Commentary on the Draft NPPF

The planning and development sector is on the brink of the most significant change since the original introduction of the NPPF back in 2012. The publication of draft changes in the NPPF on 30 July, hotly anticipated, will if implemented lead to a sea-change in how the Government would like the planning system to operate.

The draft NPPF and, perhaps more importantly, the explanatory text within the associated consultation questions, provides a real insight into the aims of the changes while the proposed amended standard methodology adds some pretty eyewatering numbers for individual planning authorities.  All in all there is much to unpick.  Consultation runs until 24 September with an (optimistic) aspiration that a final NPPF is published in the Autumn.  Clearly the Government is not looking to hang around but given the range and scale of proposed changes (and likely scale of consultation responses) publication before the end of the year is surely more realistic (hopefully not on 23 December this year).

One of the most far-reaching changes is around the approach to the Green Belt which has long been (and no doubt will continue to be) a political hot potato. But with a such a large majority, the Government is looking to undertake the hard yards while it can, with the introduction of the Grey Belt designation.  A new definition in the glossary states that the Grey Belt will include land that makes ‘a limited contribution to the five Green Belt purposes’ subject to being outside of areas defined by footnote 7.  The consultation document includes a suggested definition:  

a ‘Not strongly perform against any Green Belt purpose’ - expect more debates at appeal on whether this is the case in individual circumstances

b ‘Have at least one of the following features:

1. Land containing substantial built development or which is fully enclosed by built form’ - clearly a debate on what substantial means - surely a % figure would be helpful
2. ‘Land which makes no or very little contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another’ - this is likely to apply quite widely

iii. ‘Land which is dominated by urban land uses, including physical developments’ - interesting as presumably would apply to sites immediately adjacent to existing urban areas – what does ‘dominated’ mean?

1. ‘Land which contributes little to preserving the setting and special character of historic towns’ - this is likely to apply quite widely

In short you can see it would be relatively straightforward to comply with one of the criteria under b) and so there could be quite a bum fight on whether a) is applicable to individual sites.  This highlights the importance of local planning authority Green Belt reviews in the process (which will now be more commonplace as a result of other changes in the NPPF). It will also require that they are fit for purpose, so local authorities will find that it is definitely worth ensuring that these are properly scrutinised at the appropriate time and that they have a robust Green Belt assessment process to support individual proposals.  On a slight side issue, presumably this criteria will also apply to proposals on Metropolitan Open Land in London given that these areas are given the same status as Green Belt.

The results of this more pragmatic approach (which relate in both a development management and Local Plan context) are likely to be most keenly felt in those Green Belt authorities in the South East where housing pressures are greatest and where, typically, past housing delivery has been below the new proportionate stock level uplift (0.8%) that will, along with a stronger affordability multiplier, inform the new amended standard methodology.

As has been the case with recent iterations of the NPPF, a transitional arrangement is proposed (for Local Plan preparation only), the most interesting relating to those draft Plans that are advanced (Reg 19) but not yet submitted for examination.  Let’s assume that the final NPPF is published in December. For those Plans not submitted within one month of publication (end of January 2025) with a proposed housing requirement target of more than 200 dwellings per hectare less (why has the government chosen this figure?) is that the draft Plan should be revised to accord with the new standard methodology need and submitted within 18 months.  This is likely to require significant further work even if the authority is ultimately unable to deliver this level of new housing (which in itself will lead to further resourcing implications). 

This is likely to bite in a number of areas, for example Three Rivers District Council is advancing a Plan that is envisaged to deliver 240 homes pa (400/499 homes pa fewer than old/new standard methodology) with a target of submission in February 2025.  Based on the proposed changes, the Council would be required to effectively start again and revert back to something more akin to the draft Plan consulted in 2021 which proposed far greater Green Belt release and which went down like a lead ballon locally.  In these areas there could have to be some very painful political decisions made by Members which or, if not, some pretty hefty run-ins between national and local Government.  There is seemingly more appetite from national government to be more muscular in its approach to intervention (whatever this means in practice) so it will be very interesting to see how these play out.

We are certainly living in interesting times and there is so much else to be said and digested within this consultation: a busy summer awaits…