The Updated National Planning Policy Framework

The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner, provided a written ministerial statement accompanying the release of the updated NPPF detailing an overview of Labour’s planning reforms which is available here.

This article looks at the draft key amendments and changes that the Labour Government are proposing to introduce:

Housing Land Supply

• NPPF24 has re-introduced the requirements at paragprah 76 for all LPAs to demonstrate a 5YHLS, i.e. LPAs must now be able to identify deliverable sites sufficient to meet housing need across a five-year period, even when the adopted plan is less than five years old.

• NPPF24 has deleted the 10% buffer for the “annual position statements” (“APS”). An APS gave LPAs the opportunity to confirm whether or not they had a 5YHLS on 1^st April each year. The APS was rarely used by LPAs largely due to the fact that they could not demonstrate a deliverable 5YHLS, i.e. Tewkesbury Borough Council could only deliver 3.39 years of housing land supply in September 2023.
• NPPF24 restores the 5% buffer to ensure choice and competition in the market for land, as well as a 20% buffer for LPAs where delivery was below 85% of the housing requirement measured against the Housing Deliver Test (net homes delivered in a local authority area against the homes required).
• NPPF24 deletes reference to LPAs needing to demonstrate a ‘four-year housing land supply’ where their emerging plan has reached Reg 18 or Reg 19 stage. This will lead to less ambiguity, i.e. what is a four year supply, greater consistency amongst LPAs, and hopefully the deliverability of more homes coming forward across the five-year period.

“Mandatory” Housing Targets

• Delivery of 1.5 million homes within this parliament – 300,000 homes per annum.
• Achieving this target through the introduction of the “standard method” formula which is mandatory but not binding for all LPAs. NPPF24 deletes reference to the “exceptional circumstance test”, as set out in paragprah 62, which allowed LPAs to argue a lower figure.
• The standard figure adds up to a national target of 371,000 homes per year. The Government arrived at this figure using the “stock-increase” approach – this is an increase in the stock of housing in the local area by an increase of 0.8% of the existing housing every year. Additionally, there is also an affordability adjustment which is a 0.6% uplift which was previously 0.25%.
• However, despite the standard method being the mandatory figure for calculating housing numbers, paragraph 11(b) continues. This means that LPAs will still be able to argue for a lower figure where they have constraints in their area – see Footnote 7 of NPPF24.

Green Belt / PDL & Grey Belt

• Introduction of a new paragraph 142 within NPPF24: “Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified…. Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to, instances where an authority cannot meet its identified need for housing, commercial or other development through other means”. As a result, LPAs are now under an obligation to review Green Belt boundaries and propose alterations to meet supply, relevant to both housing and commercial development.
• Paragraph 144 sets out a sequential approach that must be taken in relation to Green Belt release, that being, “give first consideration to previously-developed land (“PDL”) in sustainable locations within the Green Belt, then consider grey belt land in sustainable locations which is not already previously-developed, and only then consider other sustainable Green Belt locations”.
• Paragraph 151 of NPPF24 sets out the exceptions to the general principle that new development within the Green Belt is inappropriate. The Government have deleted the two limbs at Paragraph 151(g) and have proposed wording in relation to limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of PDL to simply refer to “not causing substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt”. Generally, most LPAs tended to make an assessment of an existing development’s footprint and volume to assess whether the proposed development would have a “greater impact”. Now, as the test is “substantial harm”, this appears to relax the PDL exception to inappropriate development given that “substantial harm” is quite a high bar to demonstrate.
• The definition of Grey Belt in the NPPF24 covers PDL and any other parcels and/or areas of Green Belt that make a limited contribution to the five Green Belt purposes (paragprah 140 of NPPF24).
• Of interest, new paragraph 152 in the NPPF24 regarding Green Belt release which, in addition to the exceptions listed to inappropriate development, states, “housing, commercial and other development should not be regarded as inappropriate where (1) The development would utilise grey belt land in sustainable locations, the contributions set out in paragraph 155 of NPPF24 are provided, and the development would not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole; and (2) the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites; or where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years; or there is a demonstrable need for land to be released for development of local, regional or national importance.

Other Notable Points

• Universal Plan Coverage – enabling universal coverage of strategic planning as soon as possible and in any event within this Parliament. Welcome news for developers!
• Powers of Intervention – the Secretary of State has stated she intends to use her powers of intervention to drive progress of local plans which includes taking over an LPAs plan making directly.

• Economic Growth – paragraph 84(b) and paragraph 85 of the NPPF24 focusses on large-scale development covering: laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics... [and] the expansion of modernisation of other industries of local, regional or national importance to support economic growth. The introduction of a new paragraph 27 of the NPPF24 highlights that LPAs must collaborate in order to bring forward strategic development.
• Renewable Energy – paragraph 161(b) has been amended so that LPAs must identify suitable sites for renewable development.

Albeit the Government’s targets are ambitious, the reaction has generally been a positive one. Of course, delivery will be challenging as a result of both macro (Ukraine, Middle-East and US recession fears etc.) and micro conditions (skills shortage in the construction industry, LPA Planning Department resourcing issues, a lack of qualified planning consultants and officers, the Affordable Homes Programme etc.), however, maybe it was time for a reset of plan-making. The Government’s stock-based approach, re-introduction of the 5YHLS and the use of the Green Belt reflects a “common-sense” approach to meet sustainable housing demand, major infrastructure developments and energy projects to ultimately drive growth.

As mentioned at the outset, the consultation period is scheduled to close on 24^th September 2024. The Government will then review the responses and submit a revised NPPF which will likely be published a few months down the line, anticipated before the end of 2024.