Planning Consultation WG
Responds to the planning applications within Macclesfield as a statutory consultee.
Macclesfield Town Council
Planning Consultation Working Group Agenda 23rd September 2020
Due to the Coronavirus Covid-19 restrictions and in line with the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 this meeting will be held remotely.
Agenda for the meeting on 23rd September 2020 at 10am.
1. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
1.1 Elect Chair
1.2 Elect Vice Chair
2. Background
3. Governance
3.1 Agree Terms of Reference
4. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Consultation:
4.1 Changes to the Current Planning System
Action: To formulate a response to the above Consultation.
5. Date/Time and Place of Next Meeting
To be agreed
The format/venue to be confirmed subject to C-19 restrictions and related regulations.
Macclesfield Town Council
Planning Consultation Working Group Minutes 23rd September 2020
Due to the Coronavirus Covid-19 restrictions and in line with the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 this meeting will be held remotely.
Minutes of the meeting held on 23rd September 2020 at 10am.
In attendance:
- Cllr Alift Harewood MBE
- Cllr Mike Hutchison
- Cllr Janet Jackson MBE
- Cllr Fiona Wilson
1. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
1.1 Elect Chair
RESOLVED: That Cllr Mike Hutchison is elected as Chair
1.2 Elect Vice Chair
RESOLVED: That Cllr Janet Jackson MBE is elected as Vice Chair
2. Background
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has issued three consultations on reform of the planning system:
- Changes to the current planning system
- Planning for the future – the planning white paper
- Transparency and competition: a call for evidence on data on land control
At the Planning Committee meeting on 04/09/20, it was resolved to establish a Working Group to respond to the three consultations.
3. Governance
3.1 Agree Terms of Reference
RESOLVED: That the terms of reference are agreed.
4. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Consultation:
4.1 Changes to The Current Planning System
RESOLVED: That a response to the consultation is returned, subject to ratification by the Planning Committee.
The response is contained in Annex 1 of these minutes.
5. Date/Time and Place of Next Meeting
The date of the next meeting of the Planning Committee is 10am on 1st October 2020.
The format/venue to be confirmed subject to C-19 restrictions and related regulations.
Meeting closed at 11:41
Chair: Cllr Mike Hutchison
Clerk: Harriet Worrell
Annex 1
Responses Changes to The Current Planning System
- Do you agree that planning practice guidance should be amended to specify that the appropriate baseline for the standard method is whichever is the higher of the level of 0.5% of housing stock in each local authority area OR the latest household projections averaged over a 10-year period?
The latest household projections averaged over a 10-year period.
2. In the stock element of the baseline, do you agree that 0.5% of existing stock for the standard method is appropriate? If not, please explain why
As per Q1, the latest household projections should be averaged over a 10-year period.
3. Do you agree that using the workplace-based median house price to median earnings ratio from the most recent year for which data is available to adjust the standard method’s baseline is appropriate? If not, please explain why.
Affordability should be adjusted for regional factors and based on median local income and local house prices.
4. Do you agree that incorporating an adjustment for the change of affordability over 10 years is a positive way to look at whether affordability has improved? If not, please explain why.
There should a greater focus on affordable housing to counter the propensity of large family homes in new developments.
5. Do you agree that affordability is given an appropriate weighting within the standard method? If not, please explain why.
A clearer definition of affordability needs setting centrally that can be applied at a local planning authority level such that the proportion of affordable houses is targeted at economic means and need.
Do you agree that authorities should be planning having regard to their revised standard method need figure, from the publication date of the revised guidance, with the exception of:
6. Authorities which are already at the second stage of the strategic plan consultation process (Regulation 19), which should be given 6 months to submit their plan to the Planning Inspectorate for examination?
No comment
7. Authorities close to publishing their second stage consultation (Regulation 19), which should be given 3 months from the publication date of the revised guidance to publish their Regulation 19 plan, and a further 6 months to submit their plan to the Planning Inspectorate?
No comment
If not, please explain why. Are there particular circumstances which need to be catered for?
8. The Government is proposing policy compliant planning applications will deliver a minimum of 25% of onsite affordable housing as First Homes, and a minimum of 25% of offsite contributions towards First Homes where appropriate. Which do you think is the most appropriate option for the remaining 75% of affordable housing secured through developer contributions? Please provide reasons and / or evidence for your views (if possible):
i) Prioritising the replacement of affordable home ownership tenures, and delivering rental tenures in the ratio set out in the local plan policy.
ii) Negotiation between a local authority and developer.
iii) Other (please specify)
Prioritising affordable housing with no negotiation between a local authority and developer such that the proportion of affordable housing meets the demand in the local area, is at least 30% and distributed about site. A good stock of rental properties is important to meet the ongoing needs of the rental market.
With regards to current exemptions from delivery of affordable home ownership products:
9. Should the existing exemptions from the requirement for affordable home ownership products (e.g. for build to rent) also apply to apply to this First Homes requirement?
