20.12.2023

Merry Gove-mas! The revised NPPF lands....with a stocking full of further announcements, interventions and funding pledges..

So there we have it. The revised NPPF has arrived. A mere twelve months after the consultation draft was published; nine months after that consultation closed, and after DLUHC have reviewed over 23,000 responses submitted by stakeholders, interested parties and members of the public.

And was it worth the wait? Well, that really does depend on your point of view. 

If you are looking for evidence that over 23,000 responses to a consultation might the power to influence policy direction, then, you might feel a little heartened.

The revised NPPF is still quite similar to that published on 22 December 2022, but there have been several changes and adjustments which make the whole thing feel generally more… workable…. just about.

Unfortunately, it still includes some policy proposals that are either internally logically inconsistent or are simply… well… odd.

I will get into the substance of the changes in a moment but, to get onto my soapbox, internal inconsistencies within the NPPF (or indeed any national policy statement) are not a good thing. They create uncertainty and leave the entire sector in an insidious position. I mean how can you comply with a set of policies that pull in two directly opposite directions simultaneously? 

If care is not taken, then LPAs and developers alike will be left like a distraught Ned Flanders, shaking their fists at the proverbial heavens* and exclaiming “I've done everything the NPPF says — even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!” with still no certainty as to outcome.

Right, so, lets get into it. What exactly am I talking about?

NPPF December 2023

A redline comparison draft showing the changes between the revised  NPPF and the consultation version can be downloaded from the link below. It will help make sense of what follows. 

Housing Supply, Need, Delivery & Buffers

Firstly, the requirement for LPAs to mainten a rolling 5-year housing land supply has been removed, but crucially not in all circumstances.

In order to benefit from the change, an LPA must:

• Have an adopted plan that is less than five years old;
• Have had that adopted plan examined by PINS (strategic reviews don't count); and 
• Have identified in that local plan at least a 5-year supply of specific, deliverable sites at the time the examination concluded.

In short, to be exempt from the requirement to annually demonstrate a 5-year land supply, a plan must be examined and adopted every 5 years and have identified at least a 5-year supply of land at the time its examination concluded.

The Housing Delivery Test is remaining, unaltered, for now and whilst some changes are being made to the ‘buffer’ requirements they are not going completely.  Instead, the 5% and 10% buffers have been removed, with the 20% buffer being left in place.

This 20% buffer is the penalty applied to LPAs who have failed to meet the Housing Delivery Test. Its application is, however being narrowed to those Councils that have underdelivered against the Housing Delivery Test and do not have a plan in place that has identified at least a 5-year supply of land at the time its examination concluded.

The proposed changes to the tests of soundness for local plans have been abandoned for now - so ‘justified’ is here to stay for the moment. The proposed consultation wording relating to the use of the standard method has, however, been adopted in full. 

It now reads as follows:

“To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance. The outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting-point for establishing a housing requirement for the area (see paragraph 67 below). There may be exceptional circumstances, including relating to the particular demographic characteristics of an area25 which justify an alternative approach to assessing housing need; in which case the alternative approach should also reflect current and future demographic trends and market signals. In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for26.”

We do also have additional wording in relation to the calculation of need - including those pivotal six additional words intended to support the delivery of older persons housing. 

Paragraph 63 of the Framework now reads:

“Within this context of establishing need, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies. These groups should include (but are not limited to) those who require affordable housing; families with children; older people (including those who require retirement housing, housing-with-care and care homes); students; people with disabilities; service families; travellers28; people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes29.”

which is, I suppose, helpful in its way. 

The Urban Uplift

The Urban Uplift remains and is just as problematic as before (this is the policy that riles my inner Ned Flanders the most). Albeit the revised version refers to specified cities and towns designated in national policy guidance, as opposed to the “20 most populated cities and urban centres”.

The new paragraph states that:

“The standard method incorporates an uplift which applies to certain cities and urban centres, as set out in national planning guidance. This uplift should be accommodated within those cities and urban centres themselves except where there are voluntary cross boundary redistribution agreements in place, or where it would conflict with the policies in this Framework27.”

Why does this particular paragraph get under my skin so much? Well at the moment, a large proportion of the authorities to which the uplift applies are constrained by Green Belt (see below) or, in the alternative, contain a large proportion of sub-urban areas of low density. 

These areas are now protected by a new paragraph 130 which states:

“In applying paragraphs 129a and b above to existing urban areas, significant uplifts in the average density of residential development may be inappropriate if the resulting built form would be wholly out of character with the existing area. Such circumstances should be evidenced through an authority-wide design code which is adopted or will be adopted as part of the development plan.”

