In December 2006, The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister launched a consultation on PPS3. This Planning Policy Statement is designed set out the national planning policies for housing. The response of CPRE Oxfordshire is set out below.

---

Mr Alex Lessware
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
24 February 2006

Response to Consultation Paper on PPS3

Whilst welcoming many aspects of the Consultation Draft, and particularly the protection offered to very small villages and rural communities, the Oxford Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England has a number of reservations which are laid out in this response.

Four Key Concerns

Objective to satisfy “demand” rather than “need”

CPRE has always supported the provision of suitable accommodation for all who have a real need to live in a particular area, and for assistance to be given to those who are unable to pay market prices.

The Government’s objective - PPS3 Para 1 - instead appears to be to ensure that all those who may wish to—rather than need to—live in a particular area will be enabled to do so through a combination of subsidising accommodation costs and over-building to reduce market prices.

This objective does not distinguish between those who may be already resident, or may need to move into the area for employment purposes, or may simply wish to migrate into the area “on a whim”.

It is our view that it is no business of Government to provide housing in a particular area for all who wish it, but only for those who need it.

It is also evident that seeking to satisfy demand in this way in an area like our own, where almost everyone would like to live if there were no financial barriers to doing so, would result in virtually unlimited further building. This would not only destroy the very qualities that had attracted inward migration in the first place, but would be in direct conflict with the PPS1 objective 5 of “protecting the quality and character of the countryside and existing communities”. It would also be unsustainable through placing unacceptable further strain on water and other scarce resources and increasing traffic flows

CPRE Oxfordshire strongly recommends that the word “want” in the first sentence of Para 1 should be replaced with “need”; that the word “demand” in 1.b should be replaced with “need”; and that need should be defined in the glossary as “a reasonable requirement by virtue of employment or other circumstances”.

Insufficient emphasis on prioritising brownfield development

Whilst the paper acknowledges the need to prioritise brownfield development—which in the case of Oxfordshire has over the past five years provided 56% of all new housing—it in fact weakens the sequential approach by allowing developers more freedom to bring forward greenfield sites, at the same time increasing the obligation on authorities to meet housing quotas.

Since the paper in any case requires that all land made available through local plans should be “developable” it is hard to see why the brownfield element should not be more positively prioritised.

Taken together the weakening of sequential planning, and the requirement for housing targets to be met in full, will inevitably mean that authorities will be forced to allow developers to swing the balance of development away from brownfield towards greenfield which is generally a more attractive commercial proposition.

This perverse effect will be further exacerbated by the effective elimination of “windfall” from local authority land availability forecasts. Whilst it is recognised that windfall forecasts are essentially “soft”, failing to include it in forecast land releases will inevitably require yet more greenfield land to be released. Between 2000 and 2005 5,304 dwellings were built on windfall sites in Oxfordshire. This represents around 52% of the total dwellings built in the county during the same period (10,123)

CPRE Oxfordshire considers that the sequencing of “brownfield first” is of greater importance than providing housing exactly where specific demand is considered to arise. We recommend that the guidance in PPG3 on brownfield sequencing should be re-instated, and that brownfield percentage targets should be raised from the 60% proposed in the PPS to 75%, or at least the 70+% being presently achieved; and that local authorities should be allowed to include a reasonable level of brownfield windfall in forward planning for land release where this has been shown to have been a consistent source of development land over the past five years.

Role of designated areas

There is little mention in the PPS of the need to give special protection to designated areas, such as conservation areas, AONB, and Green Belt. In our view, this is a mistake. In order to preserve the qualities of the countryside—as required by other planning guidance and Policy—e.g. PPG2, PPS1—specific limitations on development within these areas should be stated or re-stated.

Indeed we might argue that new designated areas—for example the Cotswolds, part of which falls in Oxfordshire—where “demand” as defined in PPS3 would be very high, but the amenity and environment of the area would be very susceptible to harm—should be designated.

PPS3 presents a considerable threat to Green Belts in high demand areas, notably that around Oxford. A recent Government study has shown that a likely effect of building more houses within range of London would be to cause outward migration from London to the countryside (rather than lower house prices). “Demand” for new housing would be at its greatest in the most desirable locations, particularly those within reach of cities. The Oxford Green Belt is just such an area.

Along with confirming and enhancing Green Belt protection, the positive role of Green Belts in assisting Government’s objectives needs to be stated. As the Government is seeking to expand housing numbers, prioritise brownfield, and increase densities, the role of the Green Belt in preventing the coalescence of settlements and preserving open land between them becomes even more important.

This is the role for which Green Belts were created fifty years ago, and in which they have performed well. (In the case of the Oxford Green Belt an additional function is to protect the character, environment and setting of the City of Oxford, which is not only a national and international asset but a wealth generator through tourism and education for the UK economy, and a primary cause of the attractiveness of the area to business).

Re-confirmation and strengthening of Green Belt protection will help to force the balance of development towards brownfield (within the cities) and away from greenfields (on their perimeters and more widely).

