Released On 13th Aug 2024

9 key points from consultation on the proposed reforms to the NPPF

The government has launched a consultation on a proposed revision to the National Planning Policy Framework. The changes are significant in places, seeking to contribute to ‘sustained economic growth’ through increased delivery of new market and affordable housing. The government wants to deliver 1.5m homes in the life of this parliament, increasing the annual target for new homes from 300,000 to 370,000 per annum for England.

The paper below gives an overview of some of the key points covered in the consultation. There are of course many more…

Government seeking rapid implementation of the new NPPF

In the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister at the launch of the draft NPPF[1],  the emphasis is on speeding up the planning system with the wide range of measures in the NPPF itself and updates to the way the planning system operates.  This includes operational changes and the promise of financial support to authorities required to increase housing numbers. The Deputy Prime Minister also states that she, “…will not hesitate to use my powers of intervention should it be necessary to drive progress – including taking over an authority’s plan making directly”.

The Planning Inspectorate has also been instructed by the DPM not to devote significant time and energy during an examination to ‘fix’ a deficient plan[2]. The NPPF picks up this theme and, in guiding joint working between strategic policymaking authorities, it recognises that plans will come forward at different times but places the emphasis for authorities and Inspectors on needing to, “come to an informed decision on the basis of available information, rather than waiting for a full set of evidence from other authorities.” (Para 28)

Three Dragons will be watching to see if this pragmatism is pursued elsewhere in the plan-making system.

Emphasis on social rent

The proposals include a welcome emphasis on providing social rent as part of the affordable housing tenure mix. Paragraph 63 of the consultation draft NPPF sets out that housing needs assessments should consider the requirement for social rent when considering the needs of different groups within the community and paragraph 64 states that “planning policies should specify the type of affordable housing required (including the minimum proportion of Social Rent homes required)”.

Delivery of this tenure will assist affordability and help reduce the welfare benefit bill. By specifying the requirement in policy, RPs will be better equipped to bid for social rented homes on a level playing field. However, in some areas this could impact on development viability and hence the overall amount of affordable housing, unless grant is available.

Density & Building heights

 Paragraph 130 was added to the NPPF in 2023 to explain that local character can be taken into account when local planning authorities consider their ability to meet their housing needs. It sets out that significant uplifts in density may be inappropriate if this would result in development wholly out of character with the existing area. Under this paragraph local planning authorities are required to use authority-wide design codes to evidence the impact on character.

However, the new proposals reverse this change and delete paragraph 130 in its entirety. Paras 11 and 12 of the consultation document state that local planning authorities should identify opportunities for maximising the efficient use of land, especially in areas well served by transport and other infrastructure, thereby better achieving sustainable patterns of development and meeting expectations on future housing supply. Alongside this reversal, the proposals strengthen expectations that plans should promote an uplift in density in urban areas.

There is a focus on ensuring development plans support the efficient use of land at appropriate densities. Rather than district-wide design codes, Ministers want to focus local planning authority efforts on the preparation of localised design codes, masterplans and guides for areas of most change and most potential – including regeneration sites, areas of intensification, urban extensions and the development of large new communities.

It will take time for local authorities to put detailed localised design codes and masterplans in place.  The development industry will likely be watching with interest to see which locations and types of area are selected as areas of most change.  In the meantime expect developers to submit more planning applications that propose densification across a range of different types of area – and some potentially interesting appeal decisions.

Meeting needs of specific groups

The consultation draft NPPF retains para 63 which deals with the needs of different groups in the community.  The definition of key groups has been broadened to include Social Renters and Looked After Children.

No details have been provided about Looked After Children as part of the current suite of announcements, but the previous government also sought to encourage provision of accommodation for looked after children – predominantly children’s homes.

Greenbelt

The proposals make significant changes to Chapter 13 of the NPPF ‘Protecting Green Belt land’.  The matter of ‘exceptional circumstances’ now differs and includes where a local authority cannot meet its identified need for housing, commercial or other developments through other means.  In those circumstance local authorities will now be under obligation to review their Greenbelt “unless the review provides clear evidence that alterations would fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole” (para 142). 

