Object

Representation ID: 24407

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: ClientEarth

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Since the Regulation 18 consultation, the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) has issued a standalone report providing recommended actions for local authorities, with a view to enabling the achievement of the 6th Carbon Budget and the 2050 net zero target.(https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/local-authorities-and-the-sixth-carbon-budget/) The report includes a number of specific recommendations in respect of local planning policy, which they say should “lay the foundations towards net zero”. The CCC advises that:
 “Net Zero housing and commercial developments, connected to sustainable transport infrastructure, walking and cycling and public transport need to become the norm, not the exception”, and
 “[n]ew planning policy needs to align more widely with spatial planning for sustainable transport and energy systems – to support decarbonised heat as a norm – based on appropriately sited, highly energy efficient buildings.” In this context, they further advise: “Zero carbon developments avoid future retrofit costs for councils, landlords and residents. … Local planning authorities currently developing Local Plans should gather evidence to support policies that require developments to exceed current building standards. This should include evidence that shows that higher energy performance and low-carbon heating systems will add value to the sale or rental price and reduce energy costs for householders. This evidence can feed into the determination of the value of the development. … Local Plans and Transport Plans should deliver modal shift from cars to walking, cycling and public transport. New developments should prioritise walking and cycling infrastructure at the masterplanning stage and should be well-linked to viable public transport routes. Planning policy can set maximum (rather than minimum) car parking spaces for developments or even car-free development. … Constraining the growth in vehicle mileage is vital to reducing emissions, even as EVs replace petrol and diesel cars. Car and van mileage can be reduced by 7-16% by 2030 and 12-34% by 2050 against today’s levels. There should be: … Shifting 33-35% of trips to walking, cycling and public transport such as shorter trips, for cities this can be higher … Local Plans should support renewable energy and low-carbon heat. Local Planning Authorities should review Local Plans. These should include an energy policy that takes a positive and proactive approach to renewable energy generation and storage. … Local authorities should include new onshore wind in discussions with communities about climate change and land-use planning.”
The Norfolk Strategic Planning Member Forum (NSPMF), of which the Greater Norwich authorities are part, has also recently issued a research paper on ‘climate change and the planning system’.(https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/what-we-do-and-how-we-work/policy-performance-and-partnerships/partnerships/norfolk-strategic-planning-member-forum) The paper includes a number of recommendations regarding plan-making:
 On the overall approach: “Action on climate change should be an integral part of the culture of plan-making and should be embedded and integrated in policy preparation. … Local Planning Authorities are therefore likely to need to evaluate planning applications through a climate change lens and ensure future local plans clearly set out the decision-making framework, with particular emphasis on the following, for example:
o Placing more emphasis on co-locating uses and planning development near public transport links to reduce car travel.
o Setting more ambitious targets on energy efficiency in buildings.
o Encouraging the greater use of renewable energy.
o Embedding and prioritising climate change in local plan-making and when determining planning applications, including ensuring resilience to climate impacts such as flooding.
o Requiring travel plans with increased sustainable transport obligations - prioritising walking, cycling and public transport over reliance on the car.
o Increasingly plan and help facilitate for the switch to electrified transport.”
 On co-benefits: “It is important to be aware that whilst these recommendations relating to topic areas may address climate change adaptation and mitigation, or sequestration of greenhouse gases, that is not the only benefit. It is often wise to do what is recommended, regardless of climate change, because of the many other benefits of which doing so brings. The elements of climate change are also woven into many policy areas with much cross-over, e.g. growth distribution, transport policies, environmental policies as well as specific polices on adaptation and mitigation as all have a role to plan in addressing Climate change. For example:
o Walking and cycling rather than driving a motor vehicle can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from burning fuel. Adopting a more active lifestyle can lead to improved health and well-being as well as saving individuals money.
o An energy efficient home requires less energy and therefore reduces the amount of emissions associated with producing energy, but it also reduces money a household or business spends on energy bills.
o Green infrastructure can help sequester carbon dioxide but it can also help biodiversity and increase access to the countryside and other greenspaces, which can in turn support mental and physical well-being.
o Tackling climate change is part of facilitating and enabling clean growth. It can help economic recovery and provide job opportunities such as retrofitting of properties,
