So here we are. Another NPPF Mega Blog.
I spotted this morning that Paul Smith had posted the following on LinkedIn.
The NPPF is replaced more quickly than the time it takes to determine planning applications for new homes.
Over the last five years, the average time between NPPF updates is 414 days.
The median time to determine an outline application for new homes is 439 days.
It is to be hoped that there will not be another ‘Planning Reform Day (PRD)’ for well over 414 days and that, in the meantime, policy makers can focus, as the Minister promised in his UKREEIF speech, on removing some of the grit from the system.
First things first, for completeness, this is what emerged on PRD.
First, it is always interesting to see who has responded to consultations like this one. It is striking that there were submission from 1,654 private individuals, 343 LPAs and 151 developers, but also 5,347 on behalf of the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and 5,253 from the RSPB. It is to be borne in mind that the nature conservation lobby is considerably better coordinated than the development industry and if it is no surprise that local politicians pay greatest attention to the loudest voices then it should also come as little surprise that national politicians pay greatest attention to the loudest voices too.
Secondly, the launch itself. There was no site visit and no MDs or Chief Execs of trade bodies or professional bodies were summoned to Marsham Street to be room meat at a coordinated and heavily photographed roundtable. There was perhaps an inevitable delay as the new Prime Minister and Secretary of State got back up to speed but the NPPF was ready to be published and so it was, with a welcome absence of fanfare (and red hats).
So what has changed? These are those that MHCLG were most keen to highlight in the accompanying policy paper.
Many of the reforms contained in the new NPPF reflect the proposals set out in December last year, but a number of key changes have been made in light of feedback received through the consultation.
These include:
NDMPs
As Nicola notes:
There has, however, been a slight softening of the transitional provisions, as they apply to policies in currently adopted local plans, albeit they still have significant teeth. In the consultation draft, local plan policies that were “in any way inconsistent with the national decision-making policies in this Framework should be given very limited weight”. This has now been amended, so that it only relates to policies, or parts of policies, that are “materially inconsistent” with the national decision-making policies in the Framework.
According to the consultation response:
The purpose of national decision-making policies, as set out in the consultation, remains unchanged. However, the government recognises concerns that the drafting, by seeking to prevent the modification of national decision-making policies, could impose an inappropriate degree of rigidity. The policy wording has been amended so that plans not ‘modifying’ national policies has been replaced with plans not including policies 13 that ‘are inconsistent’ with national policies. This is considered to provide a degree of flexibility to plan makers, where it would be appropriate to add additional detail to a local policy, and seeks to address concerns raised on the use of other policies set out in PM2. However, to help ensure national decision-making policies are implemented effectively, plan policies should not be inconsistent with national policies.
As Zack says:
Nonetheless, powerful though it may be, last December's Missed Chance of the Year is August's too. The provisions in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 at section 93 (which I talked about here) remain on the statute books but have not yet been brought into force. Is this new NPPF the best that can be done without the statute? Probably. Is it the fudge I described in December? For sure. Every one of those "materially inconsistent" arguments will now be had, case by case, in front of officers, committees and inspectors. It didn't have to be this way. Alas. A fudge we have. But it’s a bold fudge.
In relation to the coming arguments about what is materially inconsistent, according to the consultation response:
The government has considered these responses and has decided to take forward the proposed approach to simplifying terminology in the revised Framework. The potential benefits of a hierarchy of terms have been noted, but on balance the government considers that this is outweighed by the greater clarity of a standardised approach. The weight to be given to specific considerations remains a matter for decision-makers, to be determined on the facts of individual cases.
The government says this standardised approach will provide greater clarity, while the weight to be given to specific considerations “remains a matter for decision-makers, to be determined on the facts of individual cases”.
One decision-makers ‘significant’ will still be another decision-makers ‘substantial’ and so on and so it remains the case that a sliding scale of weight would still be beneficial.
Strategic & Local Planning
Some points of note from the consultation response.
In response to concerns about burden and disruption, policy has been amended so that SPAs will be expected to begin preparing an alteration or replacement SDS where there has been a significant change in circumstances including a significant change in housing need and, in any event, after 7 years from adoption.
After carefully considering consultation responses, the government has decided to maintain the current approach which means that only housing requirement figures from SDSs that are under 5 years old can be used in Housing Delivery Test or 5-year housing land supply calculations.
A minor change has, however, been made to PM10(1)(a) to make clear that plan-making authorities should engage with relevant bodies to identify where additional capacity from existing infrastructure is needed as well as new infrastructure. Guidance will also be published to support authorities in meeting the expectations in these policies. The government will also continue to work with relevant government departments and infrastructure bodies to improve alignment between long-term infrastructure planning and development plan-making, including through wider infrastructure planning reforms.
It is noted that we now have a longer strategic planning horizon, with the SDS minimum plan period increasing from 20 to 25 years.
The NPPF introduces a requirement to set out the type, extent and broad location of strategic infrastructure needed to enable development and serve existing communities, including transport, social infrastructure, waste infrastructure, utilities provision (including renewable and low carbon energy, electricity network, telecommunications and water and wastewater infrastructure) and flood risk management schemes. SDS should also make provision for infrastructure that is committed to in the 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy, sectoral spatial plans and any planned strategic infrastructure identified in local transport plans.
This has got to be a good thing because I am aware of land promoters having very real issues on some sites with, for example, electricity connections at the moment.
Is though hard to imagine utility companies engaging in the SDS process and unless they are compelled to. On the basis that they do though the need for such matters to be as important to local plans and planning applications will be less, which has also got to be a good thing.
Less positively, at least in my opinion and the opinions of Martin Taylor and Matthew Spry at Lichfields is the new ‘flexibility’ on local plan timescales, with the minimum plan period reducing from fifteen to ten years.
From the consultation response:
The government has considered these responses and notes the overall support for longer plan periods. However, we recognise the range of comments supporting flexibility for plan-makers. For these reasons we consider that plan periods should allow for both long-term planning and local flexibility to be able to be responsive to local circumstances. The policy has therefore been revised to expect local plans to cover a minimum period of 10 years 12 from adoption, while making clear that longer time periods continue to be appropriate where this supports, for example, the delivery of strategic development and infrastructure.
This is what Martin shared on LinkedIn:
I just can't help but think that one of the biggest changes, to 10-year minimum Local Plan periods from 15, is... well... short-sighted. It doesn't appear from the consultation response to have been a particularly popular one and, despite retaining flexibility to do so, might it create too little incentive to think big, think strategic to shape an area's spatial strategy and be bold with larger scale development and associated infrastructure over longer periods? SDS' might plug some of the gap longer term, but in the meantime? I can see a few draft Plans being scaled back.
This is Matthew’s blog, which articulates concerns about this move far better than I could do.
Given that 69% of consultation respondent disagreed with this move, it is presumably a personal priority of somebody very senior within MHCLG. Somebody committed, perhaps, to increasing plan coverage and ultimately of a view that any plan is better than no plan. I take a different view because I do not think that the LGR, SDS and local plan reform agendas can be pursued in parallel. Plan-making wheels have to turn, of course, and there will be places capable of adopting good places in short order, but with everything going on something has to give and that something, in the grand scheme of things (and with NDMPs encouraging sensible propositions in the meantime) something has to give and something has to be local plans.
Just finally, and representative perhaps of another lowering of the bar, local plans should now identify “appropriate sites” for development. The draft text said authorities should identify “the most appropriate sites” for development. The Government says the change was made “to respond to concerns this would place significant burdens on plan-makers and would be inconsistent with the tests of soundness”.
Grey Belt
Associated guidance has now been brought into the NPPF at Annex E in relation to Green Belt assessments and identifying grey belt land. Importantly, the new NPPF includes the simplification of the ‘grey belt’ definition: “land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d)” of the Green Belt. The new definition removes previous reference to potential disqualifying factors where (the former) ‘footnote 7’ assets provided a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. Support remains for development on grey belt land where there is an evidenced unmet need in that this is not seen as inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
Viability
From the consultation response:
The government will continue to promote clarity at the plan-making stage on expected contributions in order to reduce the need for negotiation at decision-making stage. However, Planning Practice Guidance on viability will continue to make clear that viability assessment in plan-making should be proportionate and should not require individual testing of every site or assurance that individual sites are viable.
