NPPF: Key changes and our initial thoughts
Commenting on the revised draft NPPF, Colin Brown, Head of Planning & Development, Carter Jonas said:
We very much welcome the thrust of the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement on 30 July on planning reform. In particular, we support the return of mandatory housing targets and the emphasis on delivery in areas where affordability issues are at their most acute. It is positive to see that local authorities will be obliged to deliver the housing that is needed in their areas, and while we support the fact that they can decide how to do this, we are pleased to see they will not have the ability to duck the issue simply because they choose to.
We also welcome the determination to deliver sustainable patterns of development, and to carry out a strategic review of the Green Belt in the many instances where there is insufficient brownfield land or non-Green Belt greenfield land in order to achieve the housing targets. We look forward to studying and further understanding the definition and approach to the so-called Grey Belt, but firmly believe there will be a need for balanced Green Belt releases to attempt to meet the highly ambitious housing targets.
A core change in the draft NPPF includes a new Standard Methodology for calculating Local Housing Need (LHN). Underpinned by the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes over the Parliament, this results in an increased target of 370,000 homes per annum across England – up from 300,000 under the current method.
Principally, proposed changes to the NPPF will reverse the explicit insertion of LHN as an ‘advisory starting point’ introduced into the December 2023 version by the previous Conservative Government. Many in the sector questioned this insertion at the time, given drafting already made clear that Local Plans could provide for a figure under LHN if an alternative approach could be justified. We therefore welcome this reversion, which allows need to be planned far more positively in order to help meet the Government’s growth ambitions.
The exact details of the new methodology have not (yet) been published, however the consultation reveals it is incorporative of a number of changes – including a new component that takes into account existing housing stock so that growth is proportionate to the area and an enhanced affordability multiplier. The new method will also abolish the 30% uplift previously applied to select cities and urban centres on the ground, whilst the new method has resulted in a boost to LHN in every region, there is a clear rebalancing between the targets given to cities/urban areas and the regions. For example, the dwellings per annum (dpa) calculated for Birmingham and Coventry (previously subject to the 30% uplift) has reduced by 2,200 dpa and 1,554 dpa respectively, but has increased in North Yorkshire and Cornwall by 2,871 dpa and 1,747 dpa respectively.
The 30% uplift currently in place has been the subject of concern to many in the sector, resulting in unrealistic targets for urban areas. By contrast, the new method seeks to drive a distribution to the numbers, which aligns with the Government’s ambitions to drive growth across all corners of the country. While this will ultimately result in a number of ‘difficult’ issues to navigate, such as Green Belt release (noting the proposed changes covered below), we must welcome the ambition of the Government.
Overall, the ambitious target of 370,000 homes per annum will be widely welcomed by the housing sector, developers and those in current housing need. However, there are enormous challenges around even delivering 300,000 new homes in the short to medium term so an uplift to 370,000 will make the task more difficult yet. Vital to securing the growth ambitions set out will be the success of cross-boundary cooperation and strategic-level planning and we therefore also welcome the emphasis added to this in Chapter 3 of the NPPF. We will continue to monitor the potential changes to legislation to support this with eager anticipation.
The proposed changes also include the reintroduction of the previous regime of local planning authorities being required to demonstrate a Five-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) – including the abolition of the ‘4-Year Rule’ introduced in the December 2023 version of the NPPF.
The 5YHLS provides a necessary mechanism for local planning authorities in ensuring that its identified needs are being delivered at the required rate. Its provision will be vital if the Government is serious about reaching its set housing targets by acting as check and balance.
The proposed changes seek to introduce transitional arrangements to maintain the progress of plans at more advanced stages of plan-making process. In essence, these measures will vary based on the plan’s current progress and the degree of its alignment with the Government's housing growth aspirations.
We welcome the proposed measures that require all plans at earlier stages or Regulation 19 plans with a significant gap of over 200 dwellings against the revised LHN figure to be assessed under the new Framework.
