NPPF – 7 days later

For those with planning applications in the system, particularly going to committee or opening at appeal, it will have been a hectic, but hopefully positive, week. The new NPPF, of “critical importance”, was intended to make a difference, further supporting the achievement of sustainable development. 7 days later, with the decision-making policies taking immediate effect and to be read alongside the development plan, it certainly has.

Recently it’s been a battle. We’ve seen many councils, sometimes those in special measures, sometimes failing the HDT, and almost always with an HLS shortfall, still turning against their officer recommendations, refusing to acknowledge the need for, and benefits of, development. Refusing applications for what can only be described as sustainable, and much needed, development. But already the NPPF has helped to stop such nonsense. We experienced its full force.

tor&co had two unallocated sites for residential development at committee last week, both had their complexities and not unusually local political opposition, despite efforts of engagement. Both were approved. Over a week ago the decisions may well have been different, but this week members actually supported their officer recommendations, sensing they had little option as a direct consequence of the new NPPF alongside other measures now in place to support more positive decision-making.

We observed officers emboldened in their views, with old, inconsistent development management policies being given very limited weight, and clear messaging around the strength of the tilted planning balance and weight of benefits. No longer can members, in their judgement, give less weight to certain benefits, such as providing homes to meet a need. This, and others, carry substantial weight. The outcome, in the absence of technical constraints, was members had ‘no option’ (their words) but to approve. Indeed, a rare referencing in the new NPPF (now policy numbered), paragraph 7 is clear that there are limited circumstances in which permission should be refused, whilst Policy DM3 confirms what should have always been the case, essentially LPAs should:

“Not refuse applications for development which should clearly be approved, having regard to their accordance with the development plan, the policies in this Framework and any other material considerations.”

So, out with the paragraphs and in with the policies, here are 25 of the big changes, in no particular order:

