NPPF consultation - initial review

Happy new year; it promises to be another ‘interesting’ one.

I resisted (rather easily, if I’m honest) the temptation to read through the track-changed revised NPPF consultation draft ?and associated consultation report [Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: reforms to national planning policy - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)]over the Christmas break (published with such kindness on 22 December).

Of course we got more than a feeling for its likely content from Mr Gove’s letters and WMS in early December, but we can now see (most of) the detail.

The first points to note are that it’s only a consultation draft and the final content (anticipated Spring 2023 publication, from which point it would take effect) may differ; and there is more change to come. The consultation report explains that there will be PPG updates and there are further policy changes that will be addressed by a wider review of the NPPF later this year. And assuming the LURB progresses through Parliament the NPPF will ultimately be reissued with a reduced scope, to be read alongside National Development Management Policies. We have so much to look forward to as Government ‘re-makes’ the planning system…

Focusing on this consultation, my main initial takeaways are:

·???????Contrary to numerous reports the 300,000 dpa target for the mid 2020s remains.

·???????Aside from various additional references to ‘beauty’, and greater (but qualified) support for on-shore wind, the vast majority of the changes are concerned with housing delivery (which I’ve focused on).

·???????Local Plans are seen as the solution to this. There is an overriding focus on getting Local Plans in place. The consultation report repeats that housing delivery is higher where there are up-to-date Local Plans (which of course depends on the basis of the Local Plan, which this consultation proposes to alter…).

·???????LURB provisions are intended to streamline the Plan preparation process, but the NPPF changes also seek to ‘help’ here, and these are some of the most worrying changes proposed.

·???????The ‘justified’ soundness test is removed, which is intended to reduce the amount of evidence LPAs need to prepare (but is also currently the test of reasonable alternatives and an appropriate strategy).

·???????There is greater flexibility introduced in defining and meeting housing needs. The standard method remains, but there is more permissive text around applying an alternative (though still to be ‘exceptional’; PPG updates will explain the circumstances) and treating this as the ‘starting point’. A real positive is the addition of an express allowance for LPAs to plan for more than the standard method ‘where they judge it is right for their areas’, but past ‘over-delivery’ can be deducted from the requirement.

·???????Most significantly of all (and this is where the Tory backbenchers influence is most clearly seen) is the express allowance for constraints to override fulfilment of the identified need. On this latter point the two principal constraints identified are density that would be ‘significantly out-of-character’, and Green Belt. Para. 142 is proposed to include ‘Green Belt boundaries are not required to be reviewed and altered if this would be the only means of meeting objectively assessed need for housing over the plan period’. Whilst the consultation report states that LPAs would still have the ability to review and alter Green Belt boundaries if they wish, by proving exceptional circumstances, that exceptional circumstances test is seemingly made more stringent when one reads this amended para 142 against para 11b(ii).

·???????If these provisions are intended to make it easier (less contentious?) to advance plans (including Neighbourhood Plans), there are other changes that seen as offering further incentive – most of which mean the presumption in favour of sustainable development will not apply as often.

·???????This includes the greatly reduced role of the 5 year housing land supply test – relevant policies would be out-of-date (para 11d) only where a 5YHLS cannot be proven (without a buffer, the need for which is done away with) and the housing requirement set out in Local Plan strategic policies is more than 5 years old (unless those policies have been reviewed and no update is found to be required – which is of course at the LPA’s discretion…). Historic oversupply (judged against the adopted requirement) can be included. ?Under transitionary measures set out in the Annex, it will be sufficient to demonstrate 4YHLS where Local Plans are being advanced.?

·???????And there is a more permissive Housing Delivery Test. The out-of-date policy position under para 11d would be triggered if the previous 3 years falls below 75% of the requirement but only if the permissions for housing granted over the same period have not exceeded 115% of the requirement. This goes to the contention that it is the development industry (not the grant of permissions) that is frustrating the pace of delivery…

·???????And Neighbourhood Plans are to be given more protection. Paragraph 14 (which sets out the terms where conflict with a Neighbourhood Plan is likely to tilt the balance against development being permitted) is much altered, with para 14b extended from 2 years to 5 years, and 14c (3 years HLS) and 14d (HDT performance) proposed to be removed.

So, all of this is intended to boost housing delivery. Call me pessimistic (many have) but I can only predict it will have the opposite effect.

The consultation report regularly refers to the concerns it has heard from a wide range of stakeholders that these changes are intended to address. This consultation provides an opportunity to hear from an even wider range of interested parties, and I expect there will be a great number of those invested in housing delivery that will want to take that opportunity. Deadline is 2 March.