NPPF (December 2022) Consultation Summary

An Iceni Intelligence Summary of the

National Planning Policy Framework

Consultation Draft December 2022

www.iceniprojects.com iceni-projects iceniprojects iceniprojects

NPPF : Consultation Draft

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) published its consultation to amend the NPPF on 22 December. These changes have been long trailed and are miles away for the ones first proposed back in August 2020 in the Government’s Planning for the Future White Paper, which sought to drive up delivery through a more streamlined planning system. These proposed changes to the NPPF seek to deliver some of the detail for the radically watered-down objectives of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB), but then add a whole array of brand new reforms aimed at putting community control at the heart of the planning system.

These new reforms have arisen from a swing in power to Conservative back benchers. When a group of 80 tory rebels threatened to block the progress of the LURB Bill, the Government was forced in to compromise and has agreed a range of proposals, many of which are individual hobby horses of specific MPs. The proposals are in effect a ransom payment that means the backbenchers can release the LURB hostage and give the Government a wider set of levelling up proposals to promote at the next election. In return, these backbenchers will hope to point to these reforms as a way to try and protect their own seats.

The main changes relate to Local Plan making and Green Belt development in particular, but still cover a wide range of issues including:

ƒ Clarifying that the ‘standard method’ for assessing housing need is a starting point in the Local Plan making process.

ƒ Retaining the current method for calculating housing need, until 2024.

ƒ Stating that local authorities do not need to meet their housing need in full if Green Belt release is the ‘only’ way to achieve this.

ƒ

Allowing local authorities flexibility from meeting housing need if it would require delivering housing at densities significantly out of character with the surrounding area.

ƒ

Restructuring the calculations for the five-year housing land supply to reduce the burden on local authorities.

ƒ

Lowering the bar that local authorities need to meet to have their Local Plan declared sound.

ƒ Fine tuning of the NPPF to support the Government’s sustainability objectives.

ƒ A greater emphasis on beauty as a design consideration for new development.

Iceni has produced a brochure which provides more detail on these key changes. This specifically does not cover everything (we left out any commentary on the bizarrely detailed guidance on mansard roofs for example), but it does look at what we think is most important developers and promoters. It’s not all bad news either, as we have highlighted some potential opportunities arising from these changes as well some key tips when looking to secure new sites.

For more information, please contact:

Nick Ireland, Director, Economics t: 07917 417 834 e: nireland@iceniprojects.com

Jamie Sullivan, Director, Strategic Planning t: 07805 926 150 e: jsullivan@iceniprojects.com

On 22 December 2022, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) launched a consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The changes are far-reaching and could have repercussions for the planning system and housing delivery.

The majority of the proposed changes are in response to Conservative backbencher’s refusal to support the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB). The changes are in effect the ransom payment that allows the LURB to continue through Parliament. Importantly there are other planning reforms in the LURB (National Development Management Policies, Infrastructure Levy, etc) which are still expected to come forward, but this note deals with the key new policy reforms trailed within the NPPF Consultation Document.

In keeping with previous versions of the NPPF, the latest proposed changes largely revolve around national planning policy for housing. Previous iterations have tended to introduce or modify policy measures in order to significantly boost housebuilding, principally through Central Government-led initiatives. If there is a golden thread, it is focused around incentivising planmaking activity and increasing plan coverage. Whilst it remains to be seen whether these draft changes will be implemented and how they might affect the planning system in operation, the changes have the potential to limit both the discretionary power of the Planning Inspectorate, and reduce the onerousness and potency of national planning policy in both plan making and decision taking.

HOUSING NEED – PLAN-MAKING

The proposed changes retain the ‘standard method’ as the starting point for setting a housing target in the Local Plan, but emphasise that the use of it is not mandatory, describing it as an ‘advisory starting point’ in Para 61. However the proposed policy changes essentially lend greater support to the use of alternative approaches.

It is notable that the use of the standard method was never mandatory. Para 61 already provides scope for using an alternative approach (as does the definition of ‘local housing need’ in the NPPF Glossary). Indeed, there are a number of local authorities whose adopted plans have deviated upwards from the standard method, including Oxford and South Oxfordshire, and Sunderland. There are however few, if any, examples to date of where housing need has been successfully argued to be lower. Assessing Housing Need

Government has potentially put a time limit on the current standard method formula, saying that it will review the methodology once the implications of the 2021-based household projections, which are due to be published in 2024, are known. The current formula thus limps on but could thus evolve over the preparation period of many local plans, albeit there is currently no explicit commitment to this, nor a clear timescale for doing so.

