Archived decisions

Contact: Rosalind Rutt, ext 6745 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The Government has published a consultation paper on `Draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 on Sustainable Development in Rural Areas'. Comments are required by 12 December 2003. The County Council's response proposes that many aspects of the draft PPS are to be welcomed. However, concerns are raised in relation to certain omissions, the format of the document and specific areas of policy advice.

2. Background

2.1 The consultation draft PPS7 is the first of new national planning policy statements (PPSs) which will gradually replace existing Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs). The Government intends to prescribe less policy at national level and to ensure that PPSs are more concise, clearer and better focused on the implementation of policy objectives.

2.2 The PPS7 will in due course replace `Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (PPG7), The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development' (1997). The Government proposes to issue accompanying guidance on agricultural and forestry permitted development rights when the final version of PPS7 is published. The final published version will also reflect the outcome of separate reviews and proposals as well as any changes to the planning system.

2.3 The draft PPS7 states (Introduction paragraph 1) that it: "sets out the Government's broad policy objectives relevant to rural areas in England, and its proposed planning policies that will help deliver these objectives. These policies are firmly based on the principles of sustainable development and the need to protect the wider, largely undeveloped countryside for the benefit of all."

2.4 Most of the policies in the draft PPS reproduce, or are closely based on, existing policies in PPG7, updated as appropriate. There are also some new and expanded policies. The most significant changes from PPG7 are summarised in the appendix.

2.5 The draft PPS was considered by the Regional Planning Committee on 6 November 2003, on which Councillor Glen represents the County Council. The views of the Committee were broadly similar to the comments of the Director of Environment (below), with the exception that it gave more unqualified support to proposals for farm diversification and rural businesses.

3. Comments of the Director of Environment

3.1 General Comments: in commenting on the draft PPS7 the views of other departments of the County Council have also been sought. The provision of a clearer and more concise statement of the Government's planning policies for rural areas is welcomed. However, there is also concern that the PPS is too simplistic and does not facilitate consistent interpretation and implementation of policy between local planning authorities. It would be helpful, for example, to retain the guidance in the technical annexes in PPG7, or alternatively to provide a separate advice note. Notable omissions include some environmental issues such as climate change and soils. It is also important to include cross-references to other relevant PPGs.

3.2 Community Services and Facilities: the expanded advice supporting reasonable access to community facilities and services for those who live or work in rural areas is welcomed. The guidance on the role of rural service centres (such as market towns), mixed and multi-purpose uses and small-scale, local service facilities is also supported (paragraphs 3-5, 7-8).

3.3 Isolated large country houses will no longer be allowed as an exception to normal countryside policies. This is supported - it should be noted that, in practice, outstanding developments of this nature could still be permitted on their merits.

3.4 Designated Areas and Landscape Character: the advice on nationally designated areas should cross-refer to the statutory management plans for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks as these plans set out policies which are directly relevant to land use planning policies. Clarification is needed on the advice (paragraph 24) for designated areas regarding "major developments that are more national than local in character".

3.5 In its advice on the removal of countryside designations (paragraph 25), it is important to distinguish between landscape designations and planning designations. The removal of local landscape designations and replacement with a criteria approach is welcomed, provided that PPS7 encourages local planning authorities to undertake landscape/townscape character assessments. Without an objective and a nationally consistent approach in methodology, this could become very subjective.

3.6 However, the removal of local planning designations, which help shape urban growth, is opposed. Local designations (such as strategic gaps or green wedges) are a valuable tool in some areas with complex settlement patterns. Such designations can help avoid coalescence and protect the identity and settings of settlements for the life of the development plan, with their extent and formation being re-evaluated during plan reviews.

3.7 The Countryside around Cities and Towns: the recognition of the importance to local communities of the countryside around urban areas and advice on positive planning for these areas (paragraph 26) is supported. However, a more comprehensive review of planning policies for the urban fringe is needed in order to better integrate urban and rural areas and reflect the particular pressures, constraints and opportunities in the countryside around towns.

3.8 Farming, Diversification and Rural Businesses: the principle of planning authorities supporting a wide range of economic activity in rural areas (paragraph 6) should be endorsed, in the context of meeting identified local economic and community needs. Similarly, support is given to the principle of planning authorities supporting development in the countryside that delivers diverse and sustainable farming enterprises and other countryside-based enterprises which contribute to rural economies (paragraph 17), together with the adaptation or conversion of rural buildings for business re-use (paragraph 18). An introduction is needed about the importance of farming and the interdependence between the conservation of a high quality landscape and an economically viable farming sector.

