On 6 October, the Minister of State for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook) wrote to the Planning Inspectorate who deal, for example, with planning appeals and local plan examinations. The letter offers guidance on the new national planning policy framework (NPPF) issued by the government on 17 August.
The letter has escaped the attention of the media as well as most of the planning news updates. Yet, it provides clear summarised evidence of the direction of travel for the planning system for the rest of this decade and beyond.
The salient points include:
- A rules-based planning system to boost housing supply and economic growth
- Presumption in favour of proposals that meet sustainable development requirements as set out by the NPPF including development within settlements at high densities
- Development outside of settlement boundaries will, however, be supported where a local authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable sites for housing
- It is envisaged that developments which are supported in principle in the NPPF will be granted planning permission, subject to consideration of whether the benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects.
What are the implications for Coventry?
Firstly, we can expect to see planning applications for high density housing on sites even in suburban parts of the city.
Secondly, we must be mindful that some of our adjoining local authorities are struggling to meet the requirement for five-year supply of deliverable sites for housing. Both Solihull and Warwick are in this category. As a result, there are already planning applications for housing in the green belt adjacent to the city boundaries. Coventry Society has rigorously opposed such applications, but government guidance is not helpful.
Thirdly and more generally, the rules-based approach based on the NPPF (and adopted up-to-date local plans) reduces the ability of local residents, community groups and organisations such as Coventry Society to influence decisions on planning applications. Officers are likely to support proposals that meet national policies. Furthermore, we need to bear in mind that from the end of October, the role of planning committees is reduced so that even fewer applications will be considered as officers will make even more decisions through delegated powers.
Lastly, we will see how this new policy framework is played out on 3 November when the local plan public inquiry (LPPI) is reopened to consider the proposal to include the Pinkett’s Booth site in the local plan to meet local employment land shortages in the city. Coventry has a shortage of 45 hectares of local employment plan and this site could contribute up to 20 hectares. But it is in the green belt. Coventry Society has objected to this local plan allocation.