In the meantime the scope for deviation from the standard method figures is potentially widened. Much could be influenced by how Planning Practice Guidance evolves. We don’t currently know the detail. But what is mooted is further guidance on the types of local characteristics which may justify the use of an alternative method – “such as islands with a high percentage of elderly residents, or university towns with an aboveaverage proportion of students.”

It has been clear for some time that there can be issues with demographic data for university towns, where recording of student migration can be poor. This was recognised by the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) in 2021, in its report on Review of Population Estimates and Projections produced by ONS.’ The review recommended that ONS should work more closely with other stakeholders including in local government, recognise uncertainties, and include appropriate sensitivity analysis/ variant projections in future demographic projections. It specifically recognised issues with ONS data in some

areas, including Coventry and Guildford; and recent Iceni studies has sought to grapple with these issues in other areas as well including in Oxford.

The reference to ‘islands with a high percentage of elderly residents’ is an odd one and feels like a specific response to concerns of the Isle of Wight’s Bob Seely MP.

What will be important is what wider provision there is within revised PPG for having regard to more recent demographic data, particularly in advance of any standard method ‘review’, which could have implications for a much wider range of areas.

Perhaps surprisingly, the standard method’s ‘urban uplift’ is retained. The issue with this has been that many of this top 20 list of urban local authorities are supply-constrained and unable to meet housing needs within their areas, and thus the adjustments to the method in late 2020, which had essentially targeted labour-led urban authorities, was having implications for surrounding shire areas through the Duty to Cooperate. Here we see some potentially notable proposed changes.

FROM THE DTC TO AN ALIGNMENT TEST

The Levelling Up & Regeneration Bill includes provisions for scrapping the ‘duty to cooperate’ and its replacement with an, as yet, undefined, ‘alignment policy.’ This doesn’t read as a return to proper strategic planning, but one which replaces the stop-go legal test for plans with issues which goes to soundness, and can therefore be resolved as part of the Examination process.

The proposed changes to the Framework itself include a new Para 62 which states that the urban uplift “should be accommodated within the cities and urban areas themselves unless it would conflict with the policies in this Framework and legal obligations.” This elevates the importance of the text which was in the PPG already (see ID 2a-035). What does this mean? Well for plans at examination in advance of the LURB, probably little

changes; and for others, much may depend on the content of the new alignment test.

The Consultation document states that “The government intends to maintain this uplift and to require that this is, so far as possible, met by the towns and cities concerned rather than exported to surrounding areas, except where there is a voluntary cross-boundary agreement to do so (for example through a joint local plan or spatial development strategy).” It identifies some towns and cities where there is sometimes a minimal distinction between areas that are part of one of the 20 urban uplifted authorities and neighbouring authorities; and seeks views on how such adjoining authorities should consider their role in meeting the needs of the core town or city. Here think about the other Black Country authorities beyond Wolverhampton; Gateshead; Broxtowe, or South Gloucestershire. But equally there is significant scope for issues of unmet need to continue to clash with strategic constraints, including Green Belt (which we consider further below).

The impression overall is of a more flexible policy framework and voluntary agreements on unmet needs which may not exist in many areas.

ESTABLISHING THE HOUSING REQUIREMENT AND GREEN BELT PROTECTIONS

National policy and case law have for some time emphasised the distinction between housing need and the (policy-on) housing requirement. There are a number of key changes proposed here, most notably for Green Belt.

Green Belt is evidently one of the most emotive issues in planning. The current position is that Green Belt can be reviewed through the plan-making process where exceptional circumstances exist. Government now propose to insert in Para 142 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.”

It is clear that in many Green Belt authorities, plan-making has moved exceptionally slowly and there are few incentives to progress a local plan. The last 18 months has seen a number of plans in the Home Counties Green Belt areas which are not seeking to fully meet needs: in Mole Valley, Elmbridge and in Welwyn Hatfield. Is the Government’s tactical decision one that it would be better to provide greater flexibility here in order to support some plans being brought forward albeit with more limited development? More likely the Government is pandering to its MPs and (older) voters. But its implications could be particularly significant – especially for (the many) Green Belt authorities which are part-way through the planmaking process.

