This week Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s Licensing and Planning Policy Committee voted in favour of submitting their agreed response to the Government’s consultation on Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other changes to the planning system. While the council agreed with some aspects of the proposed changes, it submitted strong feedback disagreeing with a number of the proposed changes.  

The consultation follows the election of the new Government, who made commitments around removing barriers to development including a pledge to build 1.5 million more new homes during this Parliament; and included proposed amendments that would directly impact plan making and decision making in the borough. It also asked for views on a series of wider policy proposals in relation to increasing planning fees, local plan intervention criteria and appropriate thresholds for certain Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

The council’s response included the following points:

• The council disagrees with proposed changes to the standard method for calculating housing needs in the borough which, if implemented, would increase the housing need figure from 570 dwellings per annum to 817 dwelling per annum, and fails to take local constraints and circumstances into consideration.
• The council disagrees with proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework that would remove reference to the standard method housing need outcomes being an ‘advisory starting point’.
• The council disagrees with proposed changes that would remove the ability for planning authorities to fix their five-year housing land supply where they have an up-to-date plan in place, which is an incentive for local planning authorities to adopt an up-to-date and evidenced Local Plan and provides certainty to their local communities.
• The council disagrees with proposed changes that support development of previously developed land in the Green Belt, and the proposed introduction of a definition of ‘Grey Belt land’. It is believed these and associated changes to national policy would result in harm to the Green Belt. In addition, the definition would, if implemented, increase the number of planning appeals, resulting in significant time and cost spent by local authorities debating whether a site or area land meets the definition of ‘Grey Belt’.
• The council disagrees with potential changes setting out when the Government can intervene in plan making, on the basis that intervention undermines local democracy and should be a last resort.
• The council disagrees with proposed transitional arrangements for plan making which, if implemented, would mean that the Epsom & Ewell Local Plan would be examined against the next iteration of the NPPF (following its publication) as opposed to the current NPPF published in December 2023.

The council agrees with proposals that green belt sites approved for development through planning applications, or to be released through the local plan process, should deliver 50% affordable housing. It also agrees with proposals to provide greater flexibility for local authorities to secure the types of affordable housing needed in the borough, such as social rented housing. Finally, the council supports proposed changes to increase the planning fees that local authorities can charge for householder developments.  

Councillor Peter O’Donovan, chair of the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee, said:

“Epsom and Ewell is the smallest and most densely populated borough in Surrey, occupying just 13 square miles, with 42% categorised as greenbelt.

We know that our borough needs all types of housing, including social and affordable housing. We will continue to progress our Local Plan based on the existing National Planning Policy Framework. The aim of the plan is to create jobs, support businesses, determine where new homes should be built, and secure much needed infrastructure improvements and leisure development – as well as protecting our environment.

We sincerely hope that our response is seriously considered by the Government, and that our recommendations are reflected in any future reforms made to the National Planning Policy Framework.” 

A collective response on behalf of Councils in Surrey has also been prepared, coordinated by the Surrey Planning Officers Group.