This consultation seeks views on our proposed approach to updating to the National Planning Policy Framework. We are also seeking views on our proposed approach to preparing National Development Management Policies, how we might develop policy to support levelling up, and how national planning policy is currently accessed by users.
A fuller review of the Framework will be required in due course, and its content will depend on the implementation of the government’s proposals for wider changes to the planning system, including the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.
No time to do a complete review but highlights inlude
-Complete removal tpo %YHLS buffers
-Paragraph 5. doesmnt actually state what changes are proposed to meeting housing need in NPPF, so impossible to comment on – a complete waste of time consultation
-[we] also propose to give more explicit indications in planning guidance of the types of local characteristics which may justify the use of an alternative method, such as islands with a high percentage of elderly residents, or university towns with an above-average proportion of students. – Note this is important as in each case these boosts to baseline population doent last forever. Elderly people did they dont add to baseline households, similarly students. In both cases though they revert back to the standard method not adopting a rigorous ‘stock flow’ computer model and cohort based model for household formation. It is better to reform the standaerd method than hav emultiple methods.
-, we intend to make clear that if housing need can be met only by building at densities which would be significantly out-of-character with the existing area (taking into account the principles in local design guides or codes), this may be an adverse impact which could outweigh the benefits of meeting need in full – Wolly wolly wolly – ANY large scale planning means a change in character 0- especially in rural areas. Does this refer only to expected changes in density or changes in rural to urban density – or intensification through brownfield development – if the latter it is a ricicukous block on ALL change
-we propose to make clear that local planning authorities are not required to review and alter Green Belt boundaries if this would be the only way of meeting need in full – Green Belts frozen fporever however out of date they are
_we propose to simplify and amend the tests of ‘soundness’ through which plans are examined, so that they are no longer required to be ‘justified’. Instead, the examination would assess whether the local planning authority’s proposed target meets need so far as possible, takes into account other policies in the Framework, and will be effective and deliverable. – Bu;;shot [plans are acce[ptab;e – no requirement to consider alternatives – a complete lock out for community groups offering evidence of alternative plans – the total abrogation of planning
– The government intends to maintain this uplift and to require that this is, so far as possible, met by the towns and cities concerned rather than exported to surrounding areas, except where there is voluntary cross-boundary agreement to do so. – Its not working it was the Greenbelt eating uplift – shifting away from the proposal to end the ridiculous transitional arrangements, so it now means a massive underdelivery nationalily – stop bullhsitting us and cancel this fairtail, fantasy most failed part of the last set of reforms
-The Bill will remove the Duty to Co-operate, although it will remain in place until those provisions come into effect. To secure appropriate engagement between authorities where strategic planning considerations cut across boundaries, we propose to introduce an “alignment policy” as part of a future revised Framework. Further consultation on what should constitute the alignment policy will be undertaken. We are, however, aware that the boundaries of some towns and cities mean that there is sometimes minimal distinction between areas that are part of one of the 20 urban uplift authorities and neighbouring authorities. In some cases, there is good co-operation between such authorities, but we would like to hear views on how such adjoining authorities should consider their role in meeting the needs of the “core” town or city. – I.e. the department has no clue what ;alignment’ and startegic planning means.
-The government does not propose changes to the standard method formula or the data inputs to it through this consultation. However, the government has heard representations that the 2014-based household projections data underpinning the standard method should no longer be relied on. – More admision of total confusion and failure – at the very least the standard method needs to take account of date – such as from the English Housing Survey – of where lack of housing has suppressed household formation – the evidence on this is now overwhelming.
-HDT – just delete it – it hardly applied to anywhere that wsnt failing the 5yhls supply test anyway – a complete failure and waste of time
-we propose a change to the current Framework footnote 58 by adding detail on the consideration that should be given to the relative value of agricultural land for food production, where significant development of higher quality agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, compared to areas of poorer quality land. – what change impossible to unbderstand