More homes or fewer?  The NPPF gets an update

After the built-up anticipation, the revised NPPF is not so different from its predecessor, and we can’t help feel that the changes will be marginal.  The accompanying Ministerial Statement and speech were more interesting, and flagged up areas where future changes will be sought and consultations will be carried out (on the assumption, of course, that a general election doesn’t put pay to any of this).

Here are some of the key points arising from this week’s various communiqués.

Housing

• 5 Year Supply: There has been much talk about the watering down of housing targets. Local authorities are to still required to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, but how that is calculated has been thrown open by the emphasis that the ‘standard method’ of calculating housing need being an “advisory starting point”, albeit a “minimum”.  How the more sensitive LPAs choose to depart from the standard method remains to be seen, though they will be aware that their plans will be tested through examinations, and they will need to prove ‘exceptional circumstances’ to deviate away from the standard method.
• Exporting housing: Local authorities can no longer ‘export’ their housing need to their neighbours, other than under a voluntary cross-boundary agreement. This reflects the imminent removal of the duty to cooperate brought about by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act.
• Targets: Those authorities with up-to-date plans will no longer have to annually monitor housing numbers and demonstrate a five-year supply, and those authorities that are currently progressing new plans will only need to demonstrate a four-year supply [1].
• Community-led developments: there is increased focus on these not-for-profit schemes that are primarily aimed at meeting local housing needs.  These are exempt from affordable housing requirements and can be brought forward on exception sites; such sites can include a proportion of market housing in some cases, such as when this would allow schemes to come forward without grant funding.

Character

• Beauty: As trailed for some time, striving for ‘beauty’ is a central plank of Mr Gove’s planning policy and the word has been scattered throughout the Framework. As we all know, this is in the eye of the beholder (and now, we assume, the eye of the decision maker).  It’s anyone’s guess how this will be interpreted, though the suggestion is it will place greater emphasis on the use of a council’s design code.
• Density: The NPPF notes that “significant uplifts in the average density of residential development may be inappropriate if the resulting built form would be wholly out of character with the existing [urban] area”. This seems a high bar that has to be exceeded before schemes can be refused on the grounds of density, and Councils will need to point to their authority-wide design codes as evidence if opposing schemes on this basis.
• Mansards: The Ministerial Statement refers to ‘gentle densification’ seemingly being the favoured approach, though the NPPF does not use this term.  In this context, it is clear that mansard roofs are seen as the key to meeting the housing need!

Green Belts and the Environment

• Green belt boundaries: There is “no requirement” for green belt boundaries to be reviewed or changed when plans are being prepared, though Councils can do so in exceptional circumstances, as they have always been able to do.
• Building in green belt: Separately, the Planning Practice Guidance has now clarified those situations where development can come forward in green belts, such as limited infilling and on previously developed land, albeit still being bound by the test of openness of the green belt.
• Farmland: A greater emphasis has been placed on agricultural land, as the need of the land for food production should be considered.
• Energy efficiency: ‘Significant weight’ will be attributed to schemes that support energy efficiency and low carbon heating improvements to existing buildings, albeit with a heritage caveat.

The Planning Process

• ‘LAP-Dash’: 2024 will see the introduction of what may or may not become known as the LAP-Dash – local authority performance dashboards – league tables for planning authorities. This is one of several initiatives to encourage LPAs to speed up delivery.  Others include a review of how statutory consultees respond to applications and another review on planning performance agreements.
• Over-turning recommendations: PINS is to be asked to ‘name and shame’ those local authorities that “promiscuously” over-turn officer recommendations by letting their electorate know how much these decisions are costing them through fighting appeals.
• Housing Delivery Tests: In a bid to speed up build-out rates, the Framework refers to HDTs and states that local authorities that fall below their three-year requirement will have a cascade of consequences: initially an action plan to rectify delivery levels, followed by a 20% buffer on their supply, and finally the ‘presumption in favour’ will kick in.
• Build-out rates: Further consultation on speeding up build-out rates is expected once the Competition and Markets Authority has published its report on the housebuilding market next year.
• Time extensions: In another consultation, Mr Gove will look at restricting time extensions of applications, suggesting that this will be prohibited for householder schemes and perhaps limited to only being allowed once on other applications.

Other matters

• Developers: Consideration of the character of a developer, which had previously been mooted, has now been held back pending new primary legislation.
• No change: There are no changes to the NPPF chapters on town centres, transport, communications, heritage and minerals [2].
• London: The Secretary of State has sent a punchy letter to London Mayor Sadiq Khan to gently encourage a few more houses in the capital. He has asked an eminent team of professionals, led by Christopher Katkowski KC, to report next month on how delivery can be improved and where the London Plan needs to be changed.
• Slipshod Seven and Terrible Two: Mr Gove has also commanded the seven ‘worst offender’ local authorities to tell him within twelve weeks how and when they will be updating their overdue local plans. Watch out Amber Valley, Ashfield, Basildon, Castle Point, Medway, St Albans and Uttlesford!  Chorley and Fareham have been called out as “poor quality decision making” authorities.
• Oh, and Cambridge: The city needs to gird itself for the incoming 150,000 new homes to be delivered through a development corporation.  Currently, the city has only around 85,000 households!

If any of these issues are anticipated to have an effect on your present or forthcoming development projects, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. We’re ready to assist you in navigating through the challenges.

[1] This is a transitional arrangement to last for two years and applies to authorities that have plans at Reg 18 or Reg 19 stage.

[2] No changes other than renumbering paragraphs