The New NPPF - a consultation and a written ministerial statement

Building the homes we need: The Written Ministerial Statement 

There is a LOT in the written ministerial statement - so what is set out below are very edited highlights only - and those are limited to changes that are not in the NPPF consultation. However, they include:

• Committing to bring back strategic planning on  a larger than local level through legislative reform, and in the meantime working with elected mayors to bring forward more joint planning where possible; and identifying “priority groupings of other authorities where strategic planning – and in particular the sharing of housing needs – would provide particular benefits, setting a clear expectation of cooperation that we will help to structure and support, and using powers of intervention as and where necessary.”
•  Making changes to the Affordable Homes Programme, the Right to Buy and the Local Authority Housing Fund.
• Introducing measures “at the next fiscal event to give councils and housing associations the rent stability they need to be able to borrow and invest in both new and existing homes, while also ensuring that there are appropriate protections for both existing and future social housing tenants.”
• Increasing the application fee on householder planning applications to £528
• Committing to report on MHCLG's own performance against the 13-week target for turning around ministerial planning decisions.
• Clarifying that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will introduce a national scheme of delegation for local planning authorities; further reform compulsory purchase compensation rules; streamline the delivery process for critical infrastructure; and provide any necessary legal underpinning to ensure we can use development to fund nature recovery where currently both are stalled.
• Committing to a consultation on strategic planning, in particular how to structure arrangements outside of Mayoral Combined Authorities.
• Committing to make further announcements about how we intend to deliver on our commitment to build a new generation of new towns; and 
• Committing to publish a long-term housing strategy, alongside the Spending Review.

Consultation on the Revised NPPF- the long-awaiting consultation on the NPPF itself. 

Please note:

• The consultation closes at 
• It comes with a handy tracked changed version of the proposed draf11:45pm on 24 September 2024 t, which can be accessed here; and 
• also a handy excel spreadsheet showing the likely outcome of the proposed changes to the standard method, which is available here.

The consultation is a chunky one - so again set out below is only a headline summary. 

Housing Need: Standard Methodology, Urban Uplift & Affordable Housing Changes 

These are dealt with out of order, because there are two changes that should be highlighted:

Firstly:  The Policy Requirement for a Delivering a Set Percentage of First Homes on All Sites is Being Removed

This is good news. First Homes are not popular amongst RPs and do not work on all sites. Removing the requirement to ‘top slice’ affordable housing provision to ensure it includes a set number of First Homes is a good development.

Secondly: The Infrastructure Levy - as set out in LURA - is OFFICIALLY NOT HAPPENING

This is fantastic news. It takes a lot for every single public and private sector industry body to agree that a new policy initiative is a terrible idea - but  the IL did meet that threshold. 

And everything else: 

• The consultation proposes reversing almost all of the December 2023 changes to the NPPF, including referring to the standard methodology as an ‘advisory starting point’, the doubling down on the urban uplift, the watering down of five-year housing-land-supply requirements; the many additional references to ‘beauty’, the references to not having to build at densities that are out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area etc. etc.  - I am not going to list all of these individually - it would take too long - but it is safe to say that almost all of the December 2023 amendments are going onto the scrap heap
• One exception to this is the helpful six additional words in paragraph 63 which supported seniors housing. These are staying put. As is the reference to Mansard Roofs - albeit this particular policy has been re-written in a more sensible format to support all upwards extensions, where these are appropriate.
• The urban uplift is proposed to be deleted entirely – which is a good move, as the policy did not make any logical sense in the first place. Instead, it is being replaced with:
• a revised version of the standard methodology which results in the overall national housing target increasing from about 300,000 homes a year to about 370,000 homes a year
• a mandate that the standard method is used as the basis for determining local authorities’ housing need figures in all but a very small number of limited circumstances; and
• strengthened policy expectations that plans should promote development at increased densities in urban areas
• There is to be a new requirement to take the need for social homes into account when calculating housing need 
• As mentioned above, the requirements to deliver specific percentages of affordable housing as a form of affordable home ownership product and/or as first homes are to be removed; and
• views are also being sought on whether to make the requirement of 10% of all local plan allocations be for small sites mandatory.