The government also recognises the need for greater clarity and consistency in the application of viability policy. However, as set out in response to Question 212 at Annex B – Viability: Standardised inputs in viability assessment, the government has decided to not take forward a technical annex to include standardised inputs in viability assessment. While we understand the need for a consistent framework for evaluating development proposals and certainty in the viability assessment process, we consider that further engagement is needed with local planning authorities, developers, development surveyors and other key stakeholders. This will ensure that any changes are thoroughly tested prior to implementation. Viability Planning Practice Guidance will continue to provide guidance on standardised inputs – and policy DM5 is clear that viability assessment should be carried out in accordance with this guidance. The government appreciates the feedback received and will use it to inform a wider update of the Planning Practice Guidance, to be published as soon as possible.
Policy DM5 on development viability sets out a range of scenarios where viability tests might be appropriate to reduce planning contributions from a site to levels below that expected in local policy. The policy says viability tests are reasonable where:
Local Standards
The Government has opted not to bar local authorities from setting energy-efficiency standards for new housing that exceed national building regulations. Instead, a new paragraph in policy PM13 outlines the circumstances in which LPAs can set out local energy-efficiency standards. The response document says the government has backed down on this issue following concerns that the draft’s approach “could hinder local authorities’ ability to address climate change in their areas”. The government also says it will not commence section 43 of the Deregulation Act 2015, which would have legally barred LPAs from setting higher energy-efficiency standards than Building Regulations.
I wrote in January that “it is to be hoped that the Government stays firm in this regard because, as Simon Ricketts is want to say, it is historic acceptance of local exceptionalism that is why the system has become so labyrinthine.” The Government did not stay firm.
Amending Consents
From the consultation response:
Respondents generally highlighted the need to improve the efficiency, clarity and consistency of the process for modifying planning obligations under section 106A, while maintaining confidence that agreed affordable housing and infrastructure contributions will be delivered. Relatedly, some respondents suggested that further guidance on the interpretation and application of s106A legislation, or standard templates to support the modification process, could be developed.
Many respondents raised concern about the submission of section 73 applications to obtain planning permission with a lower level of affordable housing or other obligations. Respondents emphasised that any proposed reductions to affordable housing or other contributions should be robustly evidenced.
The government has considered these responses and acknowledges the need for a more detailed review of the statutory framework for amending planning obligations. The government will use the feedback received through this consultation to inform that review and set out further details in due course.
Conditions & Obligations
From the consultation response:
The government has considered these responses and is taking forward the policy largely as consulted on, noting the support for the approach set out in policy DM6. Working with the Planning Inspectorate, the government will develop a suite of national model conditions and begin publishing these before the end of the year. In developing these, the government will work closely with the sector and will provide guidance to support their use in practice. Revisions have been made to policy DM6(4) to align with the approach for planning conditions so that, where national model planning obligations are relevant to a development, they should be used unless there are strong reasons to depart from them. The government is taking forward a programme of work with the Planning Advisory Service to support and streamline the process of section 106 agreements, with an initial focus on medium sites. The government will consult on draft standard template planning agreements for medium sites, which are designed to reduce delays and resource burdens on local planning authorities and SME housebuilders.
The consultation on standard planning agreements for medium-sized sites emerged this week, to which the immediate response of many has been why not make it, and the inclusion of cascade agreements, mandatory rather than discretionary.
Other Regulatory Regimes
From the consultation response:
The government has considered these responses and is retaining the policy. The policy reflects established case law, allowing decision-makers to judge, on a case-by-case basis, whether such matters (dealt with by other regulatory regimes) are material to the planning decision, but that these regimes are assumed to operate effectively unless there is evidence to the contrary.
The Presumption
From the consultation response:
Respondents also raised concerns that the approach could cut across the plan-led system.
Cut across or do the job of?
The definition of well-connected station has broadened so it now means:
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)72 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.
A list of well-connected stations would probably be helpful, but as Lichfields have noted, the TTWA and frequency thresholds mean some locations remain out of the picture. “The Burnham Government’s “growth in every postcode” mantra does not quite hold true when it comes to rail stations.”
The minimum density requirements for these sites has also been adjusted from the consultation draft and is likely to be more workable under the revised proposals.
The requirements are now for “a density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare should be achieved within the net developable area of the site. Higher densities – of at least 45 dwellings per hectare – should be achieved where the service frequency is at least twice that of the minimum required for a well-connected station.“
Another point of note from the consultation response:
Where development to address an evidenced unmet need is proposed outside settlements, sub-paragraph (1)(j)(i) of the policy already requires that it be ‘well-related’ to an existing settlement, but further clarification has been added that this means ‘physically’ well-related. In paragraph (1)(j)(ii), reference to ‘storage and distribution’ has been updated to ‘freight and logistics’ in response to feedback, and for consistency across relevant NPPF policies.
The implications of evidenced unmet need, as written about here by Annie Gingell, is potentially massive.
Mark Fessey has picked up on it and shared the following on LinkedIn.
Sorry to bang on, but we have to be clear on the motivation to prepare a Local Plan. That used to be to ensure an up-to-date plan so as to avoid 'the presumption' applying for decision-making purposes, but I don't think that language works any more. It's now avoiding an 'evidenced unmet need'... so as to avoid a default yes... in respect of decision-making outside of settlements... but what does that mean?
In old money an evidenced unmet need would mean having a 5YHLS and passing the HDT, as measured against your housing requirement, but now you perhaps also have to be providing for affordable housing needs in full?
The thing is though that surely hardly any local plans provide for affordable housing need in full (ref. countless Inspectors reports that have considered but dismissed the option of a boost to the housing requirement so as to more fully provide for AH needs) and, of course, where a plan is adopted with a housing requirement set below LHN (on the grounds of sustainable development) it's even less likely that it will be providing for AH needs in full.
Align this with the fact that the great majority of developments outside of settlements involving 10+ homes will deliver some AH, does that then mean that there will often be a default yes to developments outside of settlements even where the local authority has a 5YHLS and passes the HDT (unless the proposed scheme is inappropriate development in the Green Belt)?
Transport
Chris Holdup posted this on LinkedIn:
Judging by some of the reaction since yesterday, you might be forgiven for thinking that development at 799m from a station is sustainable, while at 801m everyone needs to get back in their cars. That isn’t actually what the NPPF says. The 800m “reasonable walking distance” is a defined gateway into some particularly favourable policy routes for development around well-connected stations. It isn’t a new national definition of a sustainable location. Importantly, the wider approach to sustainable locations remains. #TR3 carries forward the principle that development can be in a location which is sustainable or can be made so, looking at the need to travel and genuine choice of transport modes rather than applying a single distance threshold. The new framework also gives the #ConnectivityTool an explicit role alongside other quantitative and qualitative evidence, while TR1 brings land use and transport planning together more explicitly in considering where development should go, including the mix of uses and the number and length of journeys people actually need to make. #TR4 then puts walking, wheeling and cycling first in considering movement within a development and its connections with neighbouring areas. So yes, let's interrogate 800m. But the bigger challenge for those of us working in development transport planning remains the more interesting one: understanding how people can actually get around, what they need to get to, and how walking, cycling and public transport can work together with the surrounding land uses and destinations to make a place genuinely accessible and sustainable. There’s still going to be plenty for transport planners to do beyond measuring 800m from the nearest platform, and I’m looking forward to testing what lies beyond that threshold.
Neighbourhood Plans
From the consultation response:
The government has considered these responses and notes the overall support for strengthening the role of neighbourhood plans in delivering housing. It considers that a clearer link between neighbourhood planning and housing delivery is necessary to support the effectiveness and credibility of the plan-led system. Requiring neighbourhood plans to include site allocations to benefit from the policy framework provides a transparent and measurable way of demonstrating this contribution.
Mixed Tenure Thresholds
From the consultation response:
The government has carefully considered the responses received, and, on balance, has decided to remove the reference to the specific threshold of 150 homes for mixed tenure requirements. The introduction of a definition of ‘strategic sites’, with an indicative 48 threshold of 1,500 units, already sets clear expectations for mixed tenure development at this scale. Below this threshold, we want to ensure a mix of tenures can come forward on sites across a range of sizes, where appropriate and deliverable. Setting a fixed threshold could limit local flexibility in responding to different site considerations, and hinder development.
Medium Sites.
From the consultation response:
The government has carefully considered these responses and, on balance, has decided to retain the requirement in policy HO6 for local plans to allocate land to accommodate 10% of the housing requirement on sites of between 1 and 2.5 hectares. This proposal will help to boost the supply of medium-sized sites, provide greater certainty to SME developers at different stages of the planning process and encourage development across a range of site sizes. This will support the government’s wider ambitions to diversify the housing market and accelerate build-out, as we know sites of these sizes tend to be delivered by SME housebuilders and built out more quickly.
