The new NPPF: a backwards step

As anyone involved in planning will know, government announcements on planning reform tend to be timed around holidays. With the consultation version of the National Planning Policy Framework being published in late December 2022, it was only right that the final version landed on 19 December 2023 – an early Christmas present from secretary of state Michael Gove. However, the new NPPF is not quite the gift that many in the planning world would have hoped for. For those of us who hoped that the reforms to the NPPF would be used to address the housing crisis and deliver much-needed homes, the framework offered little festive cheer. The NPPF updates The updates to the NPPF deliberately dilute the existing measures in place to encourage development of new housing. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, green belt boundaries are not expected to be reviewed as part of the local plan-making process. This is a radical change in planning policy and appears in direct conflict with the NPPF’s stated aim of meeting unmet housing need; it is difficult to see how green belt authorities can meet high levels of need without being required to review such boundaries. Another key change is the reform of the five-year housing land supply requirements. Local planning authorities are now no longer required to maintain a five-year land supply, so long as they have an adopted local plan that is less than five years old and that identifies a five-year supply of sites. If an LPA’s plan is more than five years old but a draft local plan has been submitted for examination or has reached Regulation 18 or 19 stages (under the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012), there is only a requirement to identify a four-year housing land supply. The government has therefore created a clear incentive for LPAs to maintain up-to-date local plans. The new NPPF also clarifies that the government’s standard method for assessing housing needs is “advisory”. While this does not represent a substantive change in approach (the method was not previously mandatory), the word “advisory” implies that meeting local housing need is an aspirational goal rather than an objective that should be adhered to. There is, however, a requirement that the standard method should only be deviated from where exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated. What exactly constitutes “exceptional circumstances” is likely to be the subject of future debate. So how does the new NPPF propose to deliver new housing? Much of the provision of new housing will be done through densification. There is an emphasis on urban uplift, ie prioritising development on brownfield land in certain towns and cities, as identified in national planning guidance. The NPPF does clarify that development does not need to be permitted in such areas if it results in the increased density being “wholly out of character with the existing area”, but this threshold will be a high bar for LPAs to demonstrate in the face of urban development proposals. In line with this, the new NPPF also supports the development of small sites for housing, placing a particular emphasis on community-led development. Whether this can really achieve the government’s target to build 300,000 additional homes per year to address the housing crisis is highly questionable. This is all the more doubtful given the requirement introduced in the new NPPF that housing need in cities and towns should be met within those areas and not in neighbouring authorities. This discourages co-operation between local authorities in order to address housing need and will ultimately lead to fewer homes being delivered. Other key publications It was not just the NPPF which had planners on the edge of their seats in late December. A number of documents published in the same week are perhaps more noteworthy in signalling the government’s approach to planning than the updates to the NPPF itself. First, the secretary of state announced in a speech to the Royal Institute of British Architects that LPAs behind on delivering their local plans will be highlighted in public league tables, which will assess the speed with which planning applications are processed, the level of approvals and delivery against targets. Much of the current delay in the planning system is, of course, due to hugely under-resourced LPAs. Michael Gove acknowledged this in his speech and has suggested that the significant extra funding for LPA planning services announced in the Autumn Statement, combined with the income from the increase in planning fees in place since December, will help to plug this gap. He also announced that LPAs that refuse planning applications against officer advice will be “called out” and that the government is considering potential measures to speed up planning decisions such as the removal of the ability to agree extensions to determination deadlines. In what makes for a particularly interesting read, Gove has also written to mayor of London Sadiq Khan condemning his leadership on the basis that he has consistently failed to meet London Plan targets for building new homes, particularly affordable homes. The secretary of state has therefore created a special panel of planning experts to report on the aspects of the London Plan that are inhibiting housing delivery. The mayoral election is coming up in May and some might suggest the timing of this move is rather politically calculated. Another key point is Gove’s identification of Cambridge as a new “urban quarter”, which will have its own top-down development corporation to focus on life sciences development and help deliver 150,000 new homes by 2040. These measures are perhaps more interesting than those updates in the long-awaited NPPF, which represents a backwards step in tackling the worsening housing and economic crisis. Emma McDonald is an associate at Town Legal Image © Anthony Harvey/Shutterstock