Object

Representation ID: 23673

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

8. Paragraph 16 of the NPPF requires policies to be clearly written and unambiguous. As such we are concerned that the third bullet point of part 9 of policy 2 states that “If the potential to set more demanding standards local is established by the Government the highest standard will be applied in Greater Norwich” as this could lead the Councils seek to apply a higher optional standard should such an approach be maintained. Should an optional standard that is higher than that in this local plan be allowed by Government then it will be for the Councils to undertaken partial review of the plan. If a higher standard is required through building regulations, then this will be mandatory and as such the statement highlighted above is redundant. We would therefore suggest the phrase mentioned above is deleted.
9. We also note that part 2 of this policy mentions that development proposals will need to make provision for electric vehicles. However, the local plan does not state the level of provision that is considered acceptable but will instead rely on supplementary guidance to set out the detail of any expectations. Firstly, it is not appropriate to set out the requirements of such a policy in a supplementary planning document. The relevant legislation defining Local Plans and SPDs and their status as policy documents is the Town and Country Planning Regulations (2012). These define an SPD in regulation 2 as “any document of a description referred to in regulation 5 (except and adopted policies map or statement of community involvement) which is not a local plan.” Therefore, it can be concluded, as stated above, that whilst SPDs are Local Development Documents they are not local plans. It is also important to note that regulation 2 defines the local plan as:
“any document of the description referred to in regulation 5(1)(a)(i), (ii) or (iv) or 5(2)(a) or (b), and for the purposes of section 17(7)(a) of the Act these documents are prescribed as development plan document”.

10. Regulation 5 in turn states:
“5(1) For the purposes of section 17(7)(za)(1) of the Act the documents which are to be prepared as local development documents are—
(a)any document prepared by a local planning authority individually or in cooperation with one or more other local planning authorities, which contains statements regarding one or more of the following—
(i)the development and use of land which the local planning authority wish to encourage during any specified period;
(ii)the allocation of sites for a particular type of development or use;
(iii)any environmental, social, design and economic objectives which are relevant to the attainment of the development and use of land mentioned in paragraph (i); and
(iv)development management and site allocation policies, which are intended to guide the determination of applications for planning permission;”
11. Taken together these regulations mean that a local plan is a document that contains statements as to the:
• development and use of land which the local planning authority wish to encourage during any specified period;
• allocation of sites for a particular type of development or use; and
• development management and site allocation policies, which are intended to guide the determination of applications for planning permission.
12. We would suggest that the detail as to how many electric vehicle charging points should be provided falls under regulation 5(1)(a)(iv) and are development management policies which are intended to guide the determination of applications for planning permission and should only be adopted in a local plan following the prescribed process. This issue was explored in detail in the recent High Court Judgement between William Davis Ltd, Bloor Homes Ltd, Jelson Homes Ltd, Davidson Homes Ltd & Barwood Homes Ltd and Charnwood Borough Council. In this case Justice Gilbart quashed the SPD on the grounds that it contained policies that should have been contained in the local plan because they could be considered to fall under regulation 5(1)(a)(i) and 5(1)(a)(iv).
13. This leads to our second point which is that if the Council are requiring the provision of electric vehicle charging points then this should have been considered in the Viability Appraisal. We could not find within that appraisal any consideration of, or allowance made for, this policy. The HBF supports the use of electric and hybrid vehicles and the introduction of the necessary supporting infrastructure, however, it is the industry’s preference for a national approach to the provision of charging points rather than local authorities setting their own standards.
14. The Government has recognised in recent consultations the possible impact of any requirement to provide electric vehicle charging points on housing supply, where the requirements are not technically feasible. The same consultation proposed introducing exemptions for such developments. The costs of installing the cables and the charge point hardware will vary considerably based on site-specific conditions in relation to the local grid. The introduction of Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCP) in new buildings will impact on the electricity demand from these buildings especially for multi-dwelling buildings. A requirement for large numbers of EVCPs will require a larger connection to the development and will introduce a power supply requirement, which may otherwise not be needed. The level of upgrade needed is dependent on the capacity available in the local network resulting in additional costs in relation to charge point instalment.
15. Where such costs are high the Government are proposing that any potential negative impact on housing supply should be mitigated with an appropriate exemption from the charge point installation requirement based on the grid connection cost. The consultation proposes that the threshold for the exemption is set at £3,600. In instances where the additional costs are likely to make developments unviable, it is the Government's view that the EVCP requirements should not apply and only the minimum Energy Performance of Buildings Directive requirements should be applied.