technology development e.g., EVs and electrification of transport and the renewable energy sector.”
 On sustainable travel: “Local planning authorities should consider the following through appropriate plans, policies and processes: Better alignment of plans and decisions with identified local and national strategic infrastructure priorities for walking and cycling. Ensure proposals seek enhanced connectivity to open space and seek to provide connections to, enhancement and maintenance of nearby existing walking and cycling networks. … The aim is to better promote active forms of travel, particularly walking and cycling to reduce unnecessary car use. Evidence clearly points to shorter trips (i.e. 1-5 miles) where walking and cycling can most effectively increase, and conversely reduce, travel by private car. There needs to be a much more joined up approach, with more collaboration and clear advice on how to realise the multiple aspirations. … Car Free Housing policies: Transport is now the biggest contributor to carbon emissions in the UK and within this sector, passenger cars are by far the biggest contributor. It is clear from the Department for Transport’s research that a modal shift away from the private passenger car would have the most significant impact in reducing greenhouse gases, such an approach could be encouraged through planning policy.”
 On sustainability appraisal: “Strong/prominent climate change objectives in the Sustainability Appraisal and Local Plan … These policies are then assessed against sustainability appraisal objectives whereby potential positives are maximised and any negative effects identified mitigated.”
 On national planning reforms: “[W]hilst changes may well be made to the planning system in future, recommendations within the report are relevant for the current local plans in production and could be ‘in the meantime’ policy approaches – in place until the national system is changed.”
However, despite the Greater Norwich and other NSPMF authorities having committed to implementing these recommendations, they do not appear to be reflected in the current draft of the Greater Norwich plan. In addition to the issues previously raised at the Regulation 18 stage, we have identified the following matters that suggest a failure to comply with the applicable statutory and policy requirements.
1. Energy efficiency
We have explained that a zero carbon standard must be the starting point that is worked back from to the extent that any viability constraints are identified. Where there are viability constraints affecting a particular category of dwelling or scale of development, then standards should be reduced for that category or development size only, avoiding a ‘lowest common denominator’ approach. This approach is required to meet the applicable statutory and policy requirements and to ensure that the plan supports delivery of the net zero target. Since our response, the government has confirmed the important role that local authorities have in supporting national climate policy when maintaining local authorities’ powers to set local energy efficiency standards.
However, the final Viability Appraisal dated 15 December 2020 simply asserts (at paragraph 108) that “[t]he majority of the comments noted are considered to be valid aspirational points however, given the nature of these notional Typologies it is not feasible to go into the level of cost detail as suggested.”
This failure to consider more ambitious standards is all the more unjustified given (i) the new viability exception that has been introduced into Policy 2,6 and (ii) that the government’s proposed uplift in national standards will deliver a higher reduction in emissions against current standards (of 31%) than proposed in the plan (19%), with the uplift expected to take effect from June 2022.7
Moreover, the proposed cost of £5,000 is supported (at para 111 of the Viability Appraisal) on the basis that it is close to the figure of £4,847 used in the government’s Future Homes Standard consultation – however, this figure relates to a 31% emissions reduction against current standards, not a 19% emission reduction as proposed in the plan.8 Indeed, the cost of a 20% reduction in emissions is assessed at £2,557 – i.e. roughly half the cost used in the Viability Appraisal.9 There would therefore appear to be scope to go significantly further than is currently proposed in the plan.
2. Wind energy
The plan continues to fail to scope and designate areas suitable for wind energy, as confirmed by the terms of Policy 2.10 The plan seeks to justify this approach on the basis that the NPPF “requires a positive approach to large scale renewable energy generation except for onshore wind energy development” (emphasis added), and that “no suitable sites for onshore wind energy development have been submitted to the GNLP”. Instead, the plan proposes to leave the designation of areas suitable for wind energy to neighbourhood plans.
However, this fundamentally misunderstands the requirements of the NPPF on this issue: local plans are required to “provide a positive strategy for energy from these sources, that maximises the potential for suitable development” in respect of all forms of renewable and low carbon energy and heat (NPPF, para 151). The requirement (in footnote 49 of the NPPF) for wind energy applications to fall within “an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in the development plan” only underscores the need for the plan to proactively scope and identify suitable areas, so as to “maximise the potential for suitable development” (emphasis added).