We anticipate that there will be a number of local authorities, especially those with a margin uplift in their LHN figures (i.e. less than 200 dwellings) under the new standard method, will advance their plans to the maximum extent possible to leverage the benefits of the current regime during the transitional period - which would have nuanced implications in the short term.
The proposed changes also allow plans at examination to continue with the existing regime but commence their next plan making process at the earliest opportunity if their annual housing requirements fall below the relevant LHN figure by over 200 dwellings. We expect this will operate in the form of an early review in practice. However, for such an early review to be effective, we would welcome further clarity over the exact timeframe that the early review should commence so that it would not compromise the Government's ambitious target for 370,000 new homes.
The Government’s consultation draft Framework continues to attach great importance to Green Belts. The five fundamental purposes of Green Belt land remain unchanged, while the newly elected Government continues to support the permanence of Green Belts and the draft guidance emphasises that new or revised boundaries should only be established in exceptional circumstances and set out as part of plan-making and strategic policy provision.
Nevertheless, the draft guidance does propose a change in guidance around the need for Green Belt reviews. Previous Government guidance had removed the requirement for Green Belt reviews as part of plan-making. That requirement has been replaced in a new draft paragraph 142 which states that Green Belt boundary reviews can take place, ‘…where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced, including for example, where a local authority cannot meet its need for housing, commercial or other development through other means.’ Those means are clarified in paragraph 143 as, making use of suitable brownfield sites, optimising the density of development in towns and city centres and other locations well served by public transport, or cross boundary accommodation of development needs following the duty to co-operate.
In circumstances where those options have been first considered, but the release of Green Belt land is still deemed suitable, a newly crafted paragraph 144 now states that, ‘..plans should give first consideration to previously-developed land in sustainable locations, then consider grey belt* land in sustainable locations which is not already previously-developed and only then consider other sustainable Green Belt locations.”
The Government is also focused on ensuring that where Green Belt land is released for development that such land should capture optimum planning contributions which are set out in a new guidance contained in paragraph 155.
Paragraph 151 sets out the seven exceptions to inappropriate forms of development in the Green Belt including (at 151 g)) limited infilling and partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land. This paragraph has been revised to ensure that such development, ‘…would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt’. This revised guidance is a slight loosening of the previous guidance that sought to ensure that partial or complete redevelopment would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development, that previous text is proposed for deletion.
A new paragraph 152 has been drafted to expand upon the scenario which would not constitute inappropriate development including where:
Development would utilise grey belt land in sustainable locations and provide planning contributions set out in new draft paragraph 155.
The local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing, or where the authority’s Housing Delivery Test falls below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years, or where the proposed development of of sufficient local or national importance; and
Development is able to meet the requirements of new Paragraph 155 (below).
Paragraph 155 sets out new draft guidance which the Government is referring to as its “Golden Rules” where Green Belt land is released to facilitate new development, there will be a clear requirement for planning contributions to flow from the land release, including the following:
In cases involving the provision of new housing at least 50% should be affordable housing with an appropriate proportion being Social Rent, subject to viability.
Necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure, and publicly accessible good quality green spaces which meet locally specific or national open space standards.
*In relation to ‘Grey Belt’ land the Government has sought to, in separate Statements, provide clarity by stating that grey belt land is defined as, ‘land in the green belt comprising of 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, excluding areas or assets of particular importance.
The underlying principles of establishing benchmark land values (for testing the ability to deliver policy-compliant development) remains as per current guidance, resting on determining the ‘reasonable and proportionate premium for the landowner’. The draft suggests that guidance on what a suitable premium is might be fleshed out further in due course; if it is, this could materially impact returns to landowners (whilst - clearly - very significantly increasing the chances of realising any premium).
The characteristics of many Green Belt sites (requiring significant servicing and social infrastructure provision) combined with the requirement for at least 50% affordable housing (including Social Rent) is likely to restrict viability (subject to any changed guidance on the ‘reasonable and proportionate premium’) outside of higher value areas.
