Summary of the proposed key changes of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) consultation

This article is intended to summarise some of the key changes, together with some initial thoughts on the possible implications of the changes for the planning and development industry. It has been co-authored by Peter Gillan, of SLC Property, and Stuart Evans, of Anthony Collins Solicitors, both of whom have considerable experience in the planning and development sphere.

The Government has provided further details of its proposed ‘overhaul’ of the planning system, with the publication of a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for an eight-week consultation until 24 September 2024. A tracked change version of the revised NPPF is available here, which was published alongside a Ministerial Statement, which is available here.

As widely expected, the changes made to the NPPF in December 2023 are proposed to be rescinded. This latest consultation goes further in line with the new Government’s emerging position on housebuilding and delivering economic growth, which has been widely reported since the election. The proposed changes include references to effective strategic planning playing a vital and increasing role in delivering sustainable growth and how key spatial issues are to be addressed. Meeting housing needs, delivering strategic infrastructure and building economic and climate resilience are identified as examples of key strategic issues.

Status of the proposed reforms

It is important to note that until the new NPPF is adopted as policy, the current NPPF (December 2023) remains national planning policy, albeit that, of course, the NPPF is only ever a material consideration, and the weight attached to it may vary on a case-by-case basis.

However, the Ministerial Statement accompanying the proposed reforms to the NPPF is a material planning consideration and can be referenced in decision-making until the new NPPF is adopted.

Presumption in favour of sustainable development and duty to cooperate

The presumption in favour of sustainable development has changed to encourage authorities to keep their local plans up to date (particularly where this concerns policies for the supply of land). Such policies are deemed out-of-date if the authority cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply (the four-year variation for neighbourhood plans has been removed) or if delivery has been substantially below that expected (i.e. less than 75%).

The duty to cooperate between authorities is maintained but with a much greater focus on cross-boundary ‘problem solving’ to deliver infrastructure and housing identified as needed.

Mandatory use of the standard method in assessing housing need

The proposed reforms to the NPPF remove the reference to exceptional circumstances where using alternative approaches to assess housing need may be appropriate. Whilst Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) will be expected to make all efforts to allocate land in line with housing need as per the Standard Method, authorities would be able to justify a lower housing requirement than the figure the method sets based on local constraints on land and delivery. Nevertheless, LPAs will need to evidence and justify their approach through Local Plan consultation and examination, including demonstrating they have taken all possible steps, including optimising density, sharing need with neighbouring authorities, and reviewing Green Belt boundaries, before a lower housing requirement will be considered.

New standard method for assessing housing need

A new Standard Method is proposed to form the basis for calculating housing need. This uses a baseline set at a percentage of existing housing stock levels, designed to provide a stable baseline that drives a level of delivery proportionate to the existing size of settlements, rebalancing the national distribution to better reflect the growth ambitions across the Midlands and North. A stronger affordability multiplier is then applied to increase this baseline in proportion to price pressures, and previously applied caps and additions are removed to create an ‘objective assessment of need’.

The rebalancing of distribution is reflected in the revised figures published alongside the NPPF consultation, which show a:

• 99.28% increase in the North East (rising from 6,123 to 12,202)
• 75.92% increase in the North West (rising from 21,497 to 37,817)
• 46.71% increase in Yorkshire and the Humber (rising from 18,699 to 27,433).

All other regions also see an increase under the proposed method, excluding London where the calculated need falls by 18.35% from 98,822 to 80,693.

The effect of the revised Standard Method results in the overall national housing need rising by 21.73%, from 305,223 to 371,541 annually.

Reinstating the requirement for a five-year housing land supply (5YHLS)

The requirement to demonstrate a five-year supply of specific, deliverable housing sites is reinstated, irrespective of progress in preparing a new local plan. The 5% and 20% buffer that was previously applied in calculating 5YHLS is also proposed to be restored, with the latter only being applied where an LPA significantly underdelivers against their housing requirement as measured through the Housing Delivery Test or local housing need where relevant.

Supporting development of previously developed land

The proposed reforms to the NPPF would see a presumption that the development of previously developed land in sustainable locations be acceptable in principle.

