Festive Spot the Difference: The Revised NPPF has landed... but not *quite* as expected.

MHCLG have clearly been busy this year, as the new NPPF has landed slightly earlier than usual.  The traditional Christmas Eve policy reform has arrived a week early!

This additional time is handy, as the published draft is not quite the same as the consultation version. There are some important differences. Which just goes to show that MHCLG does actually read (and pay attention to) consultation responses*

So, it's time for a festive game of spot the difference from the Irwin Mitchell planning team. Let's take a look at some of the important stuff:

Transitional Provisions: When does it take effect

Let's start with the question on everyone's lips: how long do I have to get my head around all this?

For decision-taking: Not long. The revised NPPF takes effect immediately. 

Although with the caveat that planning policies should not be treated as out of date just because they pre-date the new NPPF. We need to weigh them in the light of their consistency with the revised framework. 

Also, for the very few Councils' who have set their Housing Land Supply through an annual position statement - those remain valid until they expire in the usual way.

For plan-making, things are a little bit different.

For the purpose of preparing local plans, the new NPPF will not kick in until 12 March 2025.

This is subject to the following caveats, which enable a plan to be examined under the previous version (or, as I shall now call it, the X-NPPF):

• where a plan has reached Reg 19 (pre-submission stage) on or before 12 March 2025, and its draft housing requirement meets at least 80% of local housing need
• where a plan has been submitted for examination under Regulation 22 on or before 12 March 2025. 
• where a plan includes policies to deliver the level of housing and other development set out in a preceding local plan (such as a joint local plan containing strategic policies) adopted since 12 March 2020
• the local plan is for an area where there is an operative Spatial Development Strategy, and the local plan has reached Regulation 19 (pre-submission stage) on or before 12 March 2025; and 
• the plan deals only with minerals and/or waste matters and has reached Regulation 19 on or before 12 March 2025; or has been submitted for examination under Regulation 22 on or before 12 March 2025. 

As previously, plans have been submitted for examination but don't meet at least 80% of their housing need, will have to start work on a new plan immediately.

Plans that reach Regulation 19 (pre-submission stage) on or before 12 March 2025 but don't meet at least 80% of local housing need should proceed to examination within a maximum of 18 months from 12 December 2024, or 24 months of that date if the plan has to return to the Regulation 18 stage.

There is, however, a sting in the tail of all of this extra time, and it relates to 5-year housing land supply. 

The New NPPF has added a new sub-paragraph to the requirement to provide a buffer over and above your 5-year housing land supply requirements. 

The new para 78 c) states that Councils now need to apply an additional 20% buffer for housing land supply:

“From 1 July 2026, for the purposes of decision-making only, ……where a local planning authority has a housing requirement adopted in the last five years examined against a previous version of this Framework, and whose annual average housing requirement is 80% or less of the most up to date local housing need figure calculated using the standard method set out in national planning practice guidance”

Which equates to a six-year housing land supply, instead of the usual five - which means that “baking in” the older figures through a plan adopted under the old NPPF might not be quite so helpful after all

How tilted is the tilted balance?

Well, not as tilted as the consultation draft NPPF would have suggested. 

The Government has moved away from the proposed wording for para 11(d)**, which would have applied the tilted balance to situations where the policy “for the supply of housing” are out of date; and instead made more modest changes.

The new paragraph 11 (d) now directs Councils to approve development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or

"d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: 

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance7 provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or 

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination".

The bits in bold are new. 

Footnote 7 remains largely unchanged, but we do have new footnotes 8 and 9, which read as follows:

"8 This includes, for applications involving the provision of housing, situations where: the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the appropriate buffer as set out in paragraph 78); or where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing was substantially below (less than 75% of) the housing requirement over the previous three years. See also paragraph 227. 

9 The policies referred to are those in paragraphs 66 and 84 of chapter 5; 91 of chapter 7; 110 and 115 of chapter 9; 129 of chapter 11; and 135 and 139 of chapter 12."

Which brings us right back to the transitional provisions and the consequences of not having an up-to-date plan. An old plan with less than 80% of your new housing need contained within it, means a 6-year housing land supply (not five) and increases the likelihood of your balance getting decidedly more tilty. 

There may still, however, be a slightly easier ride for those Councils with high levels of Neighbourhood Plan coverage - as paragraphs 13 and 14 of the new NPPF remain substantially unchanged. 

Housing Targets and Land Supply

As advertised, and promised, the December ‘23 changes to the X-NPPF have gone. So, the Urban Uplift is no more, and buffers are back with avengeance. Annual position statements have also gone the way of Monty Python’s Norwegian Blue.

Housing targets are still going up. In fact, for some Councils they go up even further than the consultation draft version of the standard method had suggested might be the case.

The Government's explanation for this - set out in its response to the consultation - is as follows: 

"The revised standard method incorporating the changes set out above sets a marginally lower local housing need for England of 370,408 compared to 371,541 under the method consulted on. It results in increases in assessed housing need in London, South East and East of England. For all other regions, housing need falls when compared to the method consulted on. Alongside the government response, we have published indicative assessed local housing need figures for local authorities in England using the new standard method."

Grey Belt, Green Belt and the Golden Rules

Well, there are a LOT of changes here. So, I am going to try and to group them together under subheadings.