With the significant focus on housing in the draft NPPF, by contrast there are relatively modest changes to the policy framework for economic growth. While the changes are meant to provide support for laboratories, giga-factories, data centres, digital infrastructure, and freight and logistics, we would argue that they do not go far enough.
The UK life science sector employs over 280,000 people, and generates £94 billion in revenue for the UK each year.
Data centres are said to produce an estimated £4.6bn in revenue each year in the UK (2021) and are forecast to support a UK tech sector worth an additional £41.5bn, delivering 678,000 jobs by 2025.
The freight and logistics sector is recognised as being fundamental to the UK’s economic growth and productivity, contributing £84.9 billion in Gross Value Added each year and employing nearly 1.2 million people. It depends upon a national network of storage and distribution infrastructure to enable local, regional, national and international operations.
The proposed text in the draft NPPF seeks to encourage the identification of appropriate sites for commercial development, including suitable locations for uses such as laboratories, giga-factories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics.
This includes making provision for new, expanded or upgraded facilities and infrastructure that are needed to support the growth of these industries (including data centres and grid connections). For storage and distribution operations provision is required at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations that allow for the efficient and reliable handling of goods, especially where this is needed to support the supply chain, transport innovation and decarbonisation.
To support the needs of a modern and changing economy the consultation also suggests there is the potential for data centres, giga-factories and laboratories to be directed into the NSIP consenting regime (as essential infrastructure), which may be an appropriate approach.
Overall, while there is some move towards recognising these various commercial uses as essential infrastructure, and economic growth is broadly supported, the draft Policy Framework remains rather short on detail and opportunities to emphasise the imperative of economic growth are missed. Economic growth, jobs and wealth creation, are still not viewed as a ‘social objective’ of one of the three overarching objectives of achieving sustainable development and this is an area the Government might consider further.
In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, the proposed changes now seek to ensure that ‘A vision led approach’ promoting sustainable transport modes is taken, taking account of the type of development and its location.
In addition, the current NPPF reference to any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, being cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree, now has had the additional wording added ‘through a vision led approach’.
It is unclear precisely what actions will be required in order to demonstrate that proposals have been produced in accordance with a vision led approach. In particular, with regard to the range of stakeholders that will need to be involved, the time and cost implications, and who and how it will be determined that any vision led approach is realistic and deliverable.
The existing requirement that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe, has been amended by the addition of the wording ‘in all tested scenarios’.
Consequently, this proposed amendment to the Framework would make it more difficult for local authorities to refuse application on highway grounds as they would have to meet a higher bar.
Whereas the current NPPF states that Local Plans should consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure their development, the new Draft NPPF would actually require plans to identify them.
The proposed amendments state that Local Planning Authorities should support planning applications for all forms of renewable and low carbon development. When determining planning applications, they should give significant weight to the proposal’s contribution to renewable energy generation and a net zero future.
Reference is also made to the ability of community-led projects to provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
These proposed amendments represent a significant change to the Framework and demonstrate the importance that the new Government attaches to boosting the supply of green infrastructure.
We also welcome the determination to deliver sustainable patterns of development, and to carry out a strategic review of the Green Belt in the many instances where there is insufficient brownfield land or non-Green Belt greenfield land in order to achieve the housing targets. We look forward to studying and further understanding the definition and approach to the so-called Grey Belt, but firmly believe there will be a need for balanced Green Belt releases to attempt to meet the highly ambitious housing targets.
Our Carter Jonas experts weigh in on the key topics and comment on the proposed changes
- Housing targets
- Five-year housing land supply
- Local plans and transitional arrangements
- Green Belt / ‘Grey Belt’
- Viability
- Growing the economy
- Transport
- Planning for climate change
Housing targets
Principally, proposed changes to the NPPF will reverse the explicit insertion of LHN as an ‘advisory starting point’ introduced into the December 2023 version by the previous Conservative Government. Many in the sector questioned this insertion at the time, given drafting already made clear that Local Plans could provide for a figure under LHN if an alternative approach could be justified. We therefore welcome this reversion, which allows need to be planned far more positively in order to help meet the Government’s growth ambitions.