As Nicola Gooch said, this would be a lot more helpful if there were policies in the Framework that exclusively applied to medium development.
Catherine Williams at the HBF went further, posting this on LinkedIn.
Like many others, I spent yesterday afternoon and evening reading the NPPF and the Government's response to the consultation. Whilst much has been said about development around train stations, heralded as a default 'yes', the NPPF fails in my view to make significant changes in support of SMEs. Whilst Government has proceeded to create a new 'medium' site category, I can't find any policies that will make a meaningful difference to those progressing these sites. Crucially, a key policy in the draft consultation has not been progressed into the final version, namely the ability to elect to make a financial contribution in lieu of affordable housing provision on site. Policy HO8 maintains that where this is proposed it needs to be robustly justified and contributes to the objective of meeting mixed and balance communities. For a large part of the sector the ongoing issues around RP capacity and desire to acquire s106 units on these smaller sites will remain unaddressed as a result. Despite the rhetoric, this is another missed opportunity to address the plight of SMEs.
Affordable Housing
From the consultation response:
The government has considered these responses and has decided not to proceed with proposals to allow applicants discretion to deliver social and affordable housing requirements via cash payments in lieu of on-site delivery on medium sites. This reflects concerns that, at this time, it could have a detrimental impact on the manifesto commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation and to strengthen planning obligations to ensure new developments provide more affordable homes. However, the government recognises that challenges remain, particularly for SME developers where there is limited registered provider appetite to acquire small numbers of Section 106 affordable homes. To help address this, the government will publish guidance to improve clarity, consistency and confidence in the use of commuted sums (see response to Question 69 and 70).
This is what Mark White had to say about this on LinkedIn.
I feel compelled to echo what others have said and express my disappointment that this week’s revised publication of the NPPF has dropped the motion to relax affordable housing rules for sites of between 10-49 homes. The decline of the SME has been talked about in every housebuilding forum that I attend, chair or contribute to. There are too many SMEs reducing their build programmes, or even sadder, ceasing trading altogether. “SMEs are the backbone of our economy", “SMEs are the crucial engine for growth” and similar sentiments are soundbites that have been thrown around Westminster and the press as a matter of course in recent times. But soundbites are all they amount to. Since 2024, when Labour fired the starting pistol for 1.5 million new homes, SMEs have committed to growing our sector’s contribution to the target. We have the potential to grow by the largest percentage. It’s the ability to scale up without compromising on quality that makes small and medium housebuilders so invaluable to the overall health of the new homes industry – and the economy as a whole. The government has pushed Homes England forward as part of the solution, but at present I have not seen or heard of any case studies that show the money is filtering into SMEs at pace. But we’re told the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is in listening mode. I therefore remain hopeful that the Autumn Budget offers some immediate, meaningful help.
I would also comment Nick Cuff’s blog on this, the conclusion of which I feel worthy of repeating in full.
The debate has now produced a clear analytical conclusion, even if the policy hasn’t caught up with it. There are two coherent approaches to affordable housing delivery on medium sites. The first is to fund it properly — to give Homes England the resource and the mandate to act as a genuine backstop buyer on uncontracted S106 units, to capitalise the clearing service properly, and to ensure that grant funding reaches small sites and rural communities rather than concentrating on large urban schemes. The second is to free it — to design a cash-in-lieu mechanism that is tightly ring-fenced, directed to registered providers rather than LPA general accounts, set at a level that reflects the true cost of delivery including a land value component, and subject to time limits that prevent funds sitting unspent for five years.
What is not coherent is the current position: maintaining the on-site requirement as the default, while the clearing service is underfunded, while £700 million of affordable housing contributions sits unspent, while 8,500 affordable homes in the near-term pipeline have no RP, and while the probability of securing an RP on a site of fewer than 33 units is materially below 50%.
The NHF’s own consultation response makes the case for the second option more clearly than their public position suggests. The HBF’s data makes the case for the first option more urgently than the government has acknowledged. The NPPF’s decision to sidestep both is not a protection of affordable housing delivery. It is a deferral of a problem that is already costing the country homes it urgently needs.
Social Rent
From the consultation response:
The government is committed to prioritising the building of new social rent homes. However, having carefully considered the concerns raised through the consultation, we have decided not to set a fixed minimum proportion of social rent at this time. The government will continue to require authorities to identify the proportion of social rent needed in their areas and set out requirements clearly in local plans. This approach maintains the role of local plans in setting overall affordable housing requirements and determining where contributions are sought, while providing a clear expectation that social 51 rent should form part of the tenure mix. The government considers this strikes a more proportionate balance between strengthening delivery of social rent and allowing flexibility to reflect local viability considerations and housing need. We will continue to monitor the impact of these requirements, introduced in December 2024, over a longer timeframe, and will keep the approach under review.
Freight & Logistics
From the consultation response:
The government has considered these responses and has decided to take forward the proposed policies. No significant changes have been made to the chapter in response to the views received. Additional references to market signals have been incorporated into policy E1 in response to feedback that national policy should make explicit that this is a factor to consider in informing employment land requirements and allocations at the plan-making stage. A glossary term for freight and logistics has been introduced to clarify the types of uses that policy E3 applies to, in response to feedback that it could be interpreted widely.
Making effective use of land
From the consultation response:
Policy L1(1)(a) has been amended to encourage plans to identify specific areas with scope to support intensification through additional development. This will enable local plans to better support the intensification of urban and suburban areas encouraged by policy L2, and ensure that this development comes forward in the right places. Policies L1(1)(a)(iii) and (b) have been amended to provide additional clarity about the types of opportunities which plans may promote, and the role of masterplans in helping to optimise these.
The government has also amended the parameters for development within residential curtilages in policy L2(1)(d)(iii). This change supports greater flexibility, by enabling development to come forward where it does not meet all of the policy safeguards, provided it would not harm the overall character of the area and has regard to infrastructure capacity and sustainable locations. Taken together, these changes support ambitions to make the best use of land in built-up areas and encourage a range of development proposals to come forward in appropriate locations, while responding to the character of local areas.
That’s right, Folks. Garden grabbing is back.
This is what Russell Curtis had to say on LinkedIn:
What people don't seem to have realised (until now) is that "residential curtilages" means back gardens. Yes, in theory, your garden - provided that it's sufficiently large to meet the dimensional requirements established elsewhere in the policy - could be developed for new housing. Good.
California has the principle of ADUs ("Auxiliary Dwelling Unit"), where smaller self-contained structures can be installed in rear yards to create a new home. It makes perfect sense that a back garden, if not needed by the resident of the host house. A similar principle here is very much welcome.
When it arrives in the coming days, the LondonPlan small site design code, partly written by us here at RCKa, will establish a similar principle across the capital. If you own an end-of-terrace or townhouse which has a back garden with direct access to the public highway, your chances of securing planning permission for a new home will be greatly improved.
This has the potential to unlock a huge wave of small-scale housing delivery; and I'm fascinated by the opportunity this presents for homeowners who want to create a new home for ageing parents or adult children. With increased systemisation (which the design code will encourage through standard house types) we should be able to deliver thousands of new homes across London's suburbs.
Build Out
The draft first broached the delivery aspect through HO13 (Build out of residential and mixed-use sites). The policy name has changed to build out of residential and strategic sites, with the wording sharpened in places:
Part 2 states that:
For all proposals involving housing, consideration should be given to whether to impose a planning condition requiring that development begins within a timescale shorter than the relevant statutory default period, where this would expedite the development without threatening its implementation or viability.
Part 5 states that:
Paragraph 1 of this policy applies to strategic sites involving the provision of housing, and to other major development involving the provision of housing. Paragraph 2 applies to all development involving the provision of housing. Paragraphs 3 and 4 apply to all strategic sites.
This will inevitably (and intentionally) put delivery under the lens, especially as LPAs will be eager to include more delivery from more sites in 5YHLS trajectories. A further consequence could be more frequent requests for shorter reserved matters submission periods.
Design
From the consultation response:
The government will publish the final Design and Placemaking Planning Practice Guidance in the autumn. This will provide practical advice on creating high-quality places and on the use of design tools. The government also intends to publish a series of Model Design Codes. These will be standard design codes for common development types, such as large housebuilder-led sites and small urban sites, to help local planning authorities save time and resources by avoiding the need to create local design codes for repeatable development types.
I enjoyed this post from Ben Castell on LinkedIn.