It is recommended that designated areas be given more specific protection in the PPS and that the valuable role which existing—or new - Green Belts will increasingly be required to play should be emphasised. Whilst it is accepted that authorities should have some latitude for the provision of affordable housing within the larger Green Belt villages, it is essential that this is stated to be only on the basis of demonstrable and strictly local need, and sited where it will not conflict with the purposes for which the Green Belt was created.

Conflict between authorities and HLAAs and HMAs.

HLAAs and HMAs will operate to determine available land supply and housing need/demand respectively. Their remit will cover new areas which will cross administrative boundaries of authorities and sub-regions. They will apparently not be constrained in assessing land availability. They will be unelected bodies composed of authorities, stakeholders and local experts.

Although their role is stated to be advisory it is hard to see how either a local authority—whose area lies within the Associations remit—or the Regional Authority—itself unelected—to which the Associations report could fail to be bound by it. Even if this were not to happen, the existence of the Associations would vitiate the authorities own planning for land release and enormously complicate the whole process just when the Government is eager to see it speeded up, as well as placing further demand on already scarce planning resources.

It is recommended that the HLA and HM assessments should instead be conducted by local authorities within their own areas, with any necessary co-ordination at a regional level.

Need to place more emphasis on environmental capacity in land availability studies

The development of land, particularly in rural environments like Oxfordshire will inevitably carry substantial detrimental environmental and amenity impact, in terms of new roads, pressure on water resources,, harm to the amenity of existing residents, and on the attractive landscape of the area.

PPS3 places little if any weight on these considerations which should in fact be at the forefront of planning policy.

It is recommended that Housing Land Availability Assessments, however conducted, should be required to exclude designated areas and, elsewhere, to evaluate the environmental implications and sustainability of development and, where the adverse impact is high, ensure that that land is not classified as available.

Questions on which ODPM requests specific views

1. Do the Policies set out deliver the Governments housing objectives?

Probably not because:

• The proposals are very complex and inter-woven
• It is more than likely that the result will be relatively less development on brownfield land
• Over-emphasis on market demand (however described) will destroy other Government objectives in relation to sustainability and conservation of the countryside.

2. Are the arrangements for delivery clearly set out in relation to:

• Working in sub-regional housing markets?

Probably not, because sub-regional housing market boundaries cross administrative boundaries and do not match other sub-regionally boundaries—e.g. in the South East Plan. The PPS approach conflicts with the objective of the planning system to work in the public interest by imposing only the single criteria of meeting imposed housing targets. The complexity of the proposed mechanics will slow down development.

• Determining the regional level of housing provision and its distribution?

This will probably be achieved at regional level, but the distribution will be affected by the conflict between HLAAs/HMAs and local authorities.

• Allocating and releasing land for housing?

Probably not. The rigid five year approach, and the ability of developers to pick and choose over released land, will be likely to lead to confusion and a large increase in appeals. Particularly local authorities will need to ensure land is released only as infrastructure is available which needs to be planned and provided concurrently.

• Making efficient use of land?

The requirement that all land to be released must be “developable” is likely to lead to challenges from developers as regards levels of “developability”, and effectively cause further by-passing of brownfield sites. Very firm criteria should be added to the PPS to determine the parameters within which “developability” can be challenged.

• Planning for mixed communities?

The ability to achieve fully mixed communities in every case will be subject to developers willingness to build on land. The objective of in effect “over-building” to reduce market prices will conflict directly with developers profit needs, especially at the bottom end of the market. Environmental constraints, sustainability, and the availability and distribution of grants to fund affordable housing, will all conflict with the mixed housing objectives. An over insistence on achieving mixed development may well stand in the way of achieving housing targets overall.

• Planning for rural housing?

Yes. The PPS approach to confine affordable housing to larger villages and market towns is welcomed, although as noted above an even tighter regime will be required within the Green Belt and designated conservation areas.

• Designing for Quality?

The emphasis on quality and, particularly local community involvement, is welcomed.

• Greening the residential environment?

The proposals here are welcome, although it is recommended that building standards are increased to improve sustainability.

• Managing Delivery and Development?

Yes, although the requirement for Councils to consider applications favourably should recognise the need to ensure that a proper infrastructure is or will be in place before development is contemplated.

• Are the Annex A definitions clear?

No. Sub-regional housing market areas need to be defined through the regional planning processes.

• Will PPS3 impact differently on different groups, or genders, or the disabled?

No such problem is evident.

Additional concerns on brownfield

• a. Residential Land.

“Back Gardens” are classified as brownfield making planning applications to develop them hard to refuse. This can lead to development which is damaging in environment or amenity terms. It is recommended that this classification is changed and that backland development does not attract the beneficial treatment accorded to brownfield.

• b. Brownfield Curtilage.

Oxfordshire contains a number of “brownfield” sites—e.g. former hospitals and M.O.D. establishments—where the surrounding land is substantially greater than the built land. The PPS offers a brownfield designation to the buildings and their “curtilage”. CPRE is concerned that “curtilage” is a notoriously hard term to define, and may be over liberally interpreted by developers and the courts.

It is recommended that the brownfield designation be limited simply to the land on which buildings stand and that local authorities are allowed—though neither encouraged or compelled—to include further land at their discretion.

Bruce Tremayne
(Chairman)