The exact details of the new methodology have not (yet) been published, however the consultation reveals it is incorporative of a number of changes – including a new component that takes into account existing housing stock so that growth is proportionate to the area and an enhanced affordability multiplier. The new method will also abolish the 30% uplift previously applied to select cities and urban centres on the ground, whilst the new method has resulted in a boost to LHN in every region, there is a clear rebalancing between the targets given to cities/urban areas and the regions. For example, the dwellings per annum (dpa) calculated for Birmingham and Coventry (previously subject to the 30% uplift) has reduced by 2,200 dpa and 1,554 dpa respectively, but has increased in North Yorkshire and Cornwall by 2,871 dpa and 1,747 dpa respectively.
The 30% uplift currently in place has been the subject of concern to many in the sector, resulting in unrealistic targets for urban areas. By contrast, the new method seeks to drive a distribution to the numbers, which aligns with the Government’s ambitions to drive growth across all corners of the country. While this will ultimately result in a number of ‘difficult’ issues to navigate, such as Green Belt release (noting the proposed changes covered below), we must welcome the ambition of the Government.
Overall, the ambitious target of 370,000 homes per annum will be widely welcomed by the housing sector, developers and those in current housing need. However, there are enormous challenges around even delivering 300,000 new homes in the short to medium term so an uplift to 370,000 will make the task more difficult yet. Vital to securing the growth ambitions set out will be the success of cross-boundary cooperation and strategic-level planning and we therefore also welcome the emphasis added to this in Chapter 3 of the NPPF. We will continue to monitor the potential changes to legislation to support this with eager anticipation.
Five-Year Housing Land Supply
The 5YHLS provides a necessary mechanism for local planning authorities in ensuring that its identified needs are being delivered at the required rate. Its provision will be vital if the Government is serious about reaching its set housing targets by acting as check and balance.
Local Plans and Transitional Arrangements
We welcome the proposed measures that require all plans at earlier stages or Regulation 19 plans with a significant gap of over 200 dwellings against the revised LHN figure to be assessed under the new Framework.
We anticipate that there will be a number of local authorities, especially those with a margin uplift in their LHN figures (i.e. less than 200 dwellings) under the new standard method, will advance their plans to the maximum extent possible to leverage the benefits of the current regime during the transitional period - which would have nuanced implications in the short term.
The proposed changes also allow plans at examination to continue with the existing regime but commence their next plan making process at the earliest opportunity if their annual housing requirements fall below the relevant LHN figure by over 200 dwellings. We expect this will operate in the form of an early review in practice. However, for such an early review to be effective, we would welcome further clarity over the exact timeframe that the early review should commence so that it would not compromise the Government's ambitious target for 370,000 new homes.
Green Belt / ‘Grey Belt’
Nevertheless, the draft guidance does propose a change in guidance around the need for Green Belt reviews. Previous Government guidance had removed the requirement for Green Belt reviews as part of plan-making. That requirement has been replaced in a new draft paragraph 142 which states that Green Belt boundary reviews can take place, ‘…where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced, including for example, where a local authority cannot meet its need for housing, commercial or other development through other means.’ Those means are clarified in paragraph 143 as, making use of suitable brownfield sites, optimising the density of development in towns and city centres and other locations well served by public transport, or cross boundary accommodation of development needs following the duty to co-operate.
In circumstances where those options have been first considered, but the release of Green Belt land is still deemed suitable, a newly crafted paragraph 144 now states that, ‘..plans should give first consideration to previously-developed land in sustainable locations, then consider grey belt* land in sustainable locations which is not already previously-developed and only then consider other sustainable Green Belt locations.”
The Government is also focused on ensuring that where Green Belt land is released for development that such land should capture optimum planning contributions which are set out in a new guidance contained in paragraph 155.
Paragraph 151 sets out the seven exceptions to inappropriate forms of development in the Green Belt including (at 151 g)) limited infilling and partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land. This paragraph has been revised to ensure that such development, ‘…would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt’. This revised guidance is a slight loosening of the previous guidance that sought to ensure that partial or complete redevelopment would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development, that previous text is proposed for deletion.