Green Belt

• We now have confirmation, in para 146, that Councils should review their Green Belt boundaries “where an authority cannot meet its identified need for homes, commercial or other development through other means. If that is the case, authorities should review Green Belt boundaries in accordance with the policies in this Framework and 43 propose alterations to meet these needs in full, unless the review provides clear evidence that doing so would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt, when considered across the area of the plan”.
• There is, however, a new sequential test in place for this (see para 148). Well, in fact there are two. 
  • for green belt release " plans should give priority to previously developed land, then consider grey belt which is not previously developed, and then other Green Belt locations; but
  • when reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should determine whether a site’s location is appropriate, and “Strategic policy-making authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary”
• We also have new situations in which new development in the Green Belt would not be considered inappropriate (see para 154 and 155); including development on Grey Belt Land that would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan, where:
  • There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed
  • The development would be in a sustainable location
  •  Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements discussed below.

Previously Development Land

• We have an expanded definition of previously developed land, which expressly includes hardstanding, but does not include glasshouses or horticultural buildings. 

Grey Belt & the Golden Rules

• We have an amended definition of Grey Belt, which reads as follows: “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) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.” 
• Crucially, the reference to Green Belt purpose c (protecting the countryside from encroachment) has been removed from the definition. Otherwise basically nothing would qualify as Grey Belt
• All development on Grey Belt land (and in fact all new Green Belt releases) need to meet the “Golden Rules” - these have also been adjusted and now go along the following lines:
  • All new housing developments on the Green Belt must provide at least 15% more affordable housing than would normally be sought - subject to an overall cap of 50% UNTIL a new locally determined threshold is set through local plans. That locally determined threshold should be 50% unless viability concerns dictate otherwise.
  • necessary infrastructure improvements; and 
  • new or improved accessible green space.
•  Complying with the golden rules will be given substantial weight in the planning balance.
• Less helpful is the updated viability guidance in the PPG which states that, for the moment at least," site specific viability assessment should not be undertaken or taken into account for the purpose of reducing developer contributions, including affordable housing" on Green Belt sites that are subject to the golden rules. This will, however, be prioritised for a detailed review in 2025.
• We also have confirmation that the environmental benefits of renewable energy schemes can be used as Very Special Circumstances, which is nice. 

Affordable Housing, Specialist Housing, Small Sites & Mixed Tenure Sites

As promised, MHCLG has ditched the requirements to deliver:

• at least 10% of the total number of homes on major sites as affordable home ownership; and
• 25% of affordable housing units delivered through s.106 Agreements as First Homes

Both forms of provision still exist, but whether they should be included on any particular site, and in what proportions, is now a matter for the Council.

They have also strengthened support for social rent as a form of affordable housing provision.

Helpfully, the proposed policy support for small sites, specialist housing and mixed tenure sites have all made it through the consultation process.  

Paragraph 71 now states that:

“Mixed tenure sites can provide a range of benefits, including creating diverse communities and supporting timely build out rates, and local planning authorities should support their development through their policies and decisions (although this should not preclude schemes that are mainly, or entirely, for Social Rent or other affordable housing tenures from being supported). Mixed tenure sites can include a mixture of ownership and rental tenures, including Social Rent, other rented affordable housing and build to rent, as well as housing designed for specific groups such as older people’s housing and student accommodation, and plots sold for custom or self-build.”

and Paragraph 73 that: 

"73. Small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, are essential for Small and Medium Enterprise housebuilders to deliver new homes, and are often built-out relatively quickly. To promote the development of a good mix of sites local planning authorities should:

a) identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare; unless it can be shown, through the preparation of relevant plan policies, that there are strong reasons why this 10% target cannot be achieved; 

b) seek opportunities, through policies and decisions, to support small sites to come forward for community-led development for housing and self-build and custom-build housing; 

c) use tools such as area-wide design assessments, permission in principle and Local Development Orders to help bring small and medium sized sites forward; 

d) support the development of windfall sites through their policies and decisions – giving great weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes; and

e) work with developers to encourage the sub-division of large sites where this could help to speed up the delivery of homes."

Quite how this last one will work in the context of Hillside is anyone's guess… but that is a post for another day.

Other Stuff

There is lots more, but I do have a day job, so I am going to really condense this bit. Other things to keep an eye on include:

• the beefed-up duty to co-operate and the return of strategic planning
• new wording on flood risk assessments and SUDS
• more policy support for renewable energy schemes, data centres and logistics 
• the promise of a new fees order increasing fees for householder and prior approval applications AND a promise to move to local authority fee rate setting in the Planning & Infrastructure Bill (allowing variations to a national fee scale as opposed to complete free rein). 
• We already have new intervention guidance, which can be found here. It is very broad brush. 

Now. I did promise a re-worked Christmas Song for everyone who read to the end. So, all together now….

"It's the most NPPF time of the year
With Housing targets rising
And Ministers saying there's nothing to fear
It's the most NPPF time of the year

It's the build-building-est season of all
The grey belt needs reviewing and trouble is brewing
If plans start to stall
It's the build-building-est season of all

There'll be affordable housing
And solar farm espousing
And golden rules drawn in the snow
There'll be tilted balance stories
And tales of the glories of
Things we built long, long ago

Its the most NPPF time of year!"

*writing letters to Santa is worthwhile after all!

** yes, it is still para 11(d)