Consultation on the current proposed changes to the NPPF (2021)[1] closed on 2 March 2023 and the Government is expected to adopt the amended version of the NPPF before the summer. What will the changes mean for LPAs, landowners and SME developers?
Buckles expects the following main proposed changes to the 2021 NPPF[2] to survive the consultation largely unscathed:
- The Soundness test for the examination of local plans (NPPF para 35) will be amended:
- The ‘Positively Prepared’ element of the test will no longer require draft local plans to seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs ‘as a minimum’. The requirement that local plans “seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs” will be further softened by adding “as far as possible, taking into account the policies in this Framework”
- The ‘Justified’ element of the test will be completely deleted.
- The ‘Standard Method’ will be downgraded to “an advisory starting-point for establishing a housing requirement” (NPPF para 61) although it will incorporate an uplift for the 20 most populated cities and urban centres. NPPF para 62 explains that that uplift should be accommodated within those cities and centres “unless it would conflict with the policies in this Framework and legal obligations”.
- Amended NPPF para 142 explains that Green Belt boundaries do not need to be revised “if this would be the only means of meeting the objectively assessed need for housing over the plan period”.
- Paragraph 11(b) (which as originally drafted allowed reductions in Local Plan housing figures below the standard method figure where a higher number would have significant and demonstrable adverse effects (amongst other limited circumstances)). As amended, para 11(b) will explain that such adverse effects “include situations where meeting need in full would mean building at densities significantly out of character with the existing area”. It will also recommend deducting past over delivery.
- The revised NPPF paragraph 74 (to be renumbered as NPPF paragraph 75) will be amended:
- In future LPAs will only need to identify an adequate 5-year housing land supply if the strategic policies in their Local Plan are more than five years old, or, if the policies are older and have been formally reviewed, if they need updating.
- Where an LPA is required to identify an adequate 5-year housing land supply, that assessment will continue to be made using the ‘standard method’, but notably there will no longer any need to include a buffer. Previous under- or over-supply should also be taken into account.
- NPPF, para 11 (d) (the ‘Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development’ (the Presumption)) remains unchanged. However, footnote 9 is amended to accommodate the changes to NPPF para 74 (renumbered para 75).
Transitional provisions are included in the proposed revised Annex 1, and in summary:
- The revised Soundness Test will only apply to draft local plans which have either not yet reached the Regulation 19[3] stage, or which reach that stage within three months of the publication of the revised NPPF.
- Where the housing requirement in an extant plan is more than 5 years old and as at the date that the revised NPPF is published the relevant LPA have either reached the Regulation 18 or 19 stage on a replacement local plan, or submitted a replacement local plan for examination, then for the period of 2 years following publication of the revised NPPF, the relevant authorities need only identify and update annually a 4-year supply of specific deliverable housing sites.
The main changes summarised above primarily impact on planning making and on planning decisions on housing proposals.
Plan Making
The Government’s ‘Standard Method’ was introduced to provide a relatively objective assessment of housing need in each local authority area and that assessment was intended to be reflected in Local Plans. As currently drafted, NPPF paragraph 35 requires Local Plans both to seek “as a minimum” to meet that objectively assessed need within their area, and to accommodate unmet need from neighbouring areas where “it is practical to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development”. This approach has successfully increased the housing figures in Local Plans adopted over recent years.
Subject to the transitional provisions, the changes to the ‘Positively Prepared’ element of the Soundness Test, the related encouragement to treat the standard method housing need figures as an ‘advisory starting point’ only, and the new ‘hands-off’ approach to the Green Belt (a political ‘hot potato’) amount to an invitation to LPAs and Local Plan examiners to take a more relaxed approach to housing targets in local plan preparation and examination.
It might be argued that these changes represent a rebalancing of development away from greenfield to brownfield land and existing urban centres. However even then, that objective is qualified by the revised NPPF Para 62, and the concern in the revised paragraph 11(b) that increased densities should not be promoted where they would be “significantly out of character with the existing area”. Surely this is another invitation to an LPA devising a replacement Local Plan to adopt a cautious approach to urban densification, going no further than the ‘gentle densification’ that the Housing Secretary Michael Gove has been promoting recently?