It's slightly frustrating that the street design policy in the new NPPF still links to the good old Manual for Streets. I am not saying it's over the hill now, but I took this photo for the document and the baby in it is now in their twenties and the young mother....well, I can't say what decade she's in now because I subsequently married her and daren't.
I also spotted this from Deborah Denner on LinkedIn:
There's an extra sentence in today's newly published NPPF that's quite significant for anybody involved in design review.
For the first time, it includes a plan-making policy in Section DP1, which says that: "Development plans should, at the most appropriate level, set out clear design expectations by: setting out in what circumstances design review and other design processes will be required."
Design review provision and uptake is very patchy across England, and as far as I know, very few Local Plans currently have clear policies on when it should happen.
The use of supplementary plans should be limited to setting locally specific design standards and responding to changes in the area, the NPPF says. In the latter case, this should be where it is important to put in place policies “for a site or group of sites which the authority considers to be nearby to each other”.
The reference in the draft (and previous version) to refuse development proposals that are not well designed has been removed. Policy DP3 now says instead that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with key elements of the design policy, or with any explicit design standards set out in the development plan. Substantial weight is be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing the design quality of proposals.
The design policy includes a specific reference to women and girls in its instructions for designing public spaces. The government says the addition was made in response to calls for “explicit recognition of the safety of women and girls in public spaces”.
FRST & SUDs
From the consultation response:
In response to concerns about surface water, the government’s position is clear that it is not exempt from the sequential test altogether. Only sites at risk solely from surface water flooding may be exempt, and this is only where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that the proposed layout, design and mitigation will ensure safety over the development’s lifetime without increasing risk elsewhere.
There was also strong support for de-culverting and re-naturalising watercourses to deliver a range of environmental and flood risk benefits, although some concerns were raised about the need for clear definitions, robust enforcement and flexibility to allow justified exceptions where necessary. The government has considered these responses and is retaining the overall direction of the policy. However, an amendment has been made to include ‘harm to heritage assets’ as a consideration in policy F8(3) when determining whether removing an existing culvert is appropriate. This responds to concerns about ensuring a balanced and proportionate approach where there are site-specific constraints. The policy will continue to allow justified exceptions when supported by evidence and the mitigation hierarchy. The government recognises the importance of clear implementation and will consider how Planning Practice Guidance can support the applications of policy F8. The government acknowledges calls for stronger arrangements for the adoption and maintenance of SuDS, but considers that the objectives of Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 may be more effectively secured through improvements to national planning policy and supporting guidance, alongside wider work on adoption and maintenance arrangements. A final decision on this will be made separately in due course.
Protected Landscapes
The Government seemingly has backtracked on a more permissive approach it took in the draft to development in protected landscapes (defined as national parks and national landscapes), reinserting the instruction that proposals for major development in such areas should be “refused” other than in exceptional circumstances. The draft had said such proposals “should only be supported” in exceptional circumstances. The final version also clarifies that the public interest test should be separate, whereas the draft version had implied that it was part of the same test. The changes were made following concern in the consultation that protections had been weakened through changes to the wording.
However, the instruction that “substantial” weight should be given to the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of these areas, replacing the “great weight” that the previous NPPF said should be given, is retained. The government states that the change is “not intended nor considered to diminish the actual weight which would be given to the importance of these areas in policy terms”.
What signal does this send to plan-makers with protected landscapes? There is a map of National Landscapes here. There are plenty of them…
Stat Cons
From the consultation response:
Having carefully considered the responses received and the strong opposition to removing Sport England’s statutory consultee status, the government has decided to retain Sport England as a statutory consultee. We have decided Sport England will now be a statutory consultee on the most significant cases, including applications involving the physical loss of playing fields for housing or commercial development, and substantial school or sports development on playing fields.
At this stage, the government does not intend to amend wider referral criteria or change statutory consultee involvement in voluntary pre-application engagement or post-approval processes. However, we will continue to work closely with statutory consultees and LPAs to consider further evidence in these areas.
In response to consultation feedback around adding referral criteria for organisations, such as water companies, please refer to our response to consultation Questions 32 to 34. Respondent feedback on capacity constraints will also inform our forthcoming consultation on the planning fee surcharge and our work to develop a new performance framework for statutory consultees.
It needs to be said over and over again that a large amount of the grit would be taken from the system if the Government did change statutory consultee involvement in voluntary pre-application engagement or post-approval processes.
HDT
From the consultation response:
The 2024 and 2025 Housing Delivery Tests and an update to the Housing Delivery Test rule book have been published alongside this consultation response. The government has published both sets of results to re-establish a regular Housing Delivery Test publication cycle and ensure local authorities are being assessed against the most up-to-date data. As part of wider efforts to simplify and streamline Housing Delivery Test calculations, the government has also implemented changes to the way the Housing Delivery Test has been calculated, informed by sector feedback outside of this consultation. This includes the removal of unmet need adjustments to Local Housing Need calculations. Unmet need is often inconsistently identified across local plans, making it complex and challenging to apply adjustments consistently, and resulting in some areas being measured against targets which did not accurately reflect need in their area. This change means that local 58 authorities will be measured against either their plan requirement (where any agreed unmet need being taken or transferred to neighbouring authorities is already reflected within these figures), or Local Housing Need. The government considers this provides a more accurate and transparent measure of an area’s housing requirement in the Housing Delivery Test. This change has been applied to the 2024 and 2025 Housing Delivery Test results. Further, in recognition that it can take time for new housing targets to be reflected in housing delivery figures, the government has introduced a transitional arrangement for the new standard method (published in December 2024) to apply to the Housing Delivery Test. This transitional arrangement means the previous version of the standard method will continue to be used to calculate Local Housing Need until the 2026/27 measurement year.
Reflections
As Zack said:
Credit where it’s due, folks: this is a big swing. A comprehensive policy that deserves to be taken seriously. This is, among many other things, the kind of document that only happens with an experienced Planning Minister in post long enough to get to grips with the brief (not something we’ve been used to in the plan-i-verse for many a year).
As Nicola said:
The final NPPF follows the direction of travel set by the consultation draft. There don’t appear to have been any major shifts as a result of the change in Prime Minister – which is both really quite reassuring for longer term planning and actually means that we can run redline versions this time around. It remains a document designed to standardise and streamline – with a view to boosting development and economic growth, whilst keeping a close eye on the need to ensure the impacts of that growth are mitigated. Any claims that it is a Developer’s or a NIMBY’s charter would be misplaced.
The reflections in my January blog still stand.
What next?
As Zack says:
The IOU pile is full to bursting. Count them. Statutory NDMPs: under review. Soundness guidance: in due course. SDS/local plan relationship guidance: to be published. Traveller sites PPG: in due course. Commuted sums guidance: to be developed. s.106A: a review. National model conditions: "before the end of the year". Statutory consultee reform: response "later this year". Planning fee surcharge: consultation "later this year". PiP for medium sites: "further engagement". Viability PPG: "as soon as possible". A rules-based system whose rules are, in a dozen places, still being written. In. Due. Course.
I spotted this morning that Paul Smith had posted the following on LinkedIn.
The NPPF is replaced more quickly than the time it takes to determine planning applications for new homes.
Over the last five years, the average time between NPPF updates is 414 days.
The median time to determine an outline application for new homes is 439 days.
It is to be hoped that there will not be another ‘Planning Reform Day (PRD)’ for well over 414 days and that, in the meantime, policy makers can focus, as the Minister promised in his UKREEIF speech, on removing some of the grit from the system.
First things first, for completeness, this is what emerged on PRD.
- Policy paper - Creating a clear, rules-based planning system
- The NPPF
- Consultation Response
- Reforms to the statutory consultee system: government response
- Housing Delivery Test
Second things second, if you have not done so already, can I suggest that you read the following.
You might also want to revisit January’s Mega Blog on the consultation draft. The points made on structure, tone, intent, presumptions, balances and tilts all still stand.
The point then of this edition, which is perhaps less of a conventional blog and more of a collation of interesting things that I come across, is the changes between the consultation version and this adopted version, and the elements of most practical consequence. These I will get to shortly, but a couple of other observations in advance.
- Nicola Gooch’s blog
- Ed Clarke’s blog
- Simon Ricketts’ blog
- Zack Simons’ blog
- Hana Loftus’ blog
- Cornerstone’s summary
You might also want to revisit January’s Mega Blog on the consultation draft. The points made on structure, tone, intent, presumptions, balances and tilts all still stand.
