Agenda item

The Planning Policy Manager presented a report that summarised the provisions of the new National Planning Policy Framework and its implications for Plan Making and Development Management.  The changes were already incorporated into the draft Local Plan, having been widely publicised previously by the Government.

The Chairman considered that it was encouraging that a number of the measures in the new NPPF had been taken into account in the draft Local Plan.  He referred to local concerns with regard to the potential threat to the AONB from the extension of ‘pop-up’ campsites from 28 to 56 days and noted that some Local Authorities had imposed Article 4 directions on a wide geographical area.  He asked if Article 4 directions related to the built environment only or if they would cover campsites.

The Planning Policy Manager explained that Article 4 directions were very targeted and should not be used to re-impose blanket controls over a wide geographical area to negate permitted development in that area.  The Government had introduced the 56 day allowance for campsites in response to the economic impacts of the pandemic and had chosen not to exclude AONBs and other designations.  It would be necessary to demonstrate that the harmful impact of campsites on the AONB justified the use of Article 4 directions.

Councillor J Toye asked if it would be possible to write a local guide to what would be acceptable to this Authority under Paragraph 80 of the NPPF relating to isolated dwellings.

The Planning Policy Manager explained that there were a number of options, from a guidance note for officers to supplementary planning guidance, but all carried less weight than a specific policy in the Local Plan.  Whether a development was ‘truly outstanding’ was a subjective matter and he considered that it would be appropriate for the Development Committee to consider the merits of such proposals on a case by case basis.  Whilst it was an issue that could be debated, he questioned whether the use of time and resources in producing a guide could be justified given the small number of applications that were received under that provision. 

The Chairman suggested that an amendment could be made to the Design Guide to cover this issue.

Councillor Ms V Gay stated that the Council had an excellent Design Guide that had recently been rewritten and the important issue was how it was interpreted and understood.  She suggested that a further presentation be given on the Design Guide for all Members, as newer Members would not be familiar with it.

The Planning Policy Manager explained that the Design Guide was still a working draft and had not yet been finalised.  The Local Plan had to take priority but he was happy to add this suggestion to the work programme if required.  The Chairman agreed that it would be useful to consider this at the end of the Local Plan process.

Councillor P Heinrich referred to the sustainable development section and asked if it could be strengthened by further guidance on the requirements, such as Passivhaus standards, heat pumps and electric charging points.

The Planning Policy Manager explained that it was inappropriate to specify particular house types as there were a number of techniques that the developer could use to meet the requirement in the new Local Plan to deliver 31% improvement over current Building Regulation standards.  It was anticipated that they would be included as a construction standard in the Building Regulations in the near future.  Local Plans would be continuously reviewed and this policy area would evolve as technology and climate change issues moved forward.  The Planning Policy Manager stated that he was confident that the issues were being pushed as hard as possible.

Councillor N Pearce considered that much more clarity was needed with regard to the requirements for trees in developments.

The Planning Policy Manager stated that the NPPF referred to street trees, whereas previously it had not.  He considered that this section would be tested fairly early on through the appeal process and the Courts.  He referred to very good developments that did not include trees, where the form of development contributed positively to the character of the area.  He stated that trees took up a large amount of land and there would be a significant implications in terms of land values, density, viability and delivery of affordable dwellings.  He considered that there would be wide ranging, unforeseen circumstances that would be challenged through the development management process.  There was no definition of street in the NPPF, which could allow for some leeway.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that there were two large developments in her Ward that did not have trees in the street scene as the streets and pavements were too narrow.  She had always understood that trees lined avenues.  Trees caused problems such as raised pavements and other issues that often led to complaints, so it would not be possible to introduce them in certain areas.

Councillor Mrs Grove-Jones commented that terms such as ‘outstanding’ and ‘beautiful’ were subjective and people had differing views and tastes.

Councillor Mrs Grove-Jones referred to the Government’s proposal to remove gas boilers by 2035 and replace them with hydrogen energy or heat pumps.  She stated that heat pumps were very expensive and could not be used in buildings that were not insulated to modern environmental standards.  She considered that the requirements would raise the price of market and affordable housing.

Councillor N Dixon stated that the report had not referred to habitat and that there was too much emphasis on trees, which were only one part of the habitat mix.  He stated that there was no consideration of the biodiversity value of different tree species, nor the types of trees that would be suitable for the environment in which they would be planted.  He considered that work could be done to expand the advice on their use, and that the emphasis should be on habitat and biodiversity and the need to connect up areas of habitat enhancement to prevent them from becoming small islands of limited value. 

The Planning Policy Manager stated that the Government had introduced a requirement for biodiversity net gain.  Measurement tools and a matrix were being developed to establish the current biodiversity value of a site, to which a 10% uplift would be applied with the resulting biodiversity net gain requirement being delivered firstly on site, or replaced elsewhere if it could not be provided on site.  Previously, only the visual impacts of trees and landscape had been considered, whereas the wider benefits were now being embodied into the guidance.  He considered that it was a positive move but would take some time to filter through the planning system.   The requirement for 10% biodiversity net gain would be included in the Local Plan policies.

Councillor J Toye stated that the new Environment Bill included a great deal in it regarding biodiversity and local networks that could feed into the Local Plan.  The 10% biodiversity net gain requirement had come from the Bill.

The Working Party noted the report.