Where such land is released this follows a sequential approach.  Reviews to the Green Belt should release previously developed sites first, then the Grey Belt followed by the most sustainable locations for growth in the Green Belt.  ‘Grey Belt’ is introduced into the policy and is defined in the glossary 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”.

The reforms also add that where major development takes place on land which has been released from the Green belt then such sites should provide at least 50% affordable housing with an “appropriate proportion being Social Rent” subject to viability (para 155); necessary improvements to local and national infrastructure and provision of good quality green spaces. 

‘Annex 4: Viability in relation to Green Belt release’ has also been included to provide guidance on setting a benchmark land value.  An exact figure is not provided, however, para 30 (Questions 37, 38 and 39) of the accompanying consultation document considers the appropriateness of a premium citing evidence of BLVs of three times existing use value; ten times existing use value; and between 10- and 40-times existing use value. The Government then indicating their intention of “setting BLV at the lower end of this spectrum” acknowledging the restrictions on development in these locations. 

Housing numbers

The proposals seek to “make the standard method for assessing housing needs mandatory”. A new methodology is proposed that moves away from using the less reliable and changeable household projections. It instead uses a baseline of a percentage of existing housing stock, topped up by an affordability multiplier. Caps and additions are removed, including the urban uplift, “so that the approach is driven by an objective assessment of need” (chapter 4:7 of accompanying document).

The ’outcome of the proposed method’ excel document shows that London and some larger cities such as Birmingham and Coventry will see a drop in housing numbers. Most (but not all) other authorities will see an increase. In terms of absolute numbers by region this is greatest in the South East, followed closely by the North West then the South West. As a percentage uplift the highest increases can be found in the North East then North West then South West. (There are of course variations by authority within the regions.)

Transitional arrangements

The proposals include the transition to the new NPPF, in Appendix 1. Where a R19 plan is being examined or has been submitted within one month of NPPF publication then the old NPPF will be used to assess soundness – but if there is a ‘significant gap’ (more than 200 units p/a) between the new LHN and the old targets, an immediate plan review will be required.  If the R19 plan has not been submitted by one month after NPPF publication, then the plan will need to be revised, although resources will be available to assist.  All plans at an earlier stage will need to comply with the new NPPF.  A number of Three Dragons clients will be affected by these changes, with new allocations likely required in order to meet their new LHN.

A return to strategic planning?

There is more than a hint that strategic planning is back on the agenda – in particular at paragraph 24, which is proposed to be expanded to require “effective strategic planning…will play a vital and increasing role…including meeting housing needs, delivering strategic infrastructure, and building economic and climate resilience”. Furthermore a new para 27 is included that sets out a need to identify matters on which to collaborate and to ensure all plans, including those of other bodies (e.g. investment plans) are consistent with each other especially in respect of delivering major infrastructure, unmet development needs and allocations/designations which cross authority boundaries. Although it is also clear in paragraph 28 that waiting for a perfect evidence base or set of plans and strategies is not an excuse for delay. The more strategic approach is also apparent in respect of economic related uses with paragraphs 84 and 85 emphasising the need to plan for the economy including at a regional and national scale. It is also of note that in the Ministerial statement accompanying the launch of the consultation there is a clear expectations that the government will ”take the steps necessary to enable universal coverage of strategic planning within this Parliament” with an expectation that Mayors will oversee Spatial Development Strategies for the areas and that effective arrangements can be put in place for those areas without a Mayor, based on functional economic areas.

This approach is welcomed as the best planning outcomes will likely arise from strategic thinking and (dare we say it) some form of regional planning.

Likes and dislikes

Stronger cross-boundary strategic planning is a welcome introduction to the draft NPPF notably on the requirement to ensure a consistent approach to the delivery of major infrastructure projects, which are often cross-boundary.  We also welcome the emphasis on social rent as a tenure, which is more affordable to households than Affordable Rent, but are pleased that it is left for local authorities to set levels based on their local needs, affordability and viability.

However, we are particularly disappointed to see that Net Zero and National Development Management Policies are missing.

[1] Written statements - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament

[2] Letter from Matthew Pennycook to the Chief Executive of PINS – 31 July-

Tags: Housing Policy Analysis, Increasing Housing Choice, Development Viability