The point then of this edition, which is perhaps less of a conventional blog and more of a collation of interesting things that I come across, is the changes between the consultation version and this adopted version, and the elements of most practical consequence. These I will get to shortly, but a couple of other observations in advance.
First, it is always interesting to see who has responded to consultations like this one. It is striking that there were submission from 1,654 private individuals, 343 LPAs and 151 developers, but also 5,347 on behalf of the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and 5,253 from the RSPB. It is to be borne in mind that the nature conservation lobby is considerably better coordinated than the development industry and if it is no surprise that local politicians pay greatest attention to the loudest voices then it should also come as little surprise that national politicians pay greatest attention to the loudest voices too.
Secondly, the launch itself. There was no site visit and no MDs or Chief Execs of trade bodies or professional bodies were summoned to Marsham Street to be room meat at a coordinated and heavily photographed roundtable. There was perhaps an inevitable delay as the new Prime Minister and Secretary of State got back up to speed but the NPPF was ready to be published and so it was, with a welcome absence of fanfare (and red hats).
So what has changed? These are those that MHCLG were most keen to highlight in the accompanying policy paper.
Many of the reforms contained in the new NPPF reflect the proposals set out in December last year, but a number of key changes have been made in light of feedback received through the consultation.
These include:
- Clarifying policies throughout the Framework: including setting out more clearly the respective roles of different types of plans and what needs to be considered in decision-making (e.g. how transport impacts, pollution, heritage, protected landscapes and safety for women and girls should be reflected in planning decisions).
- Increasing the ambition of the ‘default yes’ for development around well-connected stations: expanding the scope of the policy to the top 80 Travel to Work Areas (TTWAs) by Gross Value Added, as opposed to the top 60 TTWAs proposed in the consultation.
- Updating policies to support increased densities: supporting more types of development within the curtilage of residential properties and ensuring that extra floorspace rather than just extra units are supported – giving more flexibility to expand accommodation of all types.
- Tailoring minimum densities to maximise overall supply: by adjusting our approach to minimum densities around rail stations and ensuring local areas maximise densities where they can be supported, we have maintained an ambitious approach, while avoiding unviable requirements in areas that cannot support them.
- Requiring flexibility when applying parking standards to large retail and similar redevelopment schemes: making it easier to regenerate sites.
- Recognising the role of strategic sites: by creating a consistent and distinct category of sites comprising around 1,500 units or more, with policies tailored to support them where relevant.
- Revising policy on local standards: by maintaining that quantitative standards in development plans should be limited to matters where local variation is justified and setting out clearly the circumstances in which local standards for energy efficiency and internal layout may be justified.
- Providing clearer support for telecommunications development: ensuring schemes can come forward in appropriate locations, including where this can improve connectivity for rail users.
- Updating policies which safeguard against the loss of facilities: ensuring that key facilities such as public houses are not lost where that can reasonably be avoided.
- Strengthening policy on Protected Landscapes: reinserting text to make clear that major development should be refused other than in exceptional cases. Landscape and scenic beauty in Protected Landscapes will also remain protected by statute.
NDMPs
As Nicola notes:
There has, however, been a slight softening of the transitional provisions, as they apply to policies in currently adopted local plans, albeit they still have significant teeth. In the consultation draft, local plan policies that were “in any way inconsistent with the national decision-making policies in this Framework should be given very limited weight”. This has now been amended, so that it only relates to policies, or parts of policies, that are “materially inconsistent” with the national decision-making policies in the Framework.
According to the consultation response:
The purpose of national decision-making policies, as set out in the consultation, remains unchanged. However, the government recognises concerns that the drafting, by seeking to prevent the modification of national decision-making policies, could impose an inappropriate degree of rigidity. The policy wording has been amended so that plans not ‘modifying’ national policies has been replaced with plans not including policies 13 that ‘are inconsistent’ with national policies. This is considered to provide a degree of flexibility to plan makers, where it would be appropriate to add additional detail to a local policy, and seeks to address concerns raised on the use of other policies set out in PM2. However, to help ensure national decision-making policies are implemented effectively, plan policies should not be inconsistent with national policies.
As Zack says:
Nonetheless, powerful though it may be, last December's Missed Chance of the Year is August's too. The provisions in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 at section 93 (which I talked about here) remain on the statute books but have not yet been brought into force. Is this new NPPF the best that can be done without the statute? Probably. Is it the fudge I described in December? For sure. Every one of those "materially inconsistent" arguments will now be had, case by case, in front of officers, committees and inspectors. It didn't have to be this way. Alas. A fudge we have. But it’s a bold fudge.
In relation to the coming arguments about what is materially inconsistent, according to the consultation response:
The government has considered these responses and has decided to take forward the proposed approach to simplifying terminology in the revised Framework. The potential benefits of a hierarchy of terms have been noted, but on balance the government considers that this is outweighed by the greater clarity of a standardised approach. The weight to be given to specific considerations remains a matter for decision-makers, to be determined on the facts of individual cases.
The government says this standardised approach will provide greater clarity, while the weight to be given to specific considerations “remains a matter for decision-makers, to be determined on the facts of individual cases”.
One decision-makers ‘significant’ will still be another decision-makers ‘substantial’ and so on and so it remains the case that a sliding scale of weight would still be beneficial.
Strategic & Local Planning
Some points of note from the consultation response.
In response to concerns about burden and disruption, policy has been amended so that SPAs will be expected to begin preparing an alteration or replacement SDS where there has been a significant change in circumstances including a significant change in housing need and, in any event, after 7 years from adoption.
After carefully considering consultation responses, the government has decided to maintain the current approach which means that only housing requirement figures from SDSs that are under 5 years old can be used in Housing Delivery Test or 5-year housing land supply calculations.
A minor change has, however, been made to PM10(1)(a) to make clear that plan-making authorities should engage with relevant bodies to identify where additional capacity from existing infrastructure is needed as well as new infrastructure. Guidance will also be published to support authorities in meeting the expectations in these policies. The government will also continue to work with relevant government departments and infrastructure bodies to improve alignment between long-term infrastructure planning and development plan-making, including through wider infrastructure planning reforms.
It is noted that we now have a longer strategic planning horizon, with the SDS minimum plan period increasing from 20 to 25 years.
The NPPF introduces a requirement to set out the type, extent and broad location of strategic infrastructure needed to enable development and serve existing communities, including transport, social infrastructure, waste infrastructure, utilities provision (including renewable and low carbon energy, electricity network, telecommunications and water and wastewater infrastructure) and flood risk management schemes. SDS should also make provision for infrastructure that is committed to in the 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy, sectoral spatial plans and any planned strategic infrastructure identified in local transport plans.
This has got to be a good thing because I am aware of land promoters having very real issues on some sites with, for example, electricity connections at the moment.
Is though hard to imagine utility companies engaging in the SDS process and unless they are compelled to. On the basis that they do though the need for such matters to be as important to local plans and planning applications will be less, which has also got to be a good thing.
Less positively, at least in my opinion and the opinions of Martin Taylor and Matthew Spry at Lichfields is the new ‘flexibility’ on local plan timescales, with the minimum plan period reducing from fifteen to ten years.
From the consultation response:
The government has considered these responses and notes the overall support for longer plan periods. However, we recognise the range of comments supporting flexibility for plan-makers. For these reasons we consider that plan periods should allow for both long-term planning and local flexibility to be able to be responsive to local circumstances. The policy has therefore been revised to expect local plans to cover a minimum period of 10 years 12 from adoption, while making clear that longer time periods continue to be appropriate where this supports, for example, the delivery of strategic development and infrastructure.
This is what Martin shared on LinkedIn:
I just can't help but think that one of the biggest changes, to 10-year minimum Local Plan periods from 15, is... well... short-sighted. It doesn't appear from the consultation response to have been a particularly popular one and, despite retaining flexibility to do so, might it create too little incentive to think big, think strategic to shape an area's spatial strategy and be bold with larger scale development and associated infrastructure over longer periods? SDS' might plug some of the gap longer term, but in the meantime? I can see a few draft Plans being scaled back.
This is Matthew’s blog, which articulates concerns about this move far better than I could do.
Given that 69% of consultation respondent disagreed with this move, it is presumably a personal priority of somebody very senior within MHCLG. Somebody committed, perhaps, to increasing plan coverage and ultimately of a view that any plan is better than no plan. I take a different view because I do not think that the LGR, SDS and local plan reform agendas can be pursued in parallel. Plan-making wheels have to turn, of course, and there will be places capable of adopting good places in short order, but with everything going on something has to give and that something, in the grand scheme of things (and with NDMPs encouraging sensible propositions in the meantime) something has to give and something has to be local plans.
