The New NPPF: A Christmas Cracker?
The updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), released today (12 December 2024), promises significant changes to housing delivery, Green Belt planning, and local plan collaboration. In this analysis, members of the Cornerstone Planning and Environment Team highlight the key takeaways.
Authored by Michael Bedford KC, Josef Cannon KC, Clare Parry and Wayne Beglan.
Introduction
1. “Ho! Ho! Ho! Now I have a machine gun!” was the cheering message that John McClane passed on to Hans Gruber at that eventful Christmas party in the Nakatomi Plaza in downtown LA. For some fans, ‘Die Hard’ is an action thriller or perhaps the ultimate Christmas movie, but those of us in the planning world know that it is really a movie about an under-resourced state official trying to bring order to chaos, about the fragility of the built environment, and about the importance of working utilities infrastructure (especially for locked safes full of untraceable bearer bonds). So, as the season of office Christmas parties hits full swing this week, what are the key messages that Angela Raynor wants us to take from her shiny new NPPF? Is it “Yippee-ki-yah” to the NIMBIES, blockers, and bureaucrats, or something more workable and likely to last longer than its predecessor? (358 days if you are counting, which is a bit better than some green salad leaves have achieved)
2. Certainly, the Government is claiming a lot for the new NPPF. In the curtain-opening press release, issued early doors today, it was said that “The planning overhaul is set to tackle the chronic housing crisis once and for all” and the Deputy Prime Minister told us that the “government will not shy away from taking the bold and decisive action needed to fix it for good”. Can the new NPPF deliver on these bold promises? The point has been made previously that people do not live in planning permissions, still less in local plan allocations. Translating the new target of achieving 370,000 new homes a year during the life of the Parliament into actually constructed dwellings will remain the biggest challenge and the new NPPF will not be sufficient on its own to deliver that outcome. However, the government’s efforts for “turbocharging growth” are at least a step in the right direction. Cornerstone Barristers have identified four key points from the new NPPF that will set us all on that journey.
Implementation
3. Annex 1 is clear (at para 231) that for all development management decisions, the new NPPF takes immediate effect from today, 12 December 2024. So, all pending applications and appeals will need to grapple with the new NPPF right now. Applicants/appellants might be more cheerful about this than local planning authorities, especially for schemes involving housing development.
4. However, in the short term it is likely to slow down decision-making whilst everyone pauses to take stock, on a case-by-case basis, of whether the new NPPF would be likely to change the planning balance that would have previously been struck. PINS can be expected to be inviting representations on this in all outstanding appeals casework where the new NPPF is potentially relevant to the outcome, including those where the inquiry or hearing has already concluded. In those cases where the 5YHLS position materially changes with the shift to the new Standard Method, it may be necessary to re-open inquiries or hearings to allow new evidence to be presented and tested.
5. For plan-making, the Government has flexed its minimalist transition period of one month from 12 December 2024 which, with the Christmas break, would have been over almost as soon as the New Year gets under way. Now, para 234 gives a three months transition period (to 12 March 2025) for some (but not all) advanced plans to proceed under the former NPPF (December 2023).
6. This time extension means there may be a few more local planning authority teams working frantically against the clock to achieve a submission (para 234(b)) or a Regulation 19 pre-submission publication (para 234(a)) by 12 March 2025 than would have been the case had the Government stuck to its original intentions. However, the new requirement (in para 78) for plans using the ‘old’ Standard Method to add a 20% buffer when calculating the 5-year Housing Land Supply in decision-making (so in effect requiring a 6-year supply), at all times after 1 July 2026, will cause some local planning authorities to question whether the game of rushed plan-making is worth the candle.
7. Other plans that can benefit from the transitional arrangements are so-called ‘Part 2’ plans that deliver the detail for a post-12 March 2020 adopted strategic plan (para 123(c)), plans where there is an operative Spatial Development Strategy and the plans reach Regulation 19 pre-submission by 12 March 2025 (para 123(d)), and plans dealing only with minerals and waste which reach either the Regulation 19 stage or submission by 12 March 2025 (para 234(e)). These last two cases are new additions not foreshadowed in the consultation but are narrowly focused.
8. Since there will be a somewhat bigger raft of local plans that do carry on being tested against the ‘old’ December 2023 NPPF (or even, for some currently at examination, yet ‘older’ versions still), it is not quite time to throw away all that learning on the intricacies of household projections and city uplifts. These plans include Winchester (submitted on 15 November 2024), Ealing (submitted on 18 November 2024), and South Oxfordshire/Vale of White Horse (submitted on 9 December 2024). LPAs who have reached Regulation 19 pre-submission publication in the last few weeks, or expect to do so by 12 March 2025, will be carefully checking their proposed housing requirement numbers against finalised Standard Method figures to see if they are still within the new “at least 80% of local housing need” (in place of the no more than 200 dwellings difference as consulted on) which would allow them to carry on under the ‘old’ NPPF (para 234(a)).
9. For everywhere else, it will be necessary to look again at plan-making in the context of the expectation of the plan needing to achieve the new Standard Method figures (significantly higher than the ‘old’ Standard Method in many areas), or having clear agreements in place with neighbours to show how the unmet need against those new figures will be delivered.