A new paragraph 152 has been drafted to expand upon the scenario which would not constitute inappropriate development including where:
Development would utilise grey belt land in sustainable locations and provide planning contributions set out in new draft paragraph 155.
The local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing, or where the authority’s Housing Delivery Test falls below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years, or where the proposed development of of sufficient local or national importance; and
Development is able to meet the requirements of new Paragraph 155 (below).
Paragraph 155 sets out new draft guidance which the Government is referring to as its “Golden Rules” where Green Belt land is released to facilitate new development, there will be a clear requirement for planning contributions to flow from the land release, including the following:
In cases involving the provision of new housing at least 50% should be affordable housing with an appropriate proportion being Social Rent, subject to viability.
Necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure, and publicly accessible good quality green spaces which meet locally specific or national open space standards.
*In relation to ‘Grey Belt’ land the Government has sought to, in separate Statements, provide clarity by stating that grey belt land is defined as, ‘land in the green belt comprising of 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, excluding areas or assets of particular importance.
Viability
The characteristics of many Green Belt sites (requiring significant servicing and social infrastructure provision) combined with the requirement for at least 50% affordable housing (including Social Rent) is likely to restrict viability (subject to any changed guidance on the ‘reasonable and proportionate premium’) outside of higher value areas.
Growing the Economy
The UK life science sector employs over 280,000 people, and generates £94 billion in revenue for the UK each year.
Data centres are said to produce an estimated £4.6bn in revenue each year in the UK (2021) and are forecast to support a UK tech sector worth an additional £41.5bn, delivering 678,000 jobs by 2025.
The freight and logistics sector is recognised as being fundamental to the UK’s economic growth and productivity, contributing £84.9 billion in Gross Value Added each year and employing nearly 1.2 million people. It depends upon a national network of storage and distribution infrastructure to enable local, regional, national and international operations.
The proposed text in the draft NPPF seeks to encourage the identification of appropriate sites for commercial development, including suitable locations for uses such as laboratories, giga-factories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics.
This includes making provision for new, expanded or upgraded facilities and infrastructure that are needed to support the growth of these industries (including data centres and grid connections). For storage and distribution operations provision is required at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations that allow for the efficient and reliable handling of goods, especially where this is needed to support the supply chain, transport innovation and decarbonisation.
To support the needs of a modern and changing economy the consultation also suggests there is the potential for data centres, giga-factories and laboratories to be directed into the NSIP consenting regime (as essential infrastructure), which may be an appropriate approach.
Overall, while there is some move towards recognising these various commercial uses as essential infrastructure, and economic growth is broadly supported, the draft Policy Framework remains rather short on detail and opportunities to emphasise the imperative of economic growth are missed. Economic growth, jobs and wealth creation, are still not viewed as a ‘social objective’ of one of the three overarching objectives of achieving sustainable development and this is an area the Government might consider further.
Transport
In addition, the current NPPF reference to any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, being cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree, now has had the additional wording added ‘through a vision led approach’.
It is unclear precisely what actions will be required in order to demonstrate that proposals have been produced in accordance with a vision led approach. In particular, with regard to the range of stakeholders that will need to be involved, the time and cost implications, and who and how it will be determined that any vision led approach is realistic and deliverable.
The existing requirement that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe, has been amended by the addition of the wording ‘in all tested scenarios’.
Consequently, this proposed amendment to the Framework would make it more difficult for local authorities to refuse application on highway grounds as they would have to meet a higher bar.
Planning for climate change
The proposed amendments state that Local Planning Authorities should support planning applications for all forms of renewable and low carbon development. When determining planning applications, they should give significant weight to the proposal’s contribution to renewable energy generation and a net zero future.
Reference is also made to the ability of community-led projects to provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
These proposed amendments represent a significant change to the Framework and demonstrate the importance that the new Government attaches to boosting the supply of green infrastructure.