Just finally, and representative perhaps of another lowering of the bar, local plans should now identify “appropriate sites” for development. The draft text said authorities should identify “the most appropriate sites” for development. The Government says the change was made “to respond to concerns this would place significant burdens on plan-makers and would be inconsistent with the tests of soundness”.
Grey Belt
Associated guidance has now been brought into the NPPF at Annex E in relation to Green Belt assessments and identifying grey belt land. Importantly, the new NPPF includes the simplification of the ‘grey belt’ definition: “land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d)” of the Green Belt. The new definition removes previous reference to potential disqualifying factors where (the former) ‘footnote 7’ assets provided a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. Support remains for development on grey belt land where there is an evidenced unmet need in that this is not seen as inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
Viability
From the consultation response:
The government will continue to promote clarity at the plan-making stage on expected contributions in order to reduce the need for negotiation at decision-making stage. However, Planning Practice Guidance on viability will continue to make clear that viability assessment in plan-making should be proportionate and should not require individual testing of every site or assurance that individual sites are viable.
The government also recognises the need for greater clarity and consistency in the application of viability policy. However, as set out in response to Question 212 at Annex B – Viability: Standardised inputs in viability assessment, the government has decided to not take forward a technical annex to include standardised inputs in viability assessment. While we understand the need for a consistent framework for evaluating development proposals and certainty in the viability assessment process, we consider that further engagement is needed with local planning authorities, developers, development surveyors and other key stakeholders. This will ensure that any changes are thoroughly tested prior to implementation. Viability Planning Practice Guidance will continue to provide guidance on standardised inputs – and policy DM5 is clear that viability assessment should be carried out in accordance with this guidance. The government appreciates the feedback received and will use it to inform a wider update of the Planning Practice Guidance, to be published as soon as possible.
Policy DM5 on development viability sets out a range of scenarios where viability tests might be appropriate to reduce planning contributions from a site to levels below that expected in local policy. The policy says viability tests are reasonable where:
- The development proposed is different from that envisaged during the local plan examination.
- The site characteristics “differ substantially” from those assumed during the plan process.
- The site is burdened by unforeseeable costs.
- Economic circumstances have changed significantly.
Local Standards
The Government has opted not to bar local authorities from setting energy-efficiency standards for new housing that exceed national building regulations. Instead, a new paragraph in policy PM13 outlines the circumstances in which LPAs can set out local energy-efficiency standards. The response document says the government has backed down on this issue following concerns that the draft’s approach “could hinder local authorities’ ability to address climate change in their areas”. The government also says it will not commence section 43 of the Deregulation Act 2015, which would have legally barred LPAs from setting higher energy-efficiency standards than Building Regulations.
I wrote in January that “it is to be hoped that the Government stays firm in this regard because, as Simon Ricketts is want to say, it is historic acceptance of local exceptionalism that is why the system has become so labyrinthine.” The Government did not stay firm.
Amending Consents
From the consultation response:
Respondents generally highlighted the need to improve the efficiency, clarity and consistency of the process for modifying planning obligations under section 106A, while maintaining confidence that agreed affordable housing and infrastructure contributions will be delivered. Relatedly, some respondents suggested that further guidance on the interpretation and application of s106A legislation, or standard templates to support the modification process, could be developed.
Many respondents raised concern about the submission of section 73 applications to obtain planning permission with a lower level of affordable housing or other obligations. Respondents emphasised that any proposed reductions to affordable housing or other contributions should be robustly evidenced.
The government has considered these responses and acknowledges the need for a more detailed review of the statutory framework for amending planning obligations. The government will use the feedback received through this consultation to inform that review and set out further details in due course.
Conditions & Obligations
From the consultation response:
The government has considered these responses and is taking forward the policy largely as consulted on, noting the support for the approach set out in policy DM6. Working with the Planning Inspectorate, the government will develop a suite of national model conditions and begin publishing these before the end of the year. In developing these, the government will work closely with the sector and will provide guidance to support their use in practice. Revisions have been made to policy DM6(4) to align with the approach for planning conditions so that, where national model planning obligations are relevant to a development, they should be used unless there are strong reasons to depart from them. The government is taking forward a programme of work with the Planning Advisory Service to support and streamline the process of section 106 agreements, with an initial focus on medium sites. The government will consult on draft standard template planning agreements for medium sites, which are designed to reduce delays and resource burdens on local planning authorities and SME housebuilders.
The consultation on standard planning agreements for medium-sized sites emerged this week, to which the immediate response of many has been why not make it, and the inclusion of cascade agreements, mandatory rather than discretionary.
Other Regulatory Regimes
From the consultation response:
The government has considered these responses and is retaining the policy. The policy reflects established case law, allowing decision-makers to judge, on a case-by-case basis, whether such matters (dealt with by other regulatory regimes) are material to the planning decision, but that these regimes are assumed to operate effectively unless there is evidence to the contrary.
The Presumption
From the consultation response:
Respondents also raised concerns that the approach could cut across the plan-led system.
Cut across or do the job of?
The definition of well-connected station has broadened so it now means:
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)72 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.
A list of well-connected stations would probably be helpful, but as Lichfields have noted, the TTWA and frequency thresholds mean some locations remain out of the picture. “The Burnham Government’s “growth in every postcode” mantra does not quite hold true when it comes to rail stations.”
The minimum density requirements for these sites has also been adjusted from the consultation draft and is likely to be more workable under the revised proposals.
The requirements are now for “a density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare should be achieved within the net developable area of the site. Higher densities – of at least 45 dwellings per hectare – should be achieved where the service frequency is at least twice that of the minimum required for a well-connected station.“
Another point of note from the consultation response:
Where development to address an evidenced unmet need is proposed outside settlements, sub-paragraph (1)(j)(i) of the policy already requires that it be ‘well-related’ to an existing settlement, but further clarification has been added that this means ‘physically’ well-related. In paragraph (1)(j)(ii), reference to ‘storage and distribution’ has been updated to ‘freight and logistics’ in response to feedback, and for consistency across relevant NPPF policies.
The implications of evidenced unmet need, as written about here by Annie Gingell, is potentially massive.
Mark Fessey has picked up on it and shared the following on LinkedIn.
Sorry to bang on, but we have to be clear on the motivation to prepare a Local Plan. That used to be to ensure an up-to-date plan so as to avoid 'the presumption' applying for decision-making purposes, but I don't think that language works any more. It's now avoiding an 'evidenced unmet need'... so as to avoid a default yes... in respect of decision-making outside of settlements... but what does that mean?
In old money an evidenced unmet need would mean having a 5YHLS and passing the HDT, as measured against your housing requirement, but now you perhaps also have to be providing for affordable housing needs in full?
The thing is though that surely hardly any local plans provide for affordable housing need in full (ref. countless Inspectors reports that have considered but dismissed the option of a boost to the housing requirement so as to more fully provide for AH needs) and, of course, where a plan is adopted with a housing requirement set below LHN (on the grounds of sustainable development) it's even less likely that it will be providing for AH needs in full.
Align this with the fact that the great majority of developments outside of settlements involving 10+ homes will deliver some AH, does that then mean that there will often be a default yes to developments outside of settlements even where the local authority has a 5YHLS and passes the HDT (unless the proposed scheme is inappropriate development in the Green Belt)?
Transport
Chris Holdup posted this on LinkedIn:
Judging by some of the reaction since yesterday, you might be forgiven for thinking that development at 799m from a station is sustainable, while at 801m everyone needs to get back in their cars. That isn’t actually what the NPPF says. The 800m “reasonable walking distance” is a defined gateway into some particularly favourable policy routes for development around well-connected stations. It isn’t a new national definition of a sustainable location. Importantly, the wider approach to sustainable locations remains. #TR3 carries forward the principle that development can be in a location which is sustainable or can be made so, looking at the need to travel and genuine choice of transport modes rather than applying a single distance threshold. The new framework also gives the #ConnectivityTool an explicit role alongside other quantitative and qualitative evidence, while TR1 brings land use and transport planning together more explicitly in considering where development should go, including the mix of uses and the number and length of journeys people actually need to make. #TR4 then puts walking, wheeling and cycling first in considering movement within a development and its connections with neighbouring areas. So yes, let's interrogate 800m. But the bigger challenge for those of us working in development transport planning remains the more interesting one: understanding how people can actually get around, what they need to get to, and how walking, cycling and public transport can work together with the surrounding land uses and destinations to make a place genuinely accessible and sustainable. There’s still going to be plenty for transport planners to do beyond measuring 800m from the nearest platform, and I’m looking forward to testing what lies beyond that threshold.
