Publication of new national planning policy framework (December 2024)

After the consultation over the summer and much press speculation and ministerial statements, the new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the NPPF” or “the Framework”) has been published. This has been released alongside a raft of ministerial statements, response papers, housing delivery test results and assessments plus associated updates to the on-line Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”).  

It represents the most significant set of national planning policy changes since the original Framework was published in 2012. The changes have wide ranging implications for Local Plan preparation; the calculation of housing need; promoting housing and commercial schemes; and how we approach development in the Green Belt.  They also cover a range of other sectors such as sustainability, renewable energy, take-away/fast food units and the approach to flood risk.  The impacts will be site, scheme, settlement and authority area specific.  We have identified and summarise the key changes that we consider to be of most relevance and identify those areas to look out for as the new(ish) Government continues to set out its pro-development agenda.  These cover the following:

1. Presumption in favour of sustainable development
2. Plan making
3. Housing need and supply
4. Protecting Green Belt land
5. Effective use of land
6. Design
7. Economy
8. Transition

Presumption in favour of sustainable development

The paragraph 11 presumption and tilted balance have been retained with slight adjustments. At paragraph 11 d) the previous term of a clear reason in applying Framework policies to refuse proposed development has been replaced with a strong reason. What appears as semantics could have a useful role to play in promoting schemes via the tilted balance with the replacement term setting a higher bar for refusal than ‘clear’. Further, there have been adjustments to the ‘tilted’ balance test to emphasis issues of particular importance such as sustainable locations; effective use of land; design and provision of affordable housing.

Plan making

Paragraph 24 has been revised to place further emphasis on strategic planning across local planning authority boundaries by addressing key spatial issues including meeting housing needs, delivering strategic infrastructure and building economic and climate resilience. Paragraph 27 sets out that strategic policy making authorities should make sure their plan policies align as fully as possible with other bodies, where a strategic relationship exists. In particular it states that plans should ensure a consistent approach is taken to the planning of major infrastructure; that unmet development need from neighbouring areas are provided for and that any allocation or designation which crosses boundaries for plan areas is appropriate managed by all relevant authorities.

This is a continuation of the Duty to Co-operate, which has not been effective in solving strategic planning issues. Paragraph 28 identifies that Plans come forward at different times and that strategic policy making authorities and Inspectors will need to come to an informed decision on the basis of available information, rather than waiting for a full set of evidence from other authorities. This doesn’t inspire confidence that strategic planning matters will be assessed comprehensively, and potentially somewhat jars with the aspirations of Paragraph 27.

Housing need and supply

Paragraph 62 confirms that the standard methodology is used for calculating housing need, removing the reference to it being ‘advisory’. Critically, however, in combination with this, is the confirmation of the new standard methodology through updates to the PPG which sees significant rises in requirement in large parts of the country. There have been some changes to the methodology since the July consultation. This results in increases in assessed housing need in London, the South East and East of England. For all other regions, housing need falls when compared to the method consulted on although there is still a substantial increase overall.  The impact will be substantial. In the short term it will plunder many authorities, whose Plan is more than 5 years old into a position where they are unable to demonstrate a five year housing supply. For the Plan making system it will require accommodating higher housing numbers and increased opportunity for allocations (subject to the transition arrangements identified below).

All local planning authorities, no matter the age of the Development Plan, should demonstrate a minimum of a five year housing supply. The ‘buffer’ is back for all, with 5% standard, 20% for under-delivery and 20% from 1 July 2026 for authorities’ that have a plan adopted in the last five years and defined local housing need increases.

Protecting Green Belt land

The changes to this chapter rightly attracted national front page headlines as they are the vanguard for delivering homes and commercial floorspace on areas of Green Belt that are not necessarily worthy of protection. They also offer a much clearer framework for plan preparation and promotion.  The changes can be summarised as follows:

• Local authorities should undertake a Green Belt review where they are unable to meet their identified housing, commercial or other development needs in full. Meeting those needs in full is not mandatory though as the new paragraph does state unless the [Green Belt] 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. Guidance is expected next year on carrying out Green Belt reviews which will hopefully assist in the application of this approach.
• The Grey Belt definition has been confirmed in the Annex 2 Glossary as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to three of the five Green Belt purposes, namely: a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; and d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.  The term is excluded from applying to those wider protected/sensitive area designations listed in footnote 7 (e.g. National Landscapes and ecological designations).
• For Green Belt release a sequence of land classification is given: (i) priority is to be given to the release of previously developed land in the Green Belt; (ii) then Grey Belt which is not previously developed; and then (iii) other Green Belt locations. The need to promote sustainable patterns of development should also be determined which is an important retained paragraph. 
• Helpful additions have been made to the categories of development listed at paragraph 154 as exceptions to Green Belt inappropriateness:
  1. Buildings for outdoor sport, recreation and the other uses listed are now included as appropriate facilities in criterion b). This offers the potential to now justify new buildings as appropriate as long as they preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes (see criterion b)). 
  2. For redevelopment of previously developed land the only remaining ceiling for inappropriateness is whether the scheme would not cause substantial harm to Green Belt openness with not having a greater impact than the existing development having been removed. This criterion also includes reference to a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential (see criterion g)). This opens up a much wider potential type of land and scale of development to be considered appropriate and not be subject to the otherwise retained test of very special circumstances. 
• A highly significant new paragraph (see 155) has been introduced where the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where: a) it would utilise Grey Belt and not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area; b) there is a demonstrable unmet need for the development proposed; c) it is in a sustainable location; d) where is meets the ‘Golden Rules’.  This will also open up a wider type of land into the appropriate development term.
• The Golden Rules is an entirely new term which requires major housing development on Green Belt sites to meet listed criteria relating to affordable housing, infrastructure improvements and green space provision to benefit from the appropriate term. A development which complies with the Golden Rules should be given significant weight in favour of the grant of permission. 