The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Changes are being proposed to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.  The amended version of para 11 of the NPPF would, if these are taken forward, read as follows:

"For decision-taking this means: 

c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or 

d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies for the supply of land  are out-of-date, granting permission unless: 

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed7; or

 ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, in particular those for the location and design of development (as set out in chapters 9 and 12) and for securing affordable homes."

The words in bold being the new ones. Those troublesome footnotes are also being amended. With a new footnote 8 and an amended footnote 9. These would now read:

"8 Policies for the supply of land are those which set an overall requirement and/or make allocations and allowances for windfall sites for the area and type of development concerned. 

9 This includes, for applications involving the provision of housing, situations where: (a) the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the appropriate buffer as set out in paragraph 76); or where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing was substantially below (less than 75% of) the housing requirement over the previous three years"

Strategic Planning & the Duty to Cooperate

It appears that rumours of the demise of the duty to cooperate have been greatly exaggerated… at least in the short term. The consultation makes it clear that it is staying in place for the moment and will continue to be applied to local plans progressing through the system until such time as a more permanent framework for strategic planning is put in place. 

In the meantime, the Government is also proposing to amend:

“ the ‘maintaining effective co-operation’ section of the NPPF to ensure that the right engagement is occurring on the sharing of unmet housing need and other strategic issues where plans are being progressed. This will apply to local plans, minerals, waste plans and to spatial development strategies, and would be introduced in changes to paragraphs 24-27 of the existing NPPF. This change will apply in conjunction with the Duty to Cooperate in the current plan making system.”

Brownfield Land, Green Belt & Grey Belt

The consultation also proposes strengthening the presumption in favour of brownfield development by amending paragraph 122(c ) of the NPPF so that it reads as follows:

“c) give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be regarded as acceptable in principle, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land;”. 

The Government is also consulting on whether to amend definition of brownfield land or previously development land in the glossary of the NPPF to include hardstanding and glasshouses.

The really chunky amendments, however, are around Green Belt and Grey Belt Land. This is primarily in the context of a new strategic approach to green belt release, which includes something akin to a sequential assessment test. 

In the words of the consultation document itself:

Green Belt reviews
16. Under the existing NPPF, there is no requirement for local planning authorities to review Green Belt where they fall short of housing need. Instead, local planning authorities may choose to review and alter Green Belt boundaries where exceptional circumstances are fully justified. We propose correcting that, to require local planning authorities to undertake a review where an authority cannot meet its identified housing, commercial or other need without altering Green Belt boundaries.

A sequential approach
17. We remain clear that brownfield sites should be prioritised, and our proposed changes to developing PDL in the Green Belt (outlined above) reinforce this commitment. To support release in the right places, we propose a sequential test to guide release. This will ask authorities to give first consideration to PDL within in the Green Belt, before moving on to other grey belt sites, and finally to higher performing Green Belt sites where these can be made sustainable. As set out above, land that is safeguarded by existing environmental designations, for example National Parks, National Landscapes and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, will maintain its protections."

This is being supported by a change to the green belt rules around previously developed land, by amending paragraph 154g of the current NPPF, to read as follows: 

“g) limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.”

and introducing the following definition of Grey Belt into the glossary of the NPPF:

“Grey belt: For the purposes of Plan-making and decision-making, grey belt is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising Previously Developed Land and any other parcels and/or areas of Green Belt land that make a limited contribution to the five Green Belt purposes (as defined in para 140 of this Framework) but excluding those areas or assets of particular importance listed in footnote 7 of this Framework (other than land designated as Green Belt).”