Neighbourhood Plans
From the consultation response:
The government has considered these responses and notes the overall support for strengthening the role of neighbourhood plans in delivering housing. It considers that a clearer link between neighbourhood planning and housing delivery is necessary to support the effectiveness and credibility of the plan-led system. Requiring neighbourhood plans to include site allocations to benefit from the policy framework provides a transparent and measurable way of demonstrating this contribution.
Mixed Tenure Thresholds
From the consultation response:
The government has carefully considered the responses received, and, on balance, has decided to remove the reference to the specific threshold of 150 homes for mixed tenure requirements. The introduction of a definition of ‘strategic sites’, with an indicative 48 threshold of 1,500 units, already sets clear expectations for mixed tenure development at this scale. Below this threshold, we want to ensure a mix of tenures can come forward on sites across a range of sizes, where appropriate and deliverable. Setting a fixed threshold could limit local flexibility in responding to different site considerations, and hinder development.
Medium Sites.
From the consultation response:
The government has carefully considered these responses and, on balance, has decided to retain the requirement in policy HO6 for local plans to allocate land to accommodate 10% of the housing requirement on sites of between 1 and 2.5 hectares. This proposal will help to boost the supply of medium-sized sites, provide greater certainty to SME developers at different stages of the planning process and encourage development across a range of site sizes. This will support the government’s wider ambitions to diversify the housing market and accelerate build-out, as we know sites of these sizes tend to be delivered by SME housebuilders and built out more quickly.
As Nicola Gooch said, this would be a lot more helpful if there were policies in the Framework that exclusively applied to medium development.
Catherine Williams at the HBF went further, posting this on LinkedIn.
Like many others, I spent yesterday afternoon and evening reading the NPPF and the Government's response to the consultation. Whilst much has been said about development around train stations, heralded as a default 'yes', the NPPF fails in my view to make significant changes in support of SMEs. Whilst Government has proceeded to create a new 'medium' site category, I can't find any policies that will make a meaningful difference to those progressing these sites. Crucially, a key policy in the draft consultation has not been progressed into the final version, namely the ability to elect to make a financial contribution in lieu of affordable housing provision on site. Policy HO8 maintains that where this is proposed it needs to be robustly justified and contributes to the objective of meeting mixed and balance communities. For a large part of the sector the ongoing issues around RP capacity and desire to acquire s106 units on these smaller sites will remain unaddressed as a result. Despite the rhetoric, this is another missed opportunity to address the plight of SMEs.
Affordable Housing
From the consultation response:
The government has considered these responses and has decided not to proceed with proposals to allow applicants discretion to deliver social and affordable housing requirements via cash payments in lieu of on-site delivery on medium sites. This reflects concerns that, at this time, it could have a detrimental impact on the manifesto commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation and to strengthen planning obligations to ensure new developments provide more affordable homes. However, the government recognises that challenges remain, particularly for SME developers where there is limited registered provider appetite to acquire small numbers of Section 106 affordable homes. To help address this, the government will publish guidance to improve clarity, consistency and confidence in the use of commuted sums (see response to Question 69 and 70).
This is what Mark White had to say about this on LinkedIn.
I feel compelled to echo what others have said and express my disappointment that this week’s revised publication of the NPPF has dropped the motion to relax affordable housing rules for sites of between 10-49 homes. The decline of the SME has been talked about in every housebuilding forum that I attend, chair or contribute to. There are too many SMEs reducing their build programmes, or even sadder, ceasing trading altogether. “SMEs are the backbone of our economy", “SMEs are the crucial engine for growth” and similar sentiments are soundbites that have been thrown around Westminster and the press as a matter of course in recent times. But soundbites are all they amount to. Since 2024, when Labour fired the starting pistol for 1.5 million new homes, SMEs have committed to growing our sector’s contribution to the target. We have the potential to grow by the largest percentage. It’s the ability to scale up without compromising on quality that makes small and medium housebuilders so invaluable to the overall health of the new homes industry – and the economy as a whole. The government has pushed Homes England forward as part of the solution, but at present I have not seen or heard of any case studies that show the money is filtering into SMEs at pace. But we’re told the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is in listening mode. I therefore remain hopeful that the Autumn Budget offers some immediate, meaningful help.
I would also comment Nick Cuff’s blog on this, the conclusion of which I feel worthy of repeating in full.
The debate has now produced a clear analytical conclusion, even if the policy hasn’t caught up with it. There are two coherent approaches to affordable housing delivery on medium sites. The first is to fund it properly — to give Homes England the resource and the mandate to act as a genuine backstop buyer on uncontracted S106 units, to capitalise the clearing service properly, and to ensure that grant funding reaches small sites and rural communities rather than concentrating on large urban schemes. The second is to free it — to design a cash-in-lieu mechanism that is tightly ring-fenced, directed to registered providers rather than LPA general accounts, set at a level that reflects the true cost of delivery including a land value component, and subject to time limits that prevent funds sitting unspent for five years.
What is not coherent is the current position: maintaining the on-site requirement as the default, while the clearing service is underfunded, while £700 million of affordable housing contributions sits unspent, while 8,500 affordable homes in the near-term pipeline have no RP, and while the probability of securing an RP on a site of fewer than 33 units is materially below 50%.
The NHF’s own consultation response makes the case for the second option more clearly than their public position suggests. The HBF’s data makes the case for the first option more urgently than the government has acknowledged. The NPPF’s decision to sidestep both is not a protection of affordable housing delivery. It is a deferral of a problem that is already costing the country homes it urgently needs.
Social Rent
From the consultation response:
The government is committed to prioritising the building of new social rent homes. However, having carefully considered the concerns raised through the consultation, we have decided not to set a fixed minimum proportion of social rent at this time. The government will continue to require authorities to identify the proportion of social rent needed in their areas and set out requirements clearly in local plans. This approach maintains the role of local plans in setting overall affordable housing requirements and determining where contributions are sought, while providing a clear expectation that social 51 rent should form part of the tenure mix. The government considers this strikes a more proportionate balance between strengthening delivery of social rent and allowing flexibility to reflect local viability considerations and housing need. We will continue to monitor the impact of these requirements, introduced in December 2024, over a longer timeframe, and will keep the approach under review.
Freight & Logistics
From the consultation response:
The government has considered these responses and has decided to take forward the proposed policies. No significant changes have been made to the chapter in response to the views received. Additional references to market signals have been incorporated into policy E1 in response to feedback that national policy should make explicit that this is a factor to consider in informing employment land requirements and allocations at the plan-making stage. A glossary term for freight and logistics has been introduced to clarify the types of uses that policy E3 applies to, in response to feedback that it could be interpreted widely.
Making effective use of land
From the consultation response:
Policy L1(1)(a) has been amended to encourage plans to identify specific areas with scope to support intensification through additional development. This will enable local plans to better support the intensification of urban and suburban areas encouraged by policy L2, and ensure that this development comes forward in the right places. Policies L1(1)(a)(iii) and (b) have been amended to provide additional clarity about the types of opportunities which plans may promote, and the role of masterplans in helping to optimise these.
The government has also amended the parameters for development within residential curtilages in policy L2(1)(d)(iii). This change supports greater flexibility, by enabling development to come forward where it does not meet all of the policy safeguards, provided it would not harm the overall character of the area and has regard to infrastructure capacity and sustainable locations. Taken together, these changes support ambitions to make the best use of land in built-up areas and encourage a range of development proposals to come forward in appropriate locations, while responding to the character of local areas.
That’s right, Folks. Garden grabbing is back.
This is what Russell Curtis had to say on LinkedIn:
What people don't seem to have realised (until now) is that "residential curtilages" means back gardens. Yes, in theory, your garden - provided that it's sufficiently large to meet the dimensional requirements established elsewhere in the policy - could be developed for new housing. Good.
California has the principle of ADUs ("Auxiliary Dwelling Unit"), where smaller self-contained structures can be installed in rear yards to create a new home. It makes perfect sense that a back garden, if not needed by the resident of the host house. A similar principle here is very much welcome.
When it arrives in the coming days, the LondonPlan small site design code, partly written by us here at RCKa, will establish a similar principle across the capital. If you own an end-of-terrace or townhouse which has a back garden with direct access to the public highway, your chances of securing planning permission for a new home will be greatly improved.
