On July 30, 2024, the Government initiated a consultation on revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other planning reforms. As many of you know, the NPPF sets the national policy for all planning matters, guiding local plan preparation and decision-making. The consultation period will close at 11:45 pm on September 24, 2024. Here are the main changes that we believe will be of particular interest to you:
Tilted Balance
One of the noteworthy revisions involves the "tilted balance," specifically paragraph 11 (d). The updated wording changes the consideration of policies deemed "out-of-date" from "most important for determining the application" to "for the supply of land." Additionally, footnote 8 has been added to clarify what constitutes policies for the supply of land, while footnote 9 has been streamlined.
The inclusion of new text in paragraph 11 (d) (ii) now requires particular consideration of policies within the NPPF related to the location and design of development (chapters 9 and 12) and the securing of affordable homes.
Impact: These changes will affect the application of the tilted balance. For example, the removal of the phrase “most important policies” should provide greater certainty regarding when a plan is considered out-of-date. Furthermore, there is now a greater emphasis on specific policies within the NPPF during the planning balance, particularly those related to development location, design, and affordable housing. Consequently, planning applications and appeals will need to demonstrate more thoroughly how these policies have been adhered to within a tilted balance framework.
Plan Making
Amendments to paragraph 24 reinforce the necessity for effective strategic planning across local planning authority boundaries. A new paragraph 27 further emphasizes this requirement, ensuring that once collaborative matters are identified, policies should align with other bodies where a strategic relationship exists.
Additional text to the renumbered paragraph 28 clarifies that strategic policy makers and inspectors should make informed decisions based on available information rather than waiting for full evidence from other authorities.
Impact: These changes could result in plans being found unsound if effective strategic planning is not demonstrated, potentially complicating plan adoption. This issue was previously experienced when the duty to cooperate was first introduced.
Housing Supply
Significant changes involve the removal of text added by the previous Government in the NPPF updates of September and December 2023. This includes removing wording that allowed authorities to reduce their housing provision compared to their housing need.
Local authorities are once again required to annually identify and update a supply of specific deliverable sites to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement. The buffer for authorities that significantly underdeliver over the previous three years has been set at 20%.
Paragraphs 76, 77, and 78 have been completely removed, which eliminates the four-year supply position for authorities with emerging plans. This change reverts to previous NPPF positions on maintaining a five-year land supply, likely leading to more authorities failing to meet this requirement and engaging the tilted balance, thereby facilitating more windfall sites through applications and appeals.
Impact: The standard methodology for calculating housing supply will now set a baseline based on a percentage of existing housing stock levels, enhanced by a stronger affordability multiplier, without the previous 40% cap.
Economy
New text clarifies the need to identify sites for modern economy needs, including laboratories, gigafactories, data centers, digital infrastructure, freight, and logistics. Policies and decisions must now make provisions for new, expanded, and upgraded facilities and infrastructure to support high-tech industries, efficient goods handling, and the modernization of other crucial industries.
Impact: These changes aim to support modern businesses, recognizing the shift toward tech-based industries and the expansion of the logistics sector.
Efficient Use of Land
A notable addition to former paragraph 124 (c), now 122 (c), confirms that proposals on suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes should be regarded as acceptable in principle. This strengthens the policy requirement to use such land effectively.
Green Belt
Revisions to Green Belt policy now allow boundary alterations only where exceptional circumstances are present, such as an inability to meet housing or development needs. Changes include the introduction of "Grey Belt" land, comprising previously developed land and areas making limited contributions to Green Belt purposes.
Paragraph 155 outlines conditions for releasing Green Belt land, such as a 50% affordable housing provision, necessary infrastructure improvements, and the creation or enhancement of green spaces. A new paragraph 152 introduces an exception for utilizing Grey Belt land in sustainable locations under certain conditions.
Impact: These changes are the most significant since the NPPF's introduction in 2012. They are likely to enable the progression of sites previously deemed inappropriate, especially Grey Belt land, under conditions of housing supply shortfall or established need.
Other Matters
The term "Beautiful" has been removed from policy matters concerning design and character. Transitional arrangements for emerging plans reference the new local housing need figures, ensuring that plans with significant shortfalls in housing numbers are promptly updated.
Conclusion
These proposed changes to the NPPF are comprehensive and will have far-reaching implications for development proposals. Should you wish to discuss how these changes may impact your projects, please feel free to contact me or any member of the team here at Squires. We are here to assist you in navigating these new planning policies effectively.
