NPPF 2021 - “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”

Managed to digest the latest update to the NPPF? Fear not as this could be the antacid you so require.

The Government revised the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on the 20th July 2021 - the latest update since February 2019. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies and how they should be applied.

What has changed?

i. Design and beauty

The 'social objective' to achieving sustainable development has been amended slightly to provide for "well-designed, beautiful and safe places". A definition of 'beautiful' is not given and one would therefore assume the LPA would have some free reign on what might be considered 'beautiful' in their locality. It will be intriguing to see how planning refusals on these grounds are subsequently dealt with if appealed.

The 'environmental objective' has also been amended by strengthening the responsibility to "protect and enhance" the environment, rather than merely contributing towards its protection and enhancement. A similar onus has been placed on improving biodiversity too.

For plan-making in connection with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, environmentally friendly updates have been made, in particular making reference to "mitigating climate change".

Finally, paragraph 134 provides, "development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design, taking into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents such as design guides and codes". It goes on to state that significant weight should also be given to "development which reflects local design policies and government guidance" as well as "outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area". Spare a thought for Kevin McCloud who may find he now has his work cut out following this amendment.

ii. Trees

With both beauty and environmental factors in mind, paragraph 131 now provides that "planning policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-lined" and, where the opportunity arises, to "incorporate trees elsewhere in developments (such as parks and community orchards)". Existing trees should also be "retained wherever possible". Whether this will extend to Tree Preservation Orders being put in place, one would assume this will continue to depend upon the tree(s) in question, their location and relevant interests of amenity.

iii. Article 4 directions

Permitted development rights can be restricted by the LPA in exceptional circumstances by way of an Article 4 direction.

Paragraph 53 has been revised to provide that the use of an Article 4 direction should "where they relate to change from non-residential use to residential use, be limited to situations where an Article 4 direction is necessary to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts" and "in all cases, be based on robust evidence, and apply to the smallest geographical area possible". This appears to be a nod towards the Government's 'Planning for the Future' white paper published in August 2020.

iv. Public service infrastructure

Paragraph 96 provides "to ensure faster delivery of other public service infrastructure such as further education colleges, hospitals and criminal just accommodation", LPAs are to work "proactively and positively" with developers, delivery partners and statutory bodies "to plan for required facilities and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted".

v. Historic monuments

Paragraph 198 places greater emphasis on LPAs to explain the historic and social context rather than removing a historic statue, plaque, memorial or monument (whether listed or not), and "should have regard to the importance of their retention in situ".

Reform of the planning system is well underway, and it would come as no surprise to see further implementations made in the near future.