That
a response be sent to Government, setting out the following as the views of
Dorset Council on the White Paper, as well as the more detailed points made in
section 9 of this report:
(a) That
delays in house building nationally are not all due to the planning system –
local planning authorities do not build houses - but to other factors including
market absorption, the homogenous nature of large developments, and reliance on
the private sector for infrastructure provision, as identified in the Letwin review. In the last decade, 2.5 million homes were
granted planning permission but only 1.5 million were delivered; similarly in
2019, 371,000 homes were given permission but only 241,000 were delivered;
(b) That
binding national housing targets and removal of the opportunity for people to
comment at outline planning application stage on sites allocated for growth in
plans will reduce the ability of communities to have input into proposals
affecting their local areas, and reduce local
democracy;
(c) That
greater detail is required on how the national housing targets would be
derived, including how environmental constraints will be taken into account, and that this must include an element of national
planning strategy setting out the aims for how places will grow and the
infrastructure needed to support them;
(d) That the proposed timescale for the adoption of new style plans is very ambitious bearing in mind the need
for the introduction of new primary legislation, the proposed ‘front loading’
of community engagement and the greater level of technical work necessary if
growth areas will receive automatic outline planning permission;
(e) That
there is significant risk to the progress of currently emerging local plans due to the uncertainty
around, and scale of, these changes;
(f) That
if national policies are not to be repeated in local plans, they need to carry the same weight in
decision making as development plan policies. Some local ‘development management
policies’ will still be necessary to set out local mechanisms and approaches to
addressing national policy issues – for example local solutions to addressing
indirect effects of development on protected
habitats;
(g) That
there is no reference to what if any effect these changes are intended to have
on minerals and waste local plans, how policies and site allocations for minerals and waste would be applied
under the zoning system and how minerals safeguarding can be achieved;
(h) That
while the support for good design and the publication of a national design code
are welcomed, it is important that these focus not only on what places look
like, but how they work for those living and working in them. Masterplanning also needs to consider infrastructure
provision and mitigation of impacts on habitats, flood risk, heritage and
landscape.
(i) That
the replacement of the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 planning
agreements with a single levy is not likely to generate sufficient funding for
the infrastructure and affordable housing
that is needed, particularly bearing in mind the exemptions proposed. We would support the ring fencing of
funding for affordable housing to ensure that this is not reduced;
(j) That
while an increased reliance on digital methods of engagement and involvement
may well attract a wider audience to comment on planning proposals, it will
potentially disadvantage older people and those in more deprived areas who may
have less access to digital means of communication.
Reason for Decision
The
White Paper proposes radical changes to the current planning system of England,
which will have significant impacts on Dorset, its communities and the council.
It is important therefore to respond to the consultation in order to influence
the outcome and ensure that the proposals do not adversely affect our area, in
particular as a consequence of the binding housing targets and reduction in
democratic and community involvement in decisions.