Beyond the headlines however, the detail of the text is important: whilst Green Belt boundaries are not required to be reviewed, it does not mean that they cannot be. Balancing the implications for sustainable development of different development options will still be important in making decisions, even if the Framework were to no longer require the testing of ‘reasonable alternatives’.

A further change is also proposed to Paragraph 67 codifying that a housing requirement figure can be higher than the identified housing need, if it includes provision for neighbouring areas “or reflects growth ambitions linked to economic development and infrastructure investment.” Our experience is that in a range of areas there will be a coherent case for this to be made.

Another proposed opportunity for deviance is where there has been over-delivery, with the Consultation setting out that some authorities feel they are having to plan for more than they need to, having delivered more homes than were planned for over the preceding plan period. It outlines that Government “therefore intend to make clear that authorities may also take past ‘overdelivery’ into account, such that if permissions that have been granted exceed the provision made in the existing plan, that surplus may be deducted from what needs to be provided in the new plan.” What is unclear

here is the detail: is Government simply suggesting that extant commitments can be deducted from what future provision needs to be made to meet housing need (as if the case now), or making provision for need to recalibrated. The basis for calculating the latter and its inter-relationship to housing need would be complex.

FIVE-YEAR HOUSING LAND SUPPLY

One of the areas where there are potentially significant short-term implications for planning decisions relates to five year land supply calculations. The Government appears to be reducing the scope for releasing land outside of the plan-making process, including at appeal. The proposals see notable reforms to the requirements to demonstrate a five-year land supply, with a range of proposals put forward:

ƒ

The removal of any requirement to demonstrate housing land supply within 5 years of adoption of a strategic plan, through amendments to Footnote 9; ƒ The total removal of a requirement to include a buffer in the HLS calculation; and provision for previous under- or over-supply to be taken into account; ƒ

The disapplication of the Para 11d presumption in favour of sustainable development where there is a neighbourhood plan which has been made within the last 5 years (rather than 3) and where it contains policies and allocations to meet its identified needs, with the removal of any conditions related to authority-wide housing delivery/supply; ƒ

Transitional arrangements (see Para 226) applicable for two years whereby if there is a draft local plan which includes proposed allocations and a policies map, the requirement will be to show a 4 year land supply.

The situations in which a 5YHLS triggers the presumption in favour of sustainable development would therefore be narrowed, albeit it is notable that there is no change to what constitutes a deliverable site.

It feels as if the ‘over-supply’ changes are a direct response to the situation in Tewkesbury since late 2018 and significant subsequent litigation. What is not clear is on what basis historic under-provision could be added on –and this could be substantial in some areas.

Overall, the scope for appeals on the basis of the presumption of sustainable development applying could narrow to focus on those with the most dated Local Plans. For many local authorities, the likelihood of them being unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply within the first three to four years post adoption is low, so we do not expect a significant change here.

Beyond this, the implication of removing the buffer and the ‘over supply’ changes will bolster the position of many local authorities’ housing land supply position and push a number of authorities in a position where the presumption no longer applies.

The transitional arrangements where a well progressed Local Plan means that local authorities only need to demonstrate four years supply, will also reduce the potential for speculative applications in the short term and we would expect to see local authorities with housing land supply shortfalls push forward towards this stage as soon as possible so they can take advantage of this protection.

HOUSING DELIVERY TEST

The main change proposed to the housing delivery test is a proposed provision of a “switch off” in circumstances where “permissions have been granted for homes in excess of 115% of the authority’s housing requirement over the applicable Housing Delivery Test monitoring period” as set out in Footnote 49.

We had traditionally seen the HDT as a ‘backwards looking’ measure based on actual delivery performance, which sat alongside the 5YHLS requirement which considered the forwards looking pipeline. The proposed amendments see a blurring of this.

The question is also whether the threshold of 115% is appropriate and if it will be effective at assessing the likelihood of short-term delivery of housing. For example, an authority could meet the 115% threshold by granting an outline consent on a larger strategic site which would likely deliver little in the short-term.