As such, it remains perfectly possible for Green Belt authorities that are subject to the urban uplift to simply not deliver it, provided they have an authority-wide design code in place, on the basis that:

• the NPPF does not require them to review their Green Belt boundaries to deliver housing; and 
•  the required densification would be ‘wholly out of character with the existing area’. 

Green Belt

The amended wording on Green Belt protection has softened considerably since the consultation draft was published. 

The wording has gone from the below in the December 2022 draft:

"Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where
exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Green Belt boundaries are not required to be reviewed and altered if this would be the only means of meeting the objectively assessed need for housing over the plan period. 

Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period. Where a need for changes to Green Belt boundaries has been established through strategic policies, detailed amendments to those boundaries may be made through non-strategic policies, including neighbourhood plans."

to the following from the December 2023 version:

“Once established, there is no requirement for Green Belt boundaries to be reviewed or changed when plans are being prepared or updated. Authorities may choose to review and alter Green Belt boundaries where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, in which case proposals for changes should be made only through the plan-making process. Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period. Where a need for changes to Green Belt boundaries has been established through strategic policies, detailed amendments to those boundaries may be made through non- strategic policies, including neighbourhood plans.”

Which is a decided improvement on the consultation draft, albeit still a long way from giving the housing crisis, or indeed the real need for economic development, the recognition it deserves. 

Beauty, Mansard Roofs & Farming

Despite recognising in the consultation response (which can be accessed here) that most of the respondents did not find the continual references to ‘beauty’ in the NPPF remotely helpful, DLUHC has decided to retain them. 

The strangely specific policies in favour of Mansard Roofs have also survived the consultation process, albeit with a lot more caveats, definitions and explanatory text than originally proposed.

The footnote stressing the importance of land for food production has also been retained. An amendment which is likely to generate a whole new subgenre of appeal arguments for rural LPAs in the not too distant future.

The Speech: Interventions, Announcements & Unintended Consequences

The revised NPPF did not, however, arrive on its own. It followed a barn-storming speech in which the Secretary of State promised to:

• Consult on measures to limit the use of extension of time agreements by LPAs; 
• Publish league tables of LPA  performance; 
• Launch a rapid, three-month review into the wider statutory consultee system; and
• Get tough with LPAs who are not performing.

And get tough, he most certainly did.

During the course of the afternoon, the Secretary of State has intervened in seven councils on the basis that they neither a plan adopted in the current plan making system nor have a currently submitted a draft plan for local plan examination. The affected LPAs are:

• Amber Valley
• Ashfield
•  Basildon
• Castle Point
• Medway
• St Albans; and 
• Uttlesford.

The afternoon also provided:

• A lengthy written ministerial statement;
• New planning guidance on the Green Belt and traveller sites
• A new direction preventing West Berkshire from withdrawing its Local Plan;
• The publication of the outcome of the 2022 Housing Delivery Test;
• The designation of Fareham and Chorley on the grounds of poor quality decision-making;
• A decidedly testy letter to the Mayor of London over housing delivery; and
• A response to the day's activities from the Chair of the Levelling-up Select Committee, which is probably best described as “unimpressed”.

It was not all a case of doom and gloom for LPAs however, as some carrots were handed out alongside the stick. We finally got the results of the Planning Skills Delivery Fund with 111 local authorities receiving funding for support with planning application backlogs and 36 local authorities for support with skills development.

This frantic activity is not without its risks, however. In particular, the proposals to significantly reduce the use of extensions of time and create what sounds suspiciously like an OFSTED for planning could backfire spectacularly.

Taken as a whole, however, it feels as if DHLUC is finally alive to just how precarious the government's legacy on housing delivery has become. The intention appears to be hold the entire sector, developers and LPAs alike, to account in an attempt to turn things around; or, at least, to find an alternative explanation for the government failing to do so.

It is also probably a sign of things to come that large proportions of the transcript of the Secretary of State's speech now read “[political content removed]”.

Merry Gove-mas one and all! 

Enjoy the break. From the looks of it 2024 will be a busy old year….

 

 

*in this case Marsham Street

 

The National Planning Policy Framework was revised in response to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: reforms to national planning policy consultation on 19 December 2023 and sets out the government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

On 5 September 2023 the Secretary of State for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities issued a written ministerial statement to update policy on planning for onshore wind development in England.

This revised Framework replaces the previous National Planning Policy Framework published in March 2012, revised in July 2018, updated in February 2019, revised in July 2021 and updated in September 2023.

The online searchable version of the revised National Planning Policy Framework is also available.

The planning practice guidance to support the framework is published online.”