Game-changing updates announced for National Planning Policy Framework

A central feature of the revised NPPF is a change in the way housing targets will be calculated and monitored.

Local councils are collectively tasked with delivering 370,000 new homes annually, contributing to a total of 1.5 million homes over the next five years, as announced in Plan for Change last week.

These targets prioritise development in areas where housing is least affordable, aligning with the government’s commitment to addressing the housing crisis.

For councils, this marks a shift from previous flexibility in interpreting housing needs. Local authorities must ensure their local plans reflect these targets, with a clear emphasis on meeting demand in growth areas.

The government is playing the long game with this, and it will affect the creation of new Local Plans which can take several years for local authorities to produce. Many will have decided that they now need to start these again, with the new housing targets in mind.

The increased housing targets are very ambitious and the Government will be relying on local authorities being able to identify more housing land.

In the short term, it will likely result in more local authorities failing to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, which will triggering the NPPF’s established presumption in favour of sustainable development. This will mean more applications will be determined based on the NPPF, where the local plan will be considered out of date.

This could lead to more speculative planning proposals for housing and would be harder for local authorities to resist planning proposals on unallocated sites.

A notable addition to the NPPF is the introduction of “grey belt” land. This classification refers to areas within the Green Belt that are of lower environmental or functional value, which may be deemed suitable for development.

Councils will be encouraged to explore grey belt land after exhausting brownfield site options, but before considering high-value Green Belt areas.

For developers, grey belt sites present new opportunities, particularly in regions where Green Belt restrictions have previously hindered development. Planning applications within defined grey belt will be subjected to a much higher degree of subjectivity when assessed, with the need to consider both the contribution to meeting an unmet need, and wider sustainability considerations.

This will result in less predictable decision making for such applications and perhaps a higher degree of political intervention at planning committee.

The impact of this will come down to how local authorities devise the wording around grey belt in their local plans, but will likely create more opportunities for developers but not necessarily an easier planning process.

Meanwhile, when housing developments are planned for Green Belt land or land being taken out of the Green Belt, there must be a specific focus on providing affordable housing.

These developments should include a higher percentage of affordable homes compared to normal developments outside the Green Belt and ensure that at least 50% of the homes are affordable.

The ‘Golden Rules’ for major housing development on land released from the Green Belt also issue include improvements to infrastructure and green spaces. This is about making sure that any Green Belt development provides real community benefit, especially in terms of affordable housing.

Meanwhile, 25% of affordable housing as First Homes is no longer required, but the delivery of it is up to each Local Planning Authority’s discretion. This offers greater flexibility to tailor affordable housing provision to local needs, improving project viability and financial sustainability.

Building further on progress made over the last two years on Biodiversity Net Gain, which was not changed in the new NPPF), local authorities must now also give significant weight to proposals that improve the energy efficiency of buildings or incorporate low-carbon heating solutions.

This aligns with broader climate goals and supports retrofitting existing structures for better environmental performance.

The need to mitigate and adapt to climate change is also given greater emphasis in the new Framework, identifying the need for development to tackle overheating, water scarcity and storm risks in addition to the established considerations of flood risk and coastal erosion.

Collaboration with councils to meet these criteria will be crucial for project success, and Vail Williams’ planning team can advise developers to ensure development proposals and planning applications meet the necessary requirements.

Another interesting change was the removal of the word ‘beautiful’ and ‘beauty’ throughout the NPPF. It will be interesting to see what the potential implications will be in reducing subjectivity on what is deemed to be quality design.

The new Government quickly made their intentions clear with a swift announcement to the change to NPPF policy on land-based wind energy earlier in 2024.

This has been followed by a more detailed policy to promote renewable energy, recognising the contribution that small-scale and community-led renewable energy generation can make to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

In building a strong economy, the NPPF places greater emphasis on facilitating modern industries, requiring policies and decisions to support laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics.

This is good news for the industrial property market and the occupiers and developers active within it.

However, LPAs should refuse applications for hot food takeaways and fast food outlets which are within walking distance of schools and other places where children and young people congregate. That is, unless the location is within a designated town centre or in locations where there is evidence of adverse impact on local health, pollution or anti-social behaviour.

The Government have now placed significant weight on the importance of delivering public section infrastructure which now includes health, blue light, library, adult education, university and criminal justice facilities.  This has expanded from the previous iteration of paragraph 101 which encouraged local planning authorities to work positively with public sector infrastructure delivery partners.  The significant weight on public sector development should positively influence the planning balance in the assessment of public sector infrastructure schemes.