LOCAL PLAN TESTS OF SOUNDNESS

One of the other major proposed reforms is to remove the requirement for Local Plans to be ‘justified.’ The previous NPPF Test of Soundness explained this meant that they were ‘an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence’ when assessed as part of the Examination stage. Local Plans will now just need to be ‘positively prepared’, effective and ‘positively prepared’.

There was previously some overlap with the ‘effective’ test, but the removal of the requirement for proportionate evidence base and the Local Plan to be an ‘appropriate Strategy’ is clearly a significant reduction in barriers to get the Local Plan adopted and we would expect the level of scrutiny at this stage to be reduced.

THE IMPLICATIONS FOR URBAN AREAS

Much of the focus in the consultation document is in effect on plan making and appeals for greenfield sites, but there are some significant changes for planning for urban areas. In particular it is proposed that local authorities no longer need to plan to meet their housing need in full, if doing so would mean brining forward development at a density that would be significantly out of character with existing areas. Importantly this is only where the existing character is set out in an adopted Design Code.

This is a response to concerns in Barnet, where Theresa Villiers MP has objected to numerous planning applications on the grounds of perceived overdevelopment. The housing target for London Boroughs is set through the London Plan, so there could be

significant potential for conflict in the future where outer London Boroughs with higher housing targets seek to avoid meeting this target in their own Local Plan.

Outside of London, Metropolitan Boroughs which contain no or very little greenfield land will be in an interesting position. These local authorities often have high housing need figures and could seek to push more development off to neighbouring authorities through the new Alignment Test, if they believe they cannot accommodate the proposed level of growth with significantly changing the character of the area.

This already happens to a significant extent in many metropolitan local authorities (e.g. Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham, Southampton/Portsmouth), but those neighbouring authorities might now try to argue that they can not accommodate any additional growth particularly where they are wholly within the Green Belt.

CREATING SUSTAINABLE PLACES AND TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE

With respect to reducing the impact of the built environment on the climate, it is intended that a full review of the NPPF will be undertaken following the Royal Assent of the Net Zero Bill. This is likely to results in changes to the NPPF that will reflect the government’s Transport Decarbonisation Plan and a proposed new suite of National Development Management Policies, as well as building on the work undertaken within the Future Homes and Future Buildings Standards. In doing so, it is envisaged that potential future changes to the NPPF will aid in delivering significant reductions in operational carbon emissions from the built environment, as well as reducing reliance on fossil fuelsIndeed the government has announced that a consultation will be undertaken in 2023 on approaches and interventions to mainstream the measurement and reduction of embodied carbon emissions, and it is noted that there have been calls for a broad form of carbon assessment to be embedded within the planning system. It is intended, therefore, that the government will seek

information on tools that are currently available, in particular their applicability in a plan-making context and for the assessment of individual planning applications. A 2023 consultation will also be held on Quantifiable Carbon Reductions Guidance that is to be provided as part of the Local Transport Plans process.

To support the energy efficiency improvements set out within Future Homes and Future Buildings Standards, it is proposed that an additional paragraph be included within Chapter 14 of the NPPF. This addition requires significant weight be given to the need to support energy efficiency improvements through the adaptation of existing buildings, in particular large non-domestic buildings. These improvements are suggested to potentially include for the provision of heat pumps and solar panels where existing buildings do not already benefit from permitted development rights.

On a larger scale, it is intended that the NPPF be amended to require plans to provide positive strategies for energy from renewable sources, that maximises the potential for suitable development, and their future re-powering and maintenance, whilst also ensuring any adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily. It is intended that Local Authorities will be required to approve applications for the re-powering and lifeextension of existing renewable sites where the impacts are, or can be made, acceptable when compared to the baseline existing on the site. Additional details are also to be provided for applications that seek to provide one or more onshore wind turbines, whereby applications may be granted through Local Development Orders, Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build Orders. Proposals should be approved where they are located in an area identified as being suitable for wind energy within a Development Plan or supplementary documentation, it has been demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by the affected local community have been appropriately addressed, and the proposals have community support.

In light of the upcoming third National Adaptation Programme (NAP) and the forthcoming Climate Change Risk Assessment, there is potential for additional amendments to be made to the NPPF to account for additional climate change aspects, such as overheating and water scarcity. It is envisaged that the inclusion of these aspects within the NPPF would help focus on nature-based solutions and multi-functions benefits. These amendments would be made following the government’s policy responses to the most up-to-date assessment of the UK’s Climate Risk. Furthermore, following updates to the Flood risk and coastal change guidance in August 2022, there is potential for a review of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to be undertaken. This may result in the introduction of new standards for SuDS, in combination with a requirement to make connections to public sewers conditional of approval that proposed drainage systems meet national standards.