3.9 However, the section on farm diversification is less straightforward. The paragraph on agricultural development (paragraph 27) can be supported, but the open-endedness of advice on farm diversification (paragraph 30) might seem rather excessive. The approach in PPS7 would allow any development, such as offices, industry or warehousing, seeking a cheap alternative to an urban location. Even at a relatively small scale, such development might generate significant traffic flows and could run contrary to the principles of sustainable development. On the other hand, such development might also help support the viability of a farming enterprise as well as much needed local jobs. The Government should be encouraged to tighten up the wording of this paragraph so as to discourage the former effect and encourage the latter, in accordance with evidence-based assessments of local needs.

3.10 Equine-related Activities: the recognition of the recreational and economic importance of the equine industry is to be welcomed. However, advice is needed as to how support for equine development can be balanced with environmental considerations such as landscape character (perhaps with a separate guidance note and examples of good practice).

3.11 Tourism and Leisure: the advice is welcomed, but mention should also be made of the integrated countryside access network and of the opportunities to improve this through the rights of way improvement planning process. It should also refer to the need for staff accommodation for hotels in rural areas in order to assist in attracting and retaining staff.

3.12 Minerals and Waste Development is a topic ignored by the PPS. The re-use of sites in the countryside is not considered, for example, and the positive use of former mineral workings and landfill sites for appropriate uses should be specifically encouraged. Development for waste management facilities should not be precluded in the open countryside where this is consistent with the proximity principle.

Recommendation

That the Executive Member for Environment be advised to endorse the comments in section 3 as the County Council's response to this consultation document.

8403/RRt

APPENDIX

MAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DRAFT PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 7 AND PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE 7

1. A general thrust in PPS7 towards supporting a wide range of economic activity in rural areas, so long as any environmental harm is minimised (rather than seeking to reconcile enterprise and conservation).

2. Whilst most new development should still be in or near existing service centres, some limited development should be allowed elsewhere to meet local business; community and identified housing needs (especially in remote villages).

3. Much more detailed and supportive policies on community services and facilities, including advice that Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should support mixed and multi-purpose uses that maintain community vitality; support the retention of existing services and facilities, and seek opportunities to enhance public transport to service centres.

4. The specific policy exception in PPG7 which allows large, high quality houses in the open countryside is removed.

5. Although development should respect and "where possible" enhance the environment, LPAs should take care not to make necessary development prohibitively expensive and unfeasible.

6. The key phrase in PPG7, "the countryside should be protected for its own sake" is replaced by "Planning authorities should continue to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscape and wildlife and the wealth of its natural resources".

7. The factors which LPAs should take into account are more pro-enterprise in PPS7. LPAs are required to support development in the countryside, that delivers sustainable farming and other countryside based enterprises and activities", but are only obliged to "take account of the need to protect natural resources".

8. PPS7 specifically required LPAs to "provide for the sensitive exploitation of renewable energy resources".

9. Re-use and replacement of buildings in the countryside: the productive re-use of buildings in the countryside continues to be encouraged (subject to caveats), with business use and (newly) other uses with wider benefits being favoured. Conversion of remote buildings to dwellings is not normally appropriate, except in certain circumstances such as to meet a local need. PPS7 sets out when the replacement of existing buildings will be acceptable (unlike PPG7).

10. The conservation of the natural beauty of designated areas continues to be "given great weight". However, LPAs should have "positive policies for development necessary to facilitate the economic and social well-being of the designated areas and their communities, including the provision of adequate housing to meet identified local needs". The policy regarding developments of national character in designated areas has also changed.

11. Local countryside designations should be removed from plans and replaced by criteria-based policies for the location and design of rural development throughout the area.

12. The countryside around cities and towns/Green Belt should be covered by planning policies which "address the particular land use issues and opportunities" in these areas - including environmental improvements, public access, sport and recreation facilities and maximising a range of beneficial land uses, while reducing conflicts between them.

13. Farm diversification is recognised as "vital to the continuing viability of many farm enterprises". PPS7 goes further than PPG7 in supporting diversification in the Green Belt where it would preserve its openness and not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt.

14. Equine-related activities should be supported through planning policies whilst "maintaining environmental quality and countryside character". (This is much stronger support than in PPG7.)

15. With forestry, LPAs should have regard to the England Forestry Strategy and the forthcoming Regional Forestry Frameworks.

16. Tourism and leisure policies in PPS7 will replace the rural policies in PPG21 Tourism if this is cancelled. Detailed guidance is provided on the industry, including tourist and visitor facilities and accommodation. LPAs are required to support sustainable rural tourism; recognise the scope for tourism in designated areas and subject proposals for large-scale tourism or leisure developments to close assessment.

17. The advice in PPG7 on agricultural and forestry dwellings is retained. A new category is added of "other occupational dwellings", where there may be special justification for isolated dwellings associated with other rural-based enterprises (no examples given).

18. Development related to agricultural advice is no longer included in PPS7.