This has the potential to unlock a huge wave of small-scale housing delivery; and I'm fascinated by the opportunity this presents for homeowners who want to create a new home for ageing parents or adult children. With increased systemisation (which the design code will encourage through standard house types) we should be able to deliver thousands of new homes across London's suburbs.
Build Out
The draft first broached the delivery aspect through HO13 (Build out of residential and mixed-use sites). The policy name has changed to build out of residential and strategic sites, with the wording sharpened in places:
Part 2 states that:
For all proposals involving housing, consideration should be given to whether to impose a planning condition requiring that development begins within a timescale shorter than the relevant statutory default period, where this would expedite the development without threatening its implementation or viability.
Part 5 states that:
Paragraph 1 of this policy applies to strategic sites involving the provision of housing, and to other major development involving the provision of housing. Paragraph 2 applies to all development involving the provision of housing. Paragraphs 3 and 4 apply to all strategic sites.
This will inevitably (and intentionally) put delivery under the lens, especially as LPAs will be eager to include more delivery from more sites in 5YHLS trajectories. A further consequence could be more frequent requests for shorter reserved matters submission periods.
Design
From the consultation response:
The government will publish the final Design and Placemaking Planning Practice Guidance in the autumn. This will provide practical advice on creating high-quality places and on the use of design tools. The government also intends to publish a series of Model Design Codes. These will be standard design codes for common development types, such as large housebuilder-led sites and small urban sites, to help local planning authorities save time and resources by avoiding the need to create local design codes for repeatable development types.
I enjoyed this post from Ben Castell on LinkedIn.
It's slightly frustrating that the street design policy in the new NPPF still links to the good old Manual for Streets. I am not saying it's over the hill now, but I took this photo for the document and the baby in it is now in their twenties and the young mother....well, I can't say what decade she's in now because I subsequently married her and daren't.
I also spotted this from Deborah Denner on LinkedIn:
There's an extra sentence in today's newly published NPPF that's quite significant for anybody involved in design review.
For the first time, it includes a plan-making policy in Section DP1, which says that: "Development plans should, at the most appropriate level, set out clear design expectations by: setting out in what circumstances design review and other design processes will be required."
Design review provision and uptake is very patchy across England, and as far as I know, very few Local Plans currently have clear policies on when it should happen.
The use of supplementary plans should be limited to setting locally specific design standards and responding to changes in the area, the NPPF says. In the latter case, this should be where it is important to put in place policies “for a site or group of sites which the authority considers to be nearby to each other”.
The reference in the draft (and previous version) to refuse development proposals that are not well designed has been removed. Policy DP3 now says instead that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with key elements of the design policy, or with any explicit design standards set out in the development plan. Substantial weight is be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing the design quality of proposals.
The design policy includes a specific reference to women and girls in its instructions for designing public spaces. The government says the addition was made in response to calls for “explicit recognition of the safety of women and girls in public spaces”.
FRST & SUDs
From the consultation response:
In response to concerns about surface water, the government’s position is clear that it is not exempt from the sequential test altogether. Only sites at risk solely from surface water flooding may be exempt, and this is only where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that the proposed layout, design and mitigation will ensure safety over the development’s lifetime without increasing risk elsewhere.
There was also strong support for de-culverting and re-naturalising watercourses to deliver a range of environmental and flood risk benefits, although some concerns were raised about the need for clear definitions, robust enforcement and flexibility to allow justified exceptions where necessary. The government has considered these responses and is retaining the overall direction of the policy. However, an amendment has been made to include ‘harm to heritage assets’ as a consideration in policy F8(3) when determining whether removing an existing culvert is appropriate. This responds to concerns about ensuring a balanced and proportionate approach where there are site-specific constraints. The policy will continue to allow justified exceptions when supported by evidence and the mitigation hierarchy. The government recognises the importance of clear implementation and will consider how Planning Practice Guidance can support the applications of policy F8. The government acknowledges calls for stronger arrangements for the adoption and maintenance of SuDS, but considers that the objectives of Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 may be more effectively secured through improvements to national planning policy and supporting guidance, alongside wider work on adoption and maintenance arrangements. A final decision on this will be made separately in due course.
Protected Landscapes
The Government seemingly has backtracked on a more permissive approach it took in the draft to development in protected landscapes (defined as national parks and national landscapes), reinserting the instruction that proposals for major development in such areas should be “refused” other than in exceptional circumstances. The draft had said such proposals “should only be supported” in exceptional circumstances. The final version also clarifies that the public interest test should be separate, whereas the draft version had implied that it was part of the same test. The changes were made following concern in the consultation that protections had been weakened through changes to the wording.
However, the instruction that “substantial” weight should be given to the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of these areas, replacing the “great weight” that the previous NPPF said should be given, is retained. The government states that the change is “not intended nor considered to diminish the actual weight which would be given to the importance of these areas in policy terms”.
What signal does this send to plan-makers with protected landscapes? There is a map of National Landscapes here. There are plenty of them…
Stat Cons
From the consultation response:
Having carefully considered the responses received and the strong opposition to removing Sport England’s statutory consultee status, the government has decided to retain Sport England as a statutory consultee. We have decided Sport England will now be a statutory consultee on the most significant cases, including applications involving the physical loss of playing fields for housing or commercial development, and substantial school or sports development on playing fields.
At this stage, the government does not intend to amend wider referral criteria or change statutory consultee involvement in voluntary pre-application engagement or post-approval processes. However, we will continue to work closely with statutory consultees and LPAs to consider further evidence in these areas.
In response to consultation feedback around adding referral criteria for organisations, such as water companies, please refer to our response to consultation Questions 32 to 34. Respondent feedback on capacity constraints will also inform our forthcoming consultation on the planning fee surcharge and our work to develop a new performance framework for statutory consultees.
It needs to be said over and over again that a large amount of the grit would be taken from the system if the Government did change statutory consultee involvement in voluntary pre-application engagement or post-approval processes.
HDT
From the consultation response:
The 2024 and 2025 Housing Delivery Tests and an update to the Housing Delivery Test rule book have been published alongside this consultation response. The government has published both sets of results to re-establish a regular Housing Delivery Test publication cycle and ensure local authorities are being assessed against the most up-to-date data. As part of wider efforts to simplify and streamline Housing Delivery Test calculations, the government has also implemented changes to the way the Housing Delivery Test has been calculated, informed by sector feedback outside of this consultation. This includes the removal of unmet need adjustments to Local Housing Need calculations. Unmet need is often inconsistently identified across local plans, making it complex and challenging to apply adjustments consistently, and resulting in some areas being measured against targets which did not accurately reflect need in their area. This change means that local 58 authorities will be measured against either their plan requirement (where any agreed unmet need being taken or transferred to neighbouring authorities is already reflected within these figures), or Local Housing Need. The government considers this provides a more accurate and transparent measure of an area’s housing requirement in the Housing Delivery Test. This change has been applied to the 2024 and 2025 Housing Delivery Test results. Further, in recognition that it can take time for new housing targets to be reflected in housing delivery figures, the government has introduced a transitional arrangement for the new standard method (published in December 2024) to apply to the Housing Delivery Test. This transitional arrangement means the previous version of the standard method will continue to be used to calculate Local Housing Need until the 2026/27 measurement year.
Reflections
As Zack said:
Credit where it’s due, folks: this is a big swing. A comprehensive policy that deserves to be taken seriously. This is, among many other things, the kind of document that only happens with an experienced Planning Minister in post long enough to get to grips with the brief (not something we’ve been used to in the plan-i-verse for many a year).
As Nicola said:
The final NPPF follows the direction of travel set by the consultation draft. There don’t appear to have been any major shifts as a result of the change in Prime Minister – which is both really quite reassuring for longer term planning and actually means that we can run redline versions this time around. It remains a document designed to standardise and streamline – with a view to boosting development and economic growth, whilst keeping a close eye on the need to ensure the impacts of that growth are mitigated. Any claims that it is a Developer’s or a NIMBY’s charter would be misplaced.
The reflections in my January blog still stand.
What next?
As Zack says:
The IOU pile is full to bursting. Count them. Statutory NDMPs: under review. Soundness guidance: in due course. SDS/local plan relationship guidance: to be published. Traveller sites PPG: in due course. Commuted sums guidance: to be developed. s.106A: a review. National model conditions: "before the end of the year". Statutory consultee reform: response "later this year". Planning fee surcharge: consultation "later this year". PiP for medium sites: "further engagement". Viability PPG: "as soon as possible". A rules-based system whose rules are, in a dozen places, still being written. In. Due. Course.
Comments
Post a Comment