Yes.
10. Are any existing exemptions not required? If not, please set out which exemptions and why.
No comment.
11. Are any other exemptions needed? If so, please provide reasons and /or evidence for your views
No comment.
12. Do you agree with the proposed approach to transitional arrangements set out above?
No comment.
13. Do you agree with the proposed approach to different levels of discount?
No comment.
14. Do you agree with the approach of allowing a small proportion of market housing on First Homes exception sites, in order to ensure site viability?
No.
15. Do you agree with the removal of the site size threshold set out in the National Planning Policy Framework?
No.
16. Do you agree that the First Homes exception sites policy should not apply in designated rural areas?
No.
For each of these questions, please provide reasons and / or evidence for your views (if possible):
17. Do you agree with the proposed approach to raise the small sites threshold for a time-limited period?
No.
(see question 18 for comments on level of threshold)
18. What is the appropriate level of small sites threshold? i) Up to 40 homes ii) Up to 50 homes iii) Other (please specify)
- Up to 40 homes
- Up to 50 homes
- Other (please specify)
Other – set threshold at 15 houses or 0.4 hectares such that at least 30% of houses are affordable.
19. Do you agree with the proposed approach to the site size threshold?
No.
20. Do you agree with linking the time-limited period to economic recovery and raising the threshold for an initial period of 18 months?
No.
21. Do you agree with the proposed approach to minimising threshold effects?
No.
22. Do you agree with the Government’s proposed approach to setting thresholds in rural areas?
No – rural areas need affordable housing.
23. Are there any other ways in which the Government can support SME builders to deliver new homes during the economic recovery period?
Government support should be consistent across all sectors during the economic recovery period.
24. Do you agree that the new Permission in Principle should remove the restriction on major development?
No – restrictions should remain.
25. Should the new Permission in Principle for major development set any limit on the amount of commercial development (providing housing still occupies the majority of the floorspace of the overall scheme)? Please provide any comments in support of your views.
No, providing the development is in keeping with the local area and an increase in local population doesn’t put added pressure on existing and already stretched local services and infrastructure.
26. Do you agree with our proposal that information requirements for Permission in Principle by application for major development should broadly remain unchanged? If you disagree, what changes would you suggest and why?
Yes
27. Should there be an additional height parameter for Permission in Principle? Please provide comments in support of your views
Yes, to protect local character and safeguard the privacy and amenities of neighbouring residents.
28. Do you agree that publicity arrangements for Permission in Principle by application should be extended for large developments? If so, should local planning authorities be:
- required to publish a notice in a local newspaper?
- subject to a general requirement to publicise the application or
- both?
- Disagree
If you disagree, please state your reasons.
Both methods to ensure affected neighbours are informed and to ensure inclusivity.
29. Do you agree with our proposal for a banded fee structure based on a flat fee per hectarage, with a maximum fee cap?
No comment.
30. What level of flat fee do you consider appropriate, and why?
No comment.
31. Do you agree that any brownfield site that is granted Permission in Principle through the application process should be included in Part 2 of the Brownfield Land Register? If you disagree, please state why.
Agree as brownfield sites can be key development sites in urban areas.
32. What guidance would help support applicants and local planning authorities to make decisions about Permission in Principle? Where possible, please set out any areas of guidance you consider are currently lacking and would assist stakeholders.
No comment.
33. What costs and benefits do you envisage the proposed scheme would cause? Where you have identified drawbacks, how might these be overcome?
No comment.
34.To what extent do you consider landowners and developers are likely to use the proposed measure? Please provide evidence where possible.
No comment.
35. In light of the proposals set out in this consultation, are there any direct or indirect impacts in terms of eliminating unlawful discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations on people who share characteristics protected under the Public Sector Equality Duty?
If so, please specify the proposal and explain the impact. If there is an impact – are there any actions which the department could take to mitigate that impact?
Development should reflect the needs in society and provide safe homes that promote health and wellbeing with a residential mix. At least 30% of homes should be affordable and distributed, as too rented properties, throughout a development site to prevent a cluster of housing types that may foster perceptions of inequality between residents of diverse economic means.
There is real concern that offsetting affordable houses to alternate sites dedicated for this market will lead to an extreme sense of inequality and discrimination, with the potential for such areas to decline and impact negatively on residents’ health and wellbeing.
There should a focus on homes for life so people may feel connected to their community, instilling a sense of civic pride and community cohesion.
New homes must meet high environmental standards such as electric charging points, low energy boilers and insulation to future proof the world in a time when climate emergencies have been declared by many councils. The health and wellbeing of future generations is dependent on responsible and decisive action now.
Larger developments in particular should have a responsibility to ensure there is no detrimental impact to existing services and infrastructure (health service, education, transport) that may indirectly discriminate against minority groups. This can be achieved through CIL or S106 injections or the development providing its own services, providing there is a sustainable infrastructure link to the town centre and the development does not divert footfall from the town centre.