10. Thus, we can expect to see a short term increase in examinations in 2025 for those areas that are able to carry on under the ‘old’ NPPF, but otherwise, we can expect to see a pronounced pause in local plans getting to the point of submission, especially for those LPAs who will need to carry out a convincing Green Belt review as part of their evidence to see whether or how they can meet their increased housing needs. Many LPAs will be wanting to undertake a new ‘call for sites’ in the light of the new NPPF to see whether that might assist in providing suitable opportunities for meeting the increased numbers.
The new Standard Method
11. At the centre of the proposed reforms’ ambitions to “deliver” an eye-watering 1.5 million new homes during the current parliament is a revised Standard Method for calculating housing need. As with the previous version of the NPPF, this is to be used when calculating Local Housing Need, itself the measure of housing need to be used in the decision-taking context whenever locally-adopted housing requirements reach their fifth birthday since adoption. It is also the minimum local housing need figure to be used when plan-making.
12. Briefly, until this morning the Standard Method (set out in the PPG) required the identification of a baseline drawn from the annual average projected household growth in the local authority’s area over the next ten years, taken from the 2014-based household projections; and multiplying that by an ‘adjustment factor’ based on the Affordability Ratio for the area. This latter number is the ratio between median earnings and median house prices in the area. Where that ratio is more than four (i.e., average house prices are more than four times average earnings), the formula uplifts the baseline figure accordingly. Finally (unless you are a large urban area), a cap was applied (and instead, for the 20 largest urban areas, a further 35% uplift applied). Helpfully, the government has published data tables displaying the results of the Standard Method calculation in each authority.
13. Research suggests that the total number of homes this produced was 305,700 per annum, of which around 99,000 were to be in London.
14. The replacement Standard Method, announced today, implies a significantly larger annual need (or number of houses): 370,400, of which 87,992 are in London. How?
15. The baseline is the most radically altered component: instead of deriving from the household projections (which critics say ‘bake in’ suppressed household growth in the past, as a result of constrained supply), the baseline now takes 0.8% of the current housing stock in the area – so not based on household formation, or indeed projections, but on existing housing stock in the area: essentially saying that it needs to increase by 0.8% each year as a starting point. This metric will be updated annually (usually in May). To this number is applied a new uplift, derived as before from the Affordability Ratio but now taking a five-year average (rather than just the most recent year) of earnings and house prices, and increased according to a formula based on the extent to which that ratio exceeds five: for each 1% the ratio is above 5, the baseline is increased by 0.95%. There are no caps or urban area uplifts.
16. Again, and happily, the effect is shown in a dataset released with the new Standard Method: an uplift in the Standard Method-derived annual number for almost all local authority areas, with some experiencing a substantially increased number.
17. Whether these numbers translate to permissions, and even more importantly new houses coming out of the ground for people to live in, remains uncertain; but there is no doubt that the levers have been pulled in this regard and a substantial shift in the expectations upon local authorities to identify sites and grant planning permissions has occurred.
Green Belt/Grey Belt
By Clare Parry
Decision making
18. Prior to today’s changes the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt has been (except in very limited circumstances) regarded as inappropriate. Therefore all green field schemes have had had to demonstrate very special circumstances in order to be approved. Schemes on previously developed land were regarded as inappropriate unless they were limited infilling or complete or partial redevelopment and would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than existing development or would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt where development would contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need.
19. While recent appeal decisions have suggested a more generous approach from PINS as to what constitute very special circumstances, it remained very difficult to get planning permission for schemes in the Green Belt.
20. From today housing, commercial and other development is no longer regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt where (paragraph 155): (1) it would be ‘Grey Belt’ land (2) it would not fundamentally undermine the purposes taken together of the Green Belt across the area of the plan (3) it would be in a sustainable location (4) there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed (5) the development would meet the golden rules
21. Looking at each of those matters in turn:
22. Grey Belt land will be regarded as grey belt if it is previously developed land or if it is land that does not strongly contribute to any of green belt purposes (a) (check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas) (b) (prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another) or (d) (preserve the setting and special character of historic towns). Land will not be Grey Belt where the application of policies in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. This definition is easier to meet than the definition set out in the consultation draft in that land must now strongly contribute to one of three specified Green Belt purposes to be avoid being defined as Grey Belt, and will only avoid designation if a footnote 7 policy gives a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. This appears to be designed to pull more land into the definition of Grey Belt.
23. Not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. This wording has slightly changed from the consultation draft but it still appears that this is a high test unlikely to be met in many cases.
24. Sustainable location while sustainable location is not defined, unlike in the consultation draft there is now a cross reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. Paragraph 110 refers to locations which ‘are or can be made sustainable’. That suggests the test can be met if the location is one that can be made sustainable.
25. Demonstrable need for the type of development. This is defined in footnote 56. In applications involving housing cases it will be met where (1) the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply or (2) the housing delivery test results were below 75%. Unlike the consultation draft there no longer appears to be reference to a demonstrable need for land to be released for development of local, regional or national importance so it appears that outside of housing and gypsy and traveller cases there is no attempt to define what is a demonstrable need for the type of development.
