A key pillar of the planning system in England is the weight afforded to Development Plans and the new NPPF does not alter this position, indeed it strengthens it. The consultation draft puts emphasis on Local Authorities having a Development Plan in place and to prepare to review it quickly. The changes seek to introduce transitional arrangements to maintain the progress of those Development Plans at advanced stages of the plan-making process. In essence, these measures will vary based on the plan’s current progress and the degree of its alignment with the Government's housing growth aspirations.

The proposed changes also allow plans at or on the cusp of examination (such as the South Worcestershire Development Plan or Solihull Plan both of which are of interest to Summix) to continue with the existing regime, but to commence their next plan making process at the earliest opportunity if their annual housing requirements fall below the relevant Local Housing Need figure by over 200 dwellings. Complying with this new requirement is likely to operate in the form of an early review of the Development Plan. However, for such an early review to be effective and timely there will need to be adequate resourcing provided and local political commitment to reviewing the Plan(s) in a more timely fashion that the original ones which have in some locations been extremely slow progressing from inception to adoption for many reasons.

A headline grabbing change that has certainly captured the attention of the planning press and industry at large is the inclusion of a new Standard Methodology for calculating Local Housing Needs. It has been well documented through the election campaign trail that the Government’s ambition is to deliver 1.5 million homes over the current Parliament. The implication is an increased target of 370,000 homes per annum across England. This is an increase up from 300,000 under the previous Government and current NPPF.

To give an example of what this means on the ground for a Local Authority a good example is the South Worcestershire (Wychavon, Malvern Hills and Worcester City) context where Summix is promoting a few strategic sites so are familiar with the position. The new Government’s proposed method for calculating housing need would mean 2,152 homes a year needing to be built across the three plan making Authorities by 2041. But the current housing methodology, produced under the existing National Planning Policy Framework, plans for only 1,193 homes a year – an annual shortfall of 959. This is a considerable uplift but one which is very representative of the scale of the challenge that many Local Plans will face in seeking to meet the numbers being consulted on by Labour.

Overall, the target of 370,000 homes per annum will be widely welcomed by the development industry (including both promotors and developers) as well as those in current housing need (who are the people ultimately these reforms are aimed at helping to find housing). However, there are enormous challenges around even delivering 300,000 new homes in the short to medium term so an uplift to 370,000 will make the task increasingly more challenging.

Reversion to more technical language such as ‘high quality design’ is supported by Summix rather than the very subjective term ‘beautiful’. Summix places significant emphasis on its schemes achieving high quality design with placemaking a key objective and therefore having the NPPF providing a clearer steer using more appropriate and definable language is supported.

The proposed changes include the reintroduction of the previous regime of Local Planning Authorities being required to demonstrate a credible Five-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS). The 5YHLS provides a necessary mechanism for Councils to monitor, test and report that the identified needs established through the Development Plan are being delivered at the required rate linked to an adopted trajectory. Its provision will be vital if the Government is serious about reaching its set housing targets by acting as check and balance. It will continue to offer the route at planning appeal where there is a shortall of housing demonstrated via the tilted balance with a presumption in favour of sustainable development as before. This is likely to be a well-tested route for any Local Authorities who are slow updating numbers and identifying suitable sites so may result in a period of planning by appeal.

Vital to securing the growth ambitions set out will be the success of cross-boundary cooperation and strategic-level planning which have been well documented challenges under previous versions of the NPPF since the abolishment of Regional Spatial Strategies. The Duty to Cooperate has not always worked or effectively achieved collaboration and has certainly not been a quick process for delivering rapid development on the ground. Summix is seeing this first hand with Oxford City (Harrington) and Birmingham City (Fulford Green) where there is significant unmet housing need within the two land constrained City authorities that will need to the duty to cooperate to achieve agreement to part of that need being meet outside of its administrative areas in sustainable locations within adjoining authorities, possibly a tall order based on past experience. The revised NPPF underlines the importance of addressing strategic issues through collaborative efforts between local planning authorities. The new requirements push Councils and PINs to make informed decisions based on available data, rather than deferring difficult decisions which has been the trend. It is an old problem and one which initially Labour seemingly is keen to push and possibly impose things where there are unjustified delays.

