manning thought the questions were restrictive and stated that the Authority should go further than merely responding to the questions; she agreed with Councillor Scoates that a letter should be sent from the Chairman or maybe even the Leader of the Council.

Councillor Mrs Manning also stated that everything in the planning system should be kept under review and that she found the current guidance of 1000 pages to be extremely useful.  With regard to sustainable development, Councillor Mrs Manning emphasised that it was the current financial situation which was dictating how many houses were being built, not a lack of planning action.

Councillor Jackson supported Members' views with regard to presumption in favour of sustainable development and stated that the South East was densely populated and there was significant immigration into London and this was something the Government needed to tackle.

On a more positive note, Councillor Fawthrop was pleased to note paragraph 5.14 which stated that local car ownership should be taken into account when setting standards for residential and non-residential development and he asked that this be endorsed.

Councillor Joel stated that an application should not be turned down simply on the basis of design however, care should be taken when considering developments within conservation areas.

Councillor Boughey thought the figure quoted for housing provision was misleading and believed that permitted applications should be taken into account instead of planning units which had been completed and built.

With regard to sustainable development, Councillor Ince believed that some planning authorities were likely to ask what it was and how it was defined.

Referring to paragraph 4.3 on page 73, Councillor Fookes wished to know how Community Right to Build Orders would work and who would be liable for the costs of a referendum.

The Chief Planner confirmed that the cost of referendums would be met by the Local Authority.

The Chief Planner commented that the consultation document required one-word 'boxed' answers which the authority would not comply with.  Instead, the comments raised by Members would be incorporated into the draft response document which would be then be submitted, together with the suggested letter from the Chairman.

With regard to page 76 of the report, section 6.1 - the provision of housing, the Chief Planner would seek clarification as to how the quote 20% had been realised as there appeared to be no reasonable justification for such a quote.

It was suggested that a copy of the Chairman's letter be sent to the three local MPs.

RESOLVED that:-

1  Members' endorsed Appendix 1 which, together with paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the report should form the basis of the Council's response to the draft National Planning Policy Framework;

2  the formal response be agreed by the Chief Planner in consultation with the Committee Chairman for submission by 17 October 2011;

3  in addition to the response document, a letter be sent from the Chairman to the Department of Communities and Local Government and copied to the three local MPs, drawing particular attention to the comments raised by Members of DCC at the meeting which covered issues wider than the consultation document itself.