26. The golden rules are provision of: (1) affordable housing which reflects either development plan policies produced in accordance with the new Framework or to be calculated in accordance with paragraph 157 (2) necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure and (3) new or improvements to existing green spaces that are accessible to the public.
27. Until plans are produced where policies have been produced in accordance with the new Framework, affordable housing provision in the golden rules will be calculated in accordance with paragraph 157. This is 15% above the highest existing affordable housing requirements which would otherwise apply to the development (ie 15% above policy requirement) subject to a cap of 50%. Where there is no current affordable housing requirement the 50% cap applies. The much criticised proposal in the consultation draft to determine viability by a benchmark land value that should be established on the basis of existing use value plus a reasonable and proportionate premium for the landowner has been dropped. Instead viability is to be carried out in accordance with the PPG.
28. Given existing policies are presumably set at the top end of viability, adding 15% on top of that is likely to be controversial and viability disputes seem likely.
29. Where a development complies with the Golden Rules, however, it should be given significant weight in favour of the grant of permission.
30. Plan making
31. The new definition of Grey Belt will also have importance in plan making. Where it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to previously developed land in sustainable locations, then consider Grey Belt land in sustainable locations, and only then consider other sustainable Green Belt locations.
Local Plan collaboration
By Wayne Beglan
32. The NPPF contains a section on maintaining effective cooperation, updated in NPPF 2024. There are significant extensions to paras 24 and 28 (formerly 27), and a new para 27. The Government has introduced these changes to “streng[then] the existing Duty to Cooperate requirement [and introducing effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning” ahead of formal strategic planning mechanisms that will be introduced through new legislation.
33. Para 24 identifies effective strategy planning across authorities as playing a “vital and increasing role in how sustainable growth is delivered”. That guidance is given immediately before reference to the duty to co-operate (“DTC”) on strategic matters. The 2023 guidance relating to identifying relevant strategic matters for local plans remains the same. The obligation for effective and on-going joint working remains.
34. New para 27 provides more explicit guidance about the steps to be taken once strategic matters which require collaboration have been identified. The general approach is a requirement that policy-making authorities ensure that plan policies are consistent with those of other bodies where a strategic relationship exists, and with the relevant plans of infrastructure providers, unless there is a clear justification to the contrary. This general approach is fortified by three following requirements: (a) a consistent approach to planning the delivery of major infrastructure; (b) that unmet development needs from neighbouring areas are “provided for” in accordance with para 11(b); and (c) any allocation of designation across boundary areas , or which has significant implications for neighbouring areas, is appropriately managed by all relevant authorities. Note that para 27(b) has been changed from the draft so that “accommodated” has become “provided for”. There will doubtless be discussion about whether that represents a weakening (or strengthening) of the approach.
35. Para 28 continues to provide for Statements of Common Ground to be the main mechanism for demonstrating effective and on-going joint working. The additions to para 28 recognise that as local plans often come forward at different times matters of strategy, proposed provision of infrastructure, and the evidence base supporting neighbouring emerging plans may all be subject to a degree of uncertainty. In those circumstances the plan making authority need not wait for the uncertainties to be resolved, but can properly come to an informed decision on the basis of available information.
36. Accordingly, NPPF 2024 proceeds on the basis that the DTC continues to provide the main mechanism for co-operation on strategic planning matters across boundary areas for plans progressed within the current system. The policy obligations arising from DTC have been strengthened and made more explicit in terms of what policy must deliver (and deliver effectively, in order to be sound). The wide base of matters which are covered by infrastructure in para 27(a) have been laid out: They include major transport projects, utilities, waste, strategic health provision and significant educational provision.
37. The tests of soundness in para 36 (formerly 35) are unchanged, so that the requirement of positive preparation still requires that “unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development”. That test of soundness will be applied against the framework provided by para 27(b) and so para 11(b) which continues to require that strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide (a) for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as (b) any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas unless one of the two provisos in para 11(b) applies. Therefore, an authority that seeks to justify accommodating less than matters (a) and (b) will need to demonstrate that the provisos apply to the extent of that under-provision against the headline requirement of para 11(b).
38. In short, the obligations on collaboration in plan-making remain exacting, and will require early and comprehensive consideration by plan-making authorities.
Generally
39. Of course, the new NPPF contains a large number of other changes, some trailed in the consultation draft and some not. Two points worth highlighting are (a) the Government has dropped its revision of the para 11(d) presumption to exclude the ‘Wavendon basket’ exercise, so the task of identifying which policies “are most important for determining the application” remains with us; and (b) there are several previously unheralded changes in Chapter 14 to strengthen policy on climate change and the Cornerstone Climate team will be producing a bespoke bulletin on that topic very soon.
40. This briefing note is provided for training and education purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Cornerstone Barristers would be pleased to advise on any of the topics discussed or on any other implications of the new NPPF.
Register for updates from our Planning and Environment team here.