Minutes:
NH explained that he has just been advised that the legislative process has commenced with regards to fee increases and fees will increase by 25% across the board but majors are due to increase by 35%. He added that he recognises that will be a concern for agents and developers and he also advised that the provision of a ‘free go’ is going to be removed but there will be a transitional arrangement in place so that those applications which have already been decided can still take advantage of the ‘free go’ up to the available time limit. NH stated that the fees are due to be increasing in line with inflation and the increases are going to be capped at 10% every April from 2025 onwards and then hopefully that will remove the need for periodic jumps in planning fees. He added that under the proposals the planning guarantee is going to be tightened for non-major applications so that refunds can be sought after 16 weeks, provided that no extension of time has been agreed. NH stated that there is no update on the performance requirements that councils have to achieve other than the 16-week policy and he explained that he had previously advised members of the forum that it had been reported in the consultation that the Government was likely to make councils work harder for the fee increase, however, there has been no further update concerning that.
JM asked for the date of implementation of the increase and NH explained that information is yet to be known, but, in his opinion, it could be May or June. HA stated that latest date she has been made aware of is 1 April, but that could be subject to change.
DB asked whether the increase can be ringfenced and NH stated that he has not been made aware of that option. DB stated that, whilst the council are going to receive more money, it will not be dedicated to employing more officers. NH stated that over a period of time there has been a number of projects undertaken to ascertain whether there is any particular science in local authorities being able to be self-financing in terms of their planning services and by increasing the planning fees it does help, however, at the same time there needs to be efficiencies which can be driven through the system to ensure that the greater income received is not used to pay for weak and expensive processes and he added that a lot is dependent of the application profile that the local authority receives.
NH stated that with regards to biodiversity net gain, the Government have announced that from January 2024 it will go live, but for small sites and for the strategic national projects the go live date is anticipated as 24 April for the small sites and 2025 for the national infrastructure projects.
GS asked what conversations have taken place with potential parties who are due to provide off site credits such as other local farmers whose land is not ready for development, but they have areas which are sat dormant. He added that it is his understanding that going forwards there appears that there will need to be some strict management to ensure for next 30 years the farmer is going to comply with what he says he will do, and this is likely to be administered by the local authority. NH explained that from the perspective of Fenland, internally the Property Services Team have been tasked with trying to identify whether or not there is any land in the district with potentially no development potential which could be suitable for providing biodiversity net gain off site. He stated that the conversation has not been broadened any more widely, but officers have advised Anglian Water in relation to the Fens Reservoir that it could be the perfect opportunity for that particular site increasing its biodiversity net gain contribution if it were to be a credit spending location. NH stated that he is keen to ensure that anything which is identified is legally compliant and is set out in simple terms and easily understandable and that a pragmatic view is taken with what type of offsite habitat needs to be created. He added that he is conscious that there maybe a development site which is going to lose a particular habitat type and he would question whether it is appropriate to try and replicate the habitat elsewhere off site or whether it would be better to try and create a different type of habitat which is more bio diverse and more efficient and effective and can be geared towards dealing with those particular habitats which are at risk within this area. NH added that consideration needs to be given to sites where there could be habitat creation, which may mean that the characteristics of the site may make it only suitable for a certain type of habitat creation and, therefore, there needs to be flexibility which what is required.
NH added that both sides will have to learn from mistakes that most certainly will be made and there is a learning curve for all those involved.
DB questioned whether the 10% net gain which is for small sites in April refers to the application date or is it for determination after that date. NH stated that it is the date that the application is received. DB stated that if a developer has submitted an application in April 23 and they have been asked to provide a 10% biodiversity net gain they would provide that extra 10% as a good will gesture rather than a planning requirement. NH stated that it would depend on what authority you are in and what the local policies are as some local authorities already have their 10% net gain policies in place.
NH explained from a Fenland perspective the Council’s policy is not definitive with regards to asking for 10% and it states that developments should be designed in such a way that good ecology is retained and enhanced as part of the development proposal. He added should an application site come forward which a developer chooses to develop through the usual ecological assessment of it and it comes to light that part of the site has high quality bio diversity and ecology then consideration would be given to see that retained and preferably enhanced as part of the proposal without insisting on the 10% net gain.
JM stated that he has seen a suggestion that if biodiversity net gain is being provided on site then there will be a requirement to use 10 -15% of the site area to achieve it albeit not all of the time. He added that as a result of this it will mean that sites cannot accommodate the densities that they have been predicated to accommodate. JM asked whether Fenland will consider that when they move forward with the Local Plan with regards to yield of dwellings from the areas allocated, which may see the need for new extra land to be allocated and contrary to that from a development management point of view, would Fenland be happy to look at a biodiversity net gain being provided on an adjoining land but outside of the allocated area so that the same yield can still be achieved, the biodiversity net gain is still being provided as part of the scheme in the area albeit not within the allocation.
NH stated that with regards to the emerging Local Plan there has not been any consideration given with regards to decreasing the assumed residential density that has been applied for the purpose of working out whether or not sufficient land has been allocated for Fenland’s housing requirements. He explained that the difficulty comes where a site-by-site assessment would need to be undertaken in order to work out what proportion of the site may or may not go over to biodiversity net gain, which will vary from site to site dependent on its characteristics. NH stated that when the consultation for Regulation 19, it could be a point of challenge which will need to be considered at that time. He added that there is a question of whether the method of calculation for the housing requirement is going to remain by the Regulation 19 stage as there is much discussion on that being altered.
NH stated that with regards to where the biodiversity net gain is provided, in terms of the Fenland open space requirement, a proportion of the open space is always expected to be natural green space, but the reality is that there is never going to be natural green space on a development unless there is a particular feature running through a site. He added that it is unlikely that natural green space is provided unless it is one of the larger allocations.
NH stated that by the end of November the Government should have published all of the guidance and regulations including the biodiversity plan template which is the document where it can be set out how the biodiversity net gain is going to be delivered and they will also publish information and guidance around how that biodiversity net gain is being provided and monitored in the future. He added that the biodiversity net gain has to be a managed area and the management has to last for 30 years in order for it to count. NH stated that there is also going to be a set of information to provide guidance for the landowners and developers about who does what.
JM asked how Fenland are preparing with the subject of biodiversity net gain, with regards to their internal advice and expertise, as he is aware that a lot of authorities are employing ecologists. NH stated that Fenland are currently in the process of securing an additional post, which means that there will be a fulltime ecologist and further funding has been received from Government to assist with meeting the cost of that post. He added that guidance will also be published which will be added to the website in due course.
ACTION: Presentation from Ecologist at the January meeting.