PLACEMAKING

The NPPF also places a greater emphasis on delivering ‘beautiful’ places and seeking to reject ‘ugly’ new development. These are in line with previously trailed proposals in earlier consultation documents, but they highlight the importance of design literacy throughout a project team and having a clear concept of the type of place that developers and promoters want to deliver.

TIMESCALES

The consultation on this document finishes on 1 March 2023. There is a clear opportunity for a range of parties to make representations, and provide supporting evidence to substantiate this – if Iceni can assist, please get in touch. Following on from this we expect the NPPF changes to be adopted prior to the LURB receiving Royal Assent (which will need to take place before July 2023). These timescales are highly ambitious, but we believe the Government is keen to push these through, so they have a set of ‘levelling up proposals’ they can point to as part of a future election campaign.

There are also potential future changes, including details of the National Development Management Policies and additional NPPF changes.

A GOVERNMENT ON BORROWED TIME?

The popularity of this current Government is well known and the current likelihood of it being in power past 2024 seems very low at the current time. But many polls exclude those who are unsure of their voting intensions and the gap between the parties may well narrow. We should be cautious of assuming that a future Labour Government would reverse these reforms. Once new planning policies are brought in to place they are difficult to repel. As we have seen from the past 12 years of Conservative Government attempts to liberalise the planning system to boost housing supply have proven to be very difficult.

WHAT ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES?

The full impact of these reforms will only become clear following the final publication of the NPPF and once the implementation of the policies is set through various precedents at appeal, Local Plan Examination and through the courts. Our initial view is that the implication of these reforms may well impact negatively on housing delivery, we consider that there are a number of opportunities arising from this new system:

ƒ

The focus in these reforms is housing, other forms of development such as third age living and logistics, does not appear to be as restricted. For both of these forms of development their may be better opportunities for an allocation and increased chances of success for a speculative application.

ƒ

The emphasis in Local Plan making is likely to shift to promoters and developers justifying sites and housing provision. This means developers who can leverage a greater range of economic and community benefits from a site or through a higher housing target are more likely to be successful. This will require a change in focus on the range of supporting evidence to support representations.

ƒ

Outside of Green Belt authorities, local authorities will have less opportunities to avoid housing need and will still need to bring forward significant levels of growth.

ƒ Local authorities that have been stalling on new Local Plans, may finally start bringing these forward with a view that the window for a low growth plan will be limited. While this may see less allocations, it will resolve the long term future of some sites.

For those seeking new opportunities, we consider that the potential of logistics and third age living remains attractive and we can assist on advising on the potential of these. When securing new greenfield housing sites, careful consideration needs to be given to authorities’ track records, local pressures and politics. Given the restricted scope for five year housing land supply opportunities, longer options agreements may be required.

The Sustainable Development Scorecard

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has running throughout it the ‘golden thread of sustainable development’. In spite of this, there is no clear-cut, NPPF-based assessment criteria to consider a site or project’s sustainable development credentials, making current assessment processes both tricky and subjective.

The Sustainable Development Commission was established to address this recognised issue with our planning system. Made up of a balanced cross-section of industry professionals, the Commission has debated the issues and found solutions, culminating in the creation of the Sustainable Development Scorecard.

The Scorecard website is free to use and accessible to anyone with a vested interest in development, including developers, architects, planners, community groups and members of the public. By crystallising the NPPF’s guidance into a simple, online analysis tool, the Commission aims to provide a more consistent approach to sustainable development, leading to a more sustainable built environment.

www.thescorecard.org.uk

Birmingham: The Colmore Building, 20 Colmore Circus Queensway, Birmingham B4 6AT

Edinburgh: 7 Alva Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4PH

Glasgow: 177 West George Street, Glasgow, G2 2LB

London: Da Vinci House, 44 Saffron Hill, London, EC1N 8FH

Manchester: WeWork, Dalton Place, 29 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6FW www.iceniprojects.com iceni-projects iceniprojects iceniprojects