The Government’s consultation draft NPPF and the introduction of a Grey Belt category has grabbed the attention of the planning press and is relevant to Summix projects in the Green Belt such as Fulford Green in Solihull. The NPPF consultation outlines that the five fundamental purposes of Green Belt land remain unchanged although there is clear implication that reviews, where they take place, should look at how well the purposes are being met. The Government continues to support the permanence of Green Belts i.e. a planning policy tool intended to apply longer than a 15-year local plan period.

Previous Government guidance had removed the essential requirement for Green Belt reviews as part of plan-making. That requirement has been replaced in a new draft paragraph 142 which states that Green Belt boundary reviews can take place, ‘…where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced, including for example, where a local authority cannot meet its need for housing, commercial or other development through other means.’ This feels a positive change intended to prevent authorities washed over by Green Belt or which have a high proportion of Green Belt designation simply resisting growth without testing the effectiveness and necessity of the policy designation.

The precise review means are clarified in draft paragraph 143 as, making use of suitable brownfield sites, optimising the density of development in towns and city centres and other locations well served by public transport, or cross boundary accommodation of development needs following the duty to co-operate. In circumstances where those options have been first considered, but the release of Green Belt land is still deemed suitable, a newly crafted paragraph 144 now states that, ‘..plans should give first consideration to previously-developed land in sustainable locations, then consider grey belt land in sustainable locations which is not already previously-developed and only then consider other sustainable Green Belt locations.”

The consultation also appears focused on ensuring that where Green Belt land is released for development such land should capture optimum planning contributions which are set out by consultation paragraph 155. In cases involving the provision of new housing at least 50% should be affordable housing with an appropriate proportion being Social Rent, subject to viability. It is this latter point on viability which will be important and requires a consistent approach across different Local Authority areas. The characteristics of many Green Belt sites (requiring significant servicing and social infrastructure provision) combined with the requirement for at least 50% affordable housing (including Social Rent) is likely to restrict viability (subject to any changed guidance on the ‘reasonable and proportionate premium’) outside of higher value areas.

Whilst a lot of the headline grabbing associated with the NPPF Consultation has been on housing and Green Belt reform there are also changes proposed in relation to economic development and growing the economy. These appear to be relatively modest changes to the policy framework in comparison to those relating to housing. They mainly seek to address changes to how the UK economic functions and the high growth in certain economic sectors since the last iteration of the Framework namely to provide support for hi-technology, R&D, laboratories, giga-factories, data centers, digital infrastructure, and freight and logistics. All of these have grown and continue to grow since the current NPPF was produced.

The proposed text seeks to encourage the identification of appropriate sites for commercial There is a need for policy to give clear emphasis on the need to ensure housing and economic growth are delivered in parallel in locations where the growth is needed. This is a key objective for the Summix new settlement at Harrington in South Oxfordshire which seeks to provide housing and locally appropriate employment in an area with high housing demand and demand for hi-technology employment facilities. It is submitted that the NPPF consultation could be clearer on requiring delivery of sustainable patterns of growth where housing and economic growth align and complement one another strategically

To support the needs of a modern and changing economy the consultation also suggests there is the potential for certain types of employment sites such as data centres, giga-factories, hi- technology facilities and laboratories to be directed into the NSIP consenting regime (defining them potentially as essential infrastructure), which may assist progression of these economic drivers.

The consultation changes now seek ‘A vision led approach’ promoting sustainable transport modes is taken, taking account of the type of development and its location. In addition, the current NPPF reference to any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, being cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree, now has had the additional wording added ‘through a vision led approach’ or vision and validate. This is opposed to a more traditional predict and provide approach.

It is unclear precisely what actions will be required in order to demonstrate that proposals have been produced in accordance with a vision led approach and how they will be received by Local Highway Authorities or National Highways Planners and Engineers (or their consultants).

The existing requirement that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe, has been amended by the addition of the wording ‘in all tested scenarios’. Consequently, this proposed amendment to the NPPF would make it more difficult for local authorities to refuse application on highway grounds as they would have to meet a higher bar.

The consultation draft states that Local Planning Authorities should support planning applications for all forms of renewable and low carbon development. When determining planning applications, they should give significant weight to the proposal’s contribution to renewable energy generation and a net zero future. These proposed amendments represent a significant change to the Framework and demonstrate the importance that the new Government attaches to planning for climate change and renewables.

Peter Bateman - Planning Director Summix August 2024