Might the new NPPF top the summer holidays reading list for planners?
We are all well aware that planning as a sector doesn’t stand still, however the pace of change appears to be stepping-up a gear (or more?!) following Labour’s election win. The new Chancellor has affirmed that Labour will “grasp the nettle of planning reform” and exclaimed that “nowhere is decisive reform needed more urgently than in the case of our planning system”. Amongst the first of the Government’s planning commitments is the launch of consultation on a revised ’growth focussed’ NPPF before the end of July.
Revised NPPF
It is expected that revisions will include a strengthening of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as a mechanism to boost housing delivery in the short term. Whilst welcome in respect of improving the dismal planning system metrics and our desperate plight to increase housing supply, it is essential to ensure that growth remains plan-led.
It is critical that we appreciate the complex interrelationship between changing the presumption alongside getting local plans in place to ensure that we are not at risk of delivering ad-hoc development which, whilst contributing towards the numbers, is not creating well-planned and sustainable communities in which people will want to live and have the opportunity to thrive.
Building Homes
On the eve of the announcement of the General Election in May, Angela Rayner spoke at the UK Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum (UKREiiF) about community resistance to new homes and outlining this is because “housing is of the wrong type, in the wrong place - it doesn’t come with the schools, GP surgeries and green spaces that make communities, not just streets.” These spatial decisions and effective planning for infrastructure needs to come through our local plans.
Local Plan Production
Our local authority clients want to get local plans in place but after a turbulent few years require clarity to be able to progress their plan making with certainty and confidence. We understand that the Deputy Prime Minister is set to write to planning authorities to outline what will now be expected of them, including universal coverage of local plans, and reviews of Green Belt boundaries. We are eager to understand the detail sitting beneath these headlines. We hope that this will provide clarity as to the current June 2025 deadline for submitting local plans under the current planning system - will it be maintained (which seems unlikely), extended, or removed altogether? And what are the expectations on authorities that have been waiting for a new planning system before progressing the production of their local plans? Should they proceed within the current system, or should they be preparing for a new system?
Housing Targets
Turning to housing targets, we are poised to see if the new Government will effectively revert to the 2021 NPPF, prior to the weakened and more discretionary approach introduced by Gove in December 2023, or is a yet firmer approach possible? Might we also see movement in respect of how these housing figures are defined, reflecting the long-held issues with the standard method for calculating housing needs at the local level, something which requires updating (and should no longer rely on the 2014 housing projections) but has been dodged in recent updates to the NPPF.
Green Belt
The 2023 NPPF included an addition within Chapter 13 on Protecting the Green Belt that “Green Belt boundaries are not required to be reviewed and altered if this would be the only means of meeting the objectively assessed need for housing over the plan period”. This insertion perhaps received rather more attention than it deserved reflecting that it was more a clarification as opposed to the introduction of a new approach given that there has never been a requirement placed on local planning authorities to review or alter Green Belt boundaries for such purposes. Labour has been vocal on the Green Belt, and more to the point the newly coined ‘grey belt’, and so what changes might we expect? Will we see the introduction of a requirement to review the Green Belt as part of local plan production? And what of a return to some form of strategic planning, whether once again at regional level or some form of sub-regional basis, and what role might this play in Green Belt boundary review? We see logic in a national level plan to provide a framework for strategic planning – in terms of identifying key growth areas across the country, where new towns should be located and where key infrastructure will be required to support future growth. There is then a role at the strategic level to undertake a wider than local strategic review of Green Belt boundaries (to be supplemented by finer grained review at the local level) and to determine housing numbers for local plans.
'Grey Belt'
In terms of the ‘grey belt’, there is a lot riding on its precise definition. How might it feature in the revised NPPF? In a similar vein to our reference to strengthening the presumption above, what balance will be struck between any additions to the NPPF and a plan-led approach to growth, including Green Belt review? Does reference to the ‘grey belt’ actually change anything from the previous approach of reviewing and identifying poor performing areas of Green Belt land?
What's Next?
One thing for certain is that the consultation on the NPPF will be an addition to the summer reading list for many of us!! We eagerly await its publication and look forward to responding, drawing on our wealth of experience in supporting authorities nationwide in their plan-making journeys in recent years. First though, are eyes and ears are open as to how planning features in the King’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament on the 17 July.
How we can help
DAC Planning has experience and understanding of plan making, and provides a full spectrum of support to local authorities nationwide.
For a discussion on how we can assist you, please get in touch with the team:
admin@dacplanning.com / 01206 259281
This information is for general informative purposes only. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure its accuracy, DAC Planning accepts no liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from its use.
コメント