Green Belt and the introduction of ‘Grey Belt’ land

The Green Belt section of the revised NPPF proposes considerable change:

1. There is still a requirement to demonstrate exceptional circumstances when amending Green Belt boundaries, but these now include instances where an authority cannot meet its development needs through other means. This will require a Green Belt review (which could still conclude that Green Belt release is not appropriate).
2. The hierarchy for Green Belt release is previously developed land (PDL), then Grey Belt land in sustainable locations which is not PDL, and then other sustainable Green Belt areas.
3. Redevelopment of PDL can now have up to a ‘substantial harm’ on openness (the wording is ambiguous, but it seems to suggest that 50% affordable housing would be required on PDL sites in the Green Belt, but subject to an as yet undetermined viability test.
4. A new Grey Belt exception has been added for sites where development will not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt, the authority cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply or is ‘failing’ to get enough homes built, new housing is expected to include 50% affordable housing with an appropriate percentage of social rent (appropriate is not defined), there is a requirement that housing developers provide the consequential improvements to infrastructure, and provide good access to additional green space.
5. Grey Belt is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising PDL and any other parcels and/or areas of Green Belt land that make a limited contribution to the purpose of the Green Belt. There is a proposal to exclude areas or assets of particular importance (i.e. SSSI, AONB and National Parks).
6. The previous guidance on assessing the viability of development is removed and replaced by guidance focused on ‘benchmark’ land value.

In the opinion of Peter Gillan: “Whilst measures to address the ever-increasing shortfall in housing delivery across England are to be welcomed, there is the potential that the loosening of Green Belt protections and the constraints imposed upon development could make Green Belt land a more attractive proposition to developers, and may encourage landowners to neglect undeveloped land in the hope that it will later become designated as ‘Grey Belt’. It will be interesting to observe the practical interpretation and application of the ‘Grey Belt’ definition, and the extent to which it results in the unlocking of land for development.”

Economic growth

Economic growth is proposed to be given additional weight in determining applications, especially for laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics. The requirement to review Local Plans should include identifying suitable areas for renewable and low-carbon energy; with greater weight for renewable energy applications.

Renewable energy and low-carbon development

The new Government ended the ban on onshore wind on their fourth day in office, which can be broadly welcomed, but, notably, they are proposing to boost the weight that planning policy gives the benefits associated with renewables, bring large-scale onshore wind projects back into Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects Regime and change the threshold for solar development to reflect development in solar technology. In addition, they are testing whether to bring a broader definition of water infrastructure into the scope of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects Regime as well, and this again should be a move that would be broadly welcomed, particularly taking into consideration the state of water infrastructure at this present time to support new development.

The Government is proposing that onshore wind is reintegrated into the NSIP Regime. It also proposes to set the threshold at which onshore wind projects are determined nationally significant at 100 megawatts and increase the same threshold for solar projects to 150 megawatts. The Government is also proposing amending excising paragraph 163 (in new paragraph 164 of the NPPF) to direct decision makers to give significant weight to the benefits associated with renewable and low carbon energy regeneration and proposals contributing to meeting a net zero future. The amendments also seek to set a stronger expectation that authorities proactively identify sites for renewable and low-carbon development when producing plans where it is likely that by allocating sites, it would help secure development. In Stuart Evans opinion, it is to be welcomed that the Government is setting out a strong expectation and it is part of the local plan process that authorities should be proactively identifying sites for renewable and low-carbon development. It is hoped that this might prevent or keep to a minimum the present sporadic development of solar farms to the detriment of agricultural land/production.

Although it is crucial that the Government, through the amendments to the NPPF, recognises the need for renewable and low carbon generation and how this will assist in contributing to a net zero future and new sustainable housing development, this cannot be carried out to the detriment of food security. There must be a balance between the production of low-carbon energy and the need for food security in England.

In relation to paragraph 15 of the existing NPPF conserving and enhancing the national environment, the Government is proposing no substantive changes which is to be welcomed. However, Stuart notes paragraph 181, which states: ‘Plans should distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites; allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value where consistent with other policies in this framework; take a strategic approach to maintain and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and land for the enhancement of national capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries’.

There is a footnote after reference to the framework; footnote 64 originally stated: ‘where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poor quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality’. The following has then been deleted and this is subject to consultation; ‘the availability of agricultural land used for food production should be considered, alongside the other policies in the framework, when deciding what sites are most appropriate for development’.

In the opinion of Stuart Evans: “It is unfortunate here that the Government has not added any emphasis, particularly on high-quality land for food production, to indicate there should be a very significant need for development on such land. Food security must be balanced with the production of low-carbon energy. There must also be an argument that the deletion of the additional wording in the footnote will further dimmish the ability of a local planning authority or decision-makers linked to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects to make proper decisions based on all of the requirements of the NPPF and not just based on whether significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary and that areas of poor quality land should be preferred to those of higher quality.

Summary

The consultation seeks responses to 106 questions relating to the proposed changes to the NPPF and other matters, including the potential localization of planning authority fees.  The proposed reforms are a signal of intent from the new Government that they are keen to support development and recognise the key role of the planning system in enabling development.

The proposed reforms are, of course, just that at the moment. The above is an initial summary of the proposed changes, and we will, of course, continue to digest the proposals over the coming weeks. We will monitor the impacts of the proposed NPPF changes, working with developers, local authorities, and landowners to understand how they are affected, identify opportunities for growth and how solutions to constraints can be reached.