Draft NPPF (2024) Consultation

As I’m sure everyone on LinkedIn knows by now, the consultation on the proposed revisions to the NPPF has landed (30 July was THE date). There is already a raft of commentary circulated and LinkedIn continues to deliver a great staple of blog content for us all, but here are our two pennies’ worth with some key takeaways in what we hope is an easily digestible, headline points fashion (smart advice, simply delivered if you will…!).

Many, like myself, have long wondered why we didn’t just get a simple withdrawal of the unpopular and unhelpful December 2023 version of the NPPF in its entirety (the housing industry is still shuddering about the 4 year supply!) and a fall back to what was before it. However, this new version was a huge part of Labour’s planning reform pledge so it’s natural that it should be introduced with much fanfare and promising a raft “radical changes to the planning system”.

The new NPPF is subject to consultation until 24 September 2024 and was released with a consultation document containing a handful of questions, if a “handful” equates to 106! (10 points for anyone who gets through them in one sitting).

Some of the highlights as I see them (and it goes without saying that there are numerous other points not covered below) are:

the main “headline grabber” has been around housing, with the imposition of mandatory targets to deliver their ambitious aim of 1.5 million homes. The requirement for local authorities to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, previously paragraph 76, is reinstated (joyful news to those of us heavily involved in the housing sector and especially our developer clients). In addition (and also very welcome), the requirement to provide a 5% “buffer” is reimposed, alongside a 20% buffer “stick” for LPAs falling below 85% housing delivery.

• the “tilted balance” will be engaged where policies concerning supply of land are out of date and the LPA doesn’t have a 5-year housing land supply. This must be viewed in context of location, design factors and affordable housing requirements being met. How much weight to be given isn’t expressly set out so more debate and clarification is needed here.

• the unequivocal focus on affordable homes and social housing, the implications of which are already being ruminated on by many of our clients. Para 66 of the new draft proposes that LPAs must specify a minimum level of affordable housing which is to be provided as social rented housing. However, we know many developers have concerns about this due to difficulties in shifting social rented housing, with significant knock-on effects when that provision is enshrined in s106 agreements.

• the above is essentially tied to the use of a new “Standard Method” for housing need assessments, which is underpinned with a stronger affordability ratio and the removal of the previous partial “get out” clause available to LPAs who had a claimed oversupply. This leads to a new national target of 370,000 homes a year (up from 300,000), which is again great news for those wanting to build.

• the change that dominated headlines during Labour’s election campaign: their commitment to review building on the Green Belt, and the introduction of the concept of the “Grey Belt”. The “Grey Belt” is intended to cover “previously developed land” within the Green Belt, or land that makes a “limited contribution” to the purposes of the Green Belt. I don’t need to be visionary to foresee that this will lead to a lot of legal action in the near future! Oh, and (importantly) on any release of Green Belt land for development, the affordable housing provision must be 50%, which is fair enough in my view as a strong element of affordability should be accepted to help overcome the limitations that the “Green Belt” designation otherwise puts on the land. This is combined with a need to deal with required infrastructure improvements, and accessible green spaces.

•a stated importance on cross boundary working, which I do not think anyone can argue has been a past success. To achieve this, strategic planning is brought sharply into focus, which I think will be significant for many of our clients where there has always been a need for LPAs to share responsibility for the needs of their neighbouring authorities, but which co-operation has seldom happened. The duty to cooperate is bolstered by para 27.

•not as widely talked about, there appears to be considerable opportunities for commercial development due to the push for economic growth, which complements the promise to focus on the delivery of major infrastructure.

•for the energy sector, the much-awaited (and eagerly welcomed by our energy clients) deletion of footnotes 57 and 58 of the previous NPPF which effectively banned onshore wind schemes, which restores onshore wind schemes to the same footing as all forms of renewable and low carbon development. Consultation views are also sought on reintegrating larger onshore wind schemes as “nationally significant infrastructure projects” (NSIPs). Again, our energy clients are already considering opportunities here.

However, (and whilst you might think the above is a long list) the above barely scratches the surface! The consultation is wide and varied and attempts to deal with a lot of topical issues that have long been known to plague the planning system. As usual, the lawyers’ stock phrase of “the devil will be in the detail” is inevitable and has to be used (of course).

As ever, it will be important to consider transitional arrangements (don’t worry, that’s a post for another day!), and while there are elements that are hugely positive and immediately signal increased development opportunities, developers are advised to identify and plan to deal with infrastructure constraints where they seek to promote developments. They should also be wary of potential legal challenges, which I appreciate has always been the case to a large extent but once some of the proposed changes start to take effect, there could be increased scrutiny by objectors looking to derail projects they will be fundamentally opposed to. There should also be opportunities to proactively engage with both LPAs and local communities, which might help to reduce opposition, as although it’s great to have a policy framework promoting development, and even making it a necessity, it may be a bitter pill for many to swallow (particularly where the Green Belt or Grey Belt is released).

All in all, however, there is no doubt that there is a very clear commitment to demonstrate a pro-growth agenda to get us building more and building better (ideally). There will be lots more to digest and comment on in the coming weeks as the consultation progresses but undeniably an exciting time for those involved in the planning sector.

If you have any questions on the above or the new NPPF, please contact me at shrutitrivedi@devellogroup.co.uk.