Interestingly, the tracked changed version of the NPPF also includes the following entirely new paragraphs on green belt release, which could be somewhat game changing:

"152. In addition to the above, housing, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where:

 a. The development would utilise grey belt land in sustainable locations, the contributions set out in paragraph 155 below are provided, and the development would not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole; and

 b. The local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (with a buffer, if applicable, as set out in paragraph 76) or where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years; or there is a demonstrable need for land to be released for development of local, regional or national importance.

 c. Development is able to meet the planning policy requirements set out in paragraph 155" and

"155. Where major development takes place on land which has been released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review, or on sites in the Green Belt permitted through development management, the following contributions should be made: 

a. In the case of schemes involving the provision of housing, at least 50% affordable housing [with an appropriate proportion being Social Rent], subject to viability; 

b. Necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure; and

 c. The provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public. Where residential development is involved, the objective should be for new residents to be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite spaces. 

156. Regarding the provision of green space, development proposals should meet local standards where these exist in local plans, for example local planning policies on access to green space and / or urban greening factors. Where no locally specific standards exist, development proposals should meet national standards relevant to the development. These include Natural England standards on accessible green space and urban greening factor and Green Flag criteria. 

157. Additional guidance on viability considerations for development in the Green Belt is provided in Annex 4."

Green Energy

As expected, the ‘embargo’ on on-shore wind contained in the former footnotes 57 and 58 to paragraph 163 of the existing NPPF have been removed. The consultation also contains questions about bringing on-shore wind into the NSIP regime.

The consultation also contains a wide-ranging set of amendments designed to support climate change adaptation, solar energy and the provision of new water-infrastructure.

Local Plans and Transitional Arrangements 

The good news is that there are going to be transitional arrangements for local plans.  The potentially controversial news is that they are set in the context of an implicit commitment to the 30-month local plan system contained in LURA.

The transitional arrangements are summarised below. 

• Any plans currently at examination will continue to be examined under the version of the NPPF they were submitted under. However, if the revised LHN figure is more than 200 dwellings per annum higher than the annual housing requirement set out in the adopted version of the plan, upon introduction of the new plan-making system, the local planning authority will be required to begin preparation of a plan under the new system as soon as possible, or in line with any subsequent arrangements set out to manage the roll-out of the new system.
• plans that have reached Regulation 19 publication stage but not yet been submitted for examination one month after the revised framework is published, with a gap of no more than 200 dwellings per annum between the local planning authority’s revised LHN figure and its  proposed housing requirement (as set out in the Publication version of the plan), should also progress to examination under the version of the NPPF it has used when preparing the plan thus far.
• plans that have reached  Regulation 19 publication stage but have a more significant gap of over 200 dwellings per annum between the local planning authority’s revised LHN figure and the emerging housing requirement will need to revise its plan in line with the revised NPPF before submitting the plan for examination no more than 18 months after the publication of the revised NPPF. 
• All plans at earlier stages of preparation - (i.e. plans that have not yet reached Regulation 19 stage one month after the revised NPPF is published) - should be prepared against the revised version of the NPPF and progressed as quickly as possible.

Additional information

Other aspects of the consultation that deserve attention include:

• The significant changes to local plan intervention criteria set out in chapter 10 of the consultation. 
• significant further changes to planning application fees set out in chapter 11 of the consultation - including a proposal that fee rates are set at a local level by individual planning authorities. 
• proposed changes to the definitions of community infrastructure set out in chapter 8 of the consultation; and 
• Long sought after and required amendments to support freight and logistics, laboratories, gigafactories and digital infrastructure set out in chapter 7 of the consultation.

All of which are worth reading in detail to formulate responses to the consultation. 

Conclusion

In short. There is a lot to unpack here. The consultation proposals and the written ministerial statement set out a comprehensive and, in some instances radical, direction of travel for planning and development.  The goal is sustainable economic growth, and it is clear that both MHCLG and the Treasury are on a mission to deliver it through the planning system. 

There is a lot to like in these proposals. The return to strategic planning, and a recognition that planning is about more than housing is long overdue. 

The ditching of IL and the de-prioritisation of First Homes are also music to my ears.  

As for everything else, if a week is a long time in politics, an eight-week consultation period can feel like an eternity.  We must all review the proposed changed with care, and let's see where things stand in the Autumn!

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-07-30/hcws48

Nicola Gooch, Planning Partner at Irwin Mitchell