Bristol Neighbourhood Planning Network

INUTE of the meeting of Bristol City Planning Department and Bristol MNeighbourhood Planning Network Tuesday the 23rd October 2012 - (5.30 – 7.30 p.m.) at the Council House.

Present

Bristol City Council (BCC)

Zoe Willcox Service Director Planning & Sustainable Development Julie Seaton Service Manager - Development Services Gary Collins Service Manager - Development Services

Name Group Alison Bromilow (Chair) Redland & Cotham Amenities Society Simon Birch Redland & Cotham Amenities Society Susan Carter Ramblers Association Richard Curtis Planning Solutions Margaret Fay Friends of the Avon New Cut Bob Franks Knowle West Residents Planning Group John Frenkel Kingsdown Conservation Society Willie Harbinson ESHA architects / Old Market Quarter Future Jill Kempshall Sustainable Westbury on Trym Andy King Christmas Steps Arts Quarter Jane Miller Merchant’s Landing Terry Miller Merchant’s Landing Maggie Shapland Clifton and Hotwells Improvement Society Stephen Wickham Bristol Civic Society

New Permitted Development proposals - Julie Seaton

Background The planning system sets out conditions for development and use of land. New developments and major changes to existing buildings require planning permission. Some minor developments do not require planning permission because they would have little impact. These developments are called ‘permitted development’.

The proposed changes 1. Subject to a consultation, for a period of three years, the Government proposes that homeowners will be permitted to extend their home without the need for planning permission. The permitted extensions can be by 6 metres behind a semi-detached house and 8 metres for a detached property. A ‘homeowner’ will include a house in shared occupation. If a development does not require planning permission, the Local Planning 1 Authority has no control over a development if a neighbour complains, for example of the loss of an amenity such as light and privacy.

2. Floors above shops can now be converted to two flats without planning permission.

Re-negotiating section 106 agreements – Gary Collins

Background Section 106, of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 authorises a Local Planning Authority (LPA) to secure financial contributions and measures such as affordable housing (known as “planning obligations”) in order to mitigate the impact of development being permitted. Once signed, these S106 Agreements can be voluntarily re-negotiated at any time if both parties agree, however the LPA does not have to enter into renegotiation if the agreement is less than 5 years old. Since January 2009 the City Council has made it clear that it is open to the renegotiation of existing S106 sites in order to “unlock” stalled development sites, but any decisions to reduce the obligations would have to be made by a Development Control Committee in public. Bristol’s planning policy requires a new housing development above 15 dwellings to provide a pre-determined proportion of affordable housing. Many developers say that the obligation to build affordable housing in the recession makes their land unprofitable to develop and mothball their housing site. The city council has no power to make a developer build out a planning permission.

The proposed changes The Government: 1. In March 2011, wrote to all Councils to encourage them to consider whether voluntary renegotiation of planning obligations would stimulate development. To encourage development further, the Government proposes to increase the powers to reconsider the number of affordable housing units where there is justification to do so. The Government proposes new regulations to enable a developer to require the local planning authority to renegotiate planning obligations agreed before the 6 April 2010.

2. New legislation, effective in early 2013, will allow a developer who says that the number of affordable homes makes its site unviable to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate if the local planning authority refuses voluntary renegotiation.

In practice these changes will not significantly alter the Council’s approach, as it has been open to renegotiation of S106 Agreements for a considerable period. In the city council’s view, it usually appears that developers’ inability to borrow to finance construction holds back construction and not the affordable housing obligation.

2 Reducing Planning delays – Julie Seaton

To reduce planning delays the Government proposes:

1. As a sanction against a consistently poorly performing local planning authority the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLA) could request the Planning Inspectorate to take over its powers to determine planning applications.

2. To increase the use of Planning Performance Agreements (PPA's) for major schemes to set out a timetable to determine a planning application.

3. Increase Planning Inspectors’ powers to award costs in planning appeals where a LPA has not handled a planning application with due process.

4. Speed up the appeal process with a fast track for small scale commercial developments.

5. The CLG now publishes a comparative list of authorities’ performance against determination of planning applications within 26 weeks (known as the Planning Guarantee). The target is that all applications should be determined within this time period (including the completion of S106 agreements).

Update on Community Infrastructure Levy – Zoe Willcox

 CIL charging regime to come into effect on all decisions made from 1 January 2013

 Assumptions over next 5 years; CIL receipt of £14m anticipated

 Premise of CIL (paid by developers) is to assist Local Authority to provide infrastructure eg schools, transport, flood, parks, etc.

 Meaningful proportion to be devolved to Neighbourhood Partnerships where development has occurred. Government’s Localism Agenda is to reward communities that embrace development.

 Expecting regulations around meaningful proportion –originally October 12 now 13 January 13? Regulations are expected to give a maximum and minimum; local authorities will then set the local level.

 Couple of issues highlighted:

1. Strategic infrastructure needs of the city huge – figure of £276m to justify introduction of CIL so £14m small proportion even if nothing devolved.

2. At neighbourhood level, devolved monies will not be distributed equally and some areas will receive very little because of lack of development opportunities.

Next meetings – to be agreed