Presumption in Favour of Development – Put away your basket for ‘important policies’, simply the tilted balance applies with an increased threshold, from ‘significantly’ to ‘substantially’, assessed against national policy. There are separate policies for development within and outside settlements, the latter providing particular support for development within a reasonable walk to a well-connected rail station (see glossary below) and development that would address an evidenced unmet need (not limited to a HLS shortfall or <75% HDT result). Development that doesn’t fall within the terms of the policy ‘should only be approved in exceptional circumstances’, and there is separate policy for Green Belt.
The Planning Balance – Those scales can be tipped with substantial beneficial weight being given to certain benefits including the economic benefits of commercial development, energy efficiency and drawing energy from renewables, improving resilience to climate change, providing homes to meet needs (including for different groups), supporting town centres and local shops, making better use of developed and vacant land, creating additional homes within settlements (including additional units within residential curtilages – subject to restrictive criteria), as well as new or improved public service infrastructure and community facilities.
Plan Making (PM) Policies – All 52 of them (17 procedural and 35 topic-based) provide clear expectations and restrictions generally to avoid duplication, provide focus and avoid unnecessary hurdles to achieving sustainable development.
Strategic Development Strategies – Strategic planning is back. SDSs must be produced by strategic planning authorities and the Mayor of London, covering at least 25 years, reviewed every 7 years (if needing to respond to changed circumstances). They must address sub-regional growth needs (housing, employment and infrastructure), set the scale and distributional strategy (apportionment to LPAs), identify broad locations for both growth and Green Belt alterations, and nature conservation and habitat enhancement. They can address the historic environment.
Local Plans – Finally they should get shorter! They must focus on delivering the SDS, and be concise, with no duplication from the NPPF. They must set out a vision, restricted to no more than 10 measurable outcomes, and cover a 10-year period (or longer). Policies on local accessibility, water efficiency and energy efficiency which are more stringent than Building Regs can be adopted
and quantitative standards can also be set (e.g. affordable, parking, density & design). Otherwise, no covering matters
already addressed by Building Regs. Preparation on a new plan must be commenced no later than 5 years from adoption, earlier in some circumstances. Look out for the transitional arrangements at Annex A.
Minerals and Waste Plans – Brought into line, by broadly following local plan procedural requirements.
Soundness Test – To clarify the wording, ‘appropriate’ replaces ‘justified’, and both local and minerals and waste plans have an additional test; ‘conformity’ with the SDS.
Supplementary Plans – With a sigh, these are still allowed, but thankfully, their scope is restricted, and with limited examination they can’t be used to delay the delivery of allocated sites
Neighbourhood Plans – The Government wasn’t quite bold enough to do away with neighbourhood planning but now the scope is limited to allocating land and addressing particular local issues. Also, plans that have yet to be submitted must comply with the new NPPF. Then, they do still, in unchanged terms, give protection from the presumption.
Development Plan Policy Weighting – Consistency is key. Weight can be given to old and emerging policies, but only if consistent with the NPPF, otherwise it’s unequivocably ‘very limited’ weight.
Plan Allocations – Little has changed here but there are more specific requirements around strategic sites, small – medium sized sites, and specialist forms of accommodation.
Economic Growth – Perhaps unsurprisingly given the economic context, but helpfully, far more support is given to urban and rural development, with greater flexibility.
Transport – You’ll need your tech skills with this one. The use of the ‘Connectivity Tool’ is to inform plans and decisions.
BNG – What a relief, given the challenges, the all-encompassing more than 10% policies are precluded, with additionality saved for specific allocations where justified and deliverable.
Connected Places – A sensible acknowledgment that in maintaining cooperation between plan-making authorities, connected places within and across boundaries can determine optimal locations for growth.
Green Belt – All the guidance is now in one place, with Annex E covering assessments, including the requirement to identify grey belt. Substantial weight is given to the importance of complying with the Golden Rules, whilst viability testing is allowed in some limited circumstances.
Viability – A hot topic, challenging many a scheme at present, elevating the importance of engaging through plan-making. Expectations for developer contributions must be set out in the development plan, including circumstances in which review mechanisms will be used. Opportunities to submit viability assessments with planning applications are now limited, but the use of standardised viability inputs has not made its way into the final document.
Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation – Unsurprisingly, as almost every council in England has declared an emergency, increased weight is given to energy efficiency, renewables and building resilience, with new wildfire mitigation measures.
Heritage – The principles remain but there is now improved guidance on the approach to heritage assessments, and the need to identify both effects and degree of harm, whilst development leading to positive effects should be supported. Separate policies cover proposals affecting designated assets, non-designated assets, World Heritage Sites and conservation areas.
Engagement – Deep breadth, pre-app should no longer be avoided. It’s important, to resolve issues before submitting an application. Planning statements should be concise and explain changes resulting from the engagement.
Consultees – This is a relief, decisions should not be delayed to secure advice from a statutory or internal consultee beyond statutory deadlines unless there is insufficient information to make the decision, there are public safety risks from proceeding without advice, or more detailed advice may enable approval.
Obligations and Conditions – This might speed things up, simply the national model planning should normally be used.
Densities – Squeeze in, increases are encouraged. Minimums of 35dpa are expected around rail stations, 45dpa if particularly well-connected (twice the minimum service).

Glossary – There’s lots in here, with additional and amended definitions, of particular note:

a wider definition of affordable housing to include military affordable housing.
a wider definition of ancient woodland.
connectivity means the degree to which a location provides access to jobs, services and facilities by sustainable transport modes. The Connectivity Tool (Connectivity Tool – GOV.UK) provides a means of assessing this.
Examples are given for community facilities and green infrastructure.
There is a shortened definition of (and test for) grey belt.
Large-scale shared living accommodation specifically excludes self-contained dwellings (use class C3) as well as HMOs, student accommodation, hotels and other residential institutions.
Medium development is defined as 10 – 49 homes and a site area of up to 2.5 ha, as a sub-set of major development, and strategic site is defined (e.g. 1500+ homes)
Net developable area is defined.
Reasonable walking distance is “around 800 metres, or around 10 minutes’ walk time where topography, route availability, or physical barriers would discourage walking the full distance”.
Well-connected stations are “Railway stations and underground, tram and light rail stops located within a top 80 Travel to Work Area located partially or fully within England by Gross Value Added (GVA) and which, in the normal weekday timetable, are served (or have a reasonable prospect of being served due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator) throughout the daytime by at least four trains or trams per hour overall, or at least two trains or trams per hour in any one direction”.

Annexes – Last but certainly not least, there are now six covering: implementation, glossary, information requirements, housing calculations and supply, Green Belt assessments and managing flood risk and coastal change.

Author:
Jacqueline Mulliner
Managing Director

Back to Journal