The use of ‘protecting’ in the title of the chapter is now somewhat at odds with the widened scope on offer. The changes are nevertheless welcomed as they offer a much clearer framework to promote poorly performing and previously developed Green Belt land for development and as the chapter indicates protect those parts of the Green Belt which are worthy of continued control. 

Building a strong, competitive economy

Using the planning system to supercharge the economy and encourage diversification is a clear objective of the Government. Changes to this chapter include:

• A reference to the National Industrial Strategy Invest 2035 (consultation closed in November and publication expected in 2025) providing an important policy link.
• A requirement for planning policies to meet the needs of a modern economy which includes identifying suitable locations for uses such as laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics (see paragraph 86 c)).
• An expanded paragraph 87 setting out the different sectors of the economy which policies and decisions should recognise and address locational requirements. This provides a greater spotlight on knowledge/high-tech and storage and distribution. 

The widened chapter is welcomed and sets a clear expectation to plan-making and applications in terms of how needs should be met and appropriate locations both identified and supported.    

Effective use of land 

Making an effective use of land underpins the focus on the priority for making as much use as possible of previously-developed land. Much of the chapter remains intact apart from the dilution of the emphasis placed on mansard roofs in the December 2023 version. One key addition is at paragraph 125 c) with an instruction to approve the use of brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, unless substantial harm would be caused. This sets a relatively high bar for the level of harm that could potentially be accepted (presumably subject to mitigation) in approving schemes, underpinning the importance of delivering in such locations first. 

Achieving well-designed places 

The December 2023 version of the NPPF formally introduced the term ‘beauty’ into a consideration of design. The term was not properly explained in guidance with appeal decisions tending to take a safe approach in the context of high-quality design. The introduction of beauty has largely been a failure and has rightly led to its removal in a design context.   

Transition

This version of the NPPF will be applied immediately to decision-making as a material consideration. As before existing development plan policies are not considered out-of-date because they were adopted/made before publication. Consideration must be given to their consistency with the NPPF. The closer the policies are to the NPPF, the greater the weight.

Transition and implementation for plan-making is more complicated. The new NPPF applies to plan-making from 12th March 2025 with exceptions listed at paragraph 234 depending on the progress made in the preparation of the Plan at that date. Those authorities that didn’t place plan preparation on-hold pending this version of the NPPF could potentially be rewarded by reaching Regulation 19 or examination prior to 12 March 2025, by maintaining housing  need figures calculated on the old standard methodology. This will slow the growth of housing in these authorities compared to those who have to adopt the new higher figures straight away. With the changes to housing need methodology there will continue to be challenges ahead for those authorities that are less well placed. 

Our View 

Ultimately, the Government has enacted these policy changes to deliver its promise of 1.5 million new homes within the current parliament, to help tackle the housing crisis. Whilst it is fair to say that most are highly sceptical that this can be achieved, this set of national policies could genuinely be a game changer for the amount of housing permitted over the coming years and how appropriate parts of the Green Belt can be used for housing and commercial development. Whilst the local plan will continue to be the bedrock of the system, and in time should deliver higher housing delivery, it is evident that the Government will need permissions faster than the local plan system can provide.

The contribution of appeals is likely to be substantial and the impacts of the changes on housing supply positions and a potentially much more permissive Green Belt policy will be the key drivers of this. The underlying question of LPA, and potentially PINS resource, remains a key concern but this certainly is the time to be progressing development proposals.

What’s next?

As we know planning never sleeps. The Government has sought to take the front foot on policy and guidance through these early changes to the NPPF which we recognise and support. We are also already seeing much greater Ministerial intervention in strategic planning application decision-making to support investment and back up the policy messages. This can also only be a positive move where there is confidence a scheme should be approved. 

Hot on the heels of the NPPF is the consultation on reforms to development and nature recovery which we will comment on separately. As we move towards 2025, the following is expected:

• Development and nature recovery consultation proposals.
• Outcome of the Brownfield Passport consultation.
• PPG sections on Green Belt reviews and Local Nature Recovery Strategies.
• Consultation on national development management policies.
• Continued implementation of LURA 2023 provisions.
• Increases to planning application fees and the introduction of locally set fees.
• Outcome of consultation for a scheme to increase the delegation of planning decisions.