Cynics may also see the removal of the ‘Justified’ test as likely to support this change of approach. Put simply, the removal of the need to show that the housing strategy is appropriate (taking account of reasonable alternatives), should make it easier at examination to justify what may become an essentially political decision on housing numbers.
Decision making on housing applications
The proposed changes to current NPPF paras 74 and footnote 9 to paragraph 11(d) also need to be understood together. As currently drafted and irrespective of how recently the Local Plan has been adopted, NPPF para 74 requires LPAs to annually identify enough specific sites to accommodate at least 5 years of their Local Plan housing requirement, or, if their Strategic Policies are more than five years old, enough land to accommodate 5 years of their housing need. In either case, that figure is then boosted with an additional buffer of 5%, or where there has been significant under delivery of housing over the previous three years, 20%.
If the LPA cannot demonstrate an adequate 5-year housing land supply (plus buffer), the current NPPF paragraph 11(d) deems relevant Local Plan policies to be ‘out-of-date’, and there is a presumption that applications for housing development should be approved. The same Presumption applies where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that over the previous three years, housing delivery was less than 75% of the housing requirement for that period.
As a result of changes to the renumbered NPPF para 75, in future the Presumption will only apply in favour of housing applications as follows:
- Where a Local Plan is more than 5 years old (and either its Housing Need figure has not been reviewed, or it has been reviewed and needs updating) and the LPA cannot identify specific deliverable sites to accommodate 5 years of its housing need assessed in accordance with the new para 75 (i.e. without a buffer and taking account of previous under or over delivery).
- Irrespective of when the LPA adopted its Local Plan, if the Housing Delivery Test shows that over the preceding three years housing delivery fell below 75%. Even then, the Presumption would not apply if the LPA has granted permissions for more than 115% of its housing requirement over the previous three years.
Of these changes, it is the removal of the buffer element from the 5-year housing figure that is likely to have the greatest impact. If an LPA has adopted a refreshed Local Plan within the last 5 years, it should be able to identify an adequate 5-year housing land supply (even with a buffer) in any event. However, once the plan becomes more than 5 years old, the removal of the buffer will at least initially make it easier for LPAs to demonstrate an adequate 5-year housing land supply. Nonetheless, this will become increasingly difficult as the Local Plan continues to age. For those LPAs with plans which are already significantly older than 5 years, these changes are unlikely to be of much assistance.
It is also worth remembering that at the time of writing this article, less than 50% of LPAs have up-to-date local plans in place, and many of those up-to-date Local Plans are likely to be rapidly approaching their fifth anniversary. Hence, the Presumption will still play a role in many housing applications.
Lessons
So, what are the lessons of the revised NPPF for LPAs, landowners and SME developers?
From an LPA perspective, the more relaxed policy environment should be seen as a strong invitation to ensure that your Local Plan is up-to-date, and that strategic policies are kept under regular review and updated. However, for the reason briefly summarised below there is no guarantee that this more relaxed regime will still be in place post-2025. Hence, LPAs should do their best to take advantage of what might be a relatively short window of opportunity.
From a landowner’s perspective and at least until any future reversal of NPPF housing policies, it is likely that fewer greenfield sites will be allocated for housing in Local Plans. Hence it is all the more necessary to engage early with the Local Plan process, lobbying as effectively as possible for your sites to be allocated.
From an SME developer’s perspective, what might be called the ‘Gladman’ business model (i.e. planning for greenfield sites by appeal in reliance on the Presumption) is by no means dead, particularly for those LPAs whose Local Plans are significantly more than 5 years old. However, a judicious pause might be appropriate where developers are considering applying for housing development on unallocated greenfield sites with a Local Plan that is less than 5 years old. Where such applications are made, developers may need to invest more effort in analysing the LPAs’ ability to satisfy the Housing Delivery Test.
One final thought. As incumbent governments approach a general election, they tend to adopt a ‘softly-softly’ approach to planning given its political sensitivity. However, after an election they often take a much harder line in the hope of securing quick wins before the next electoral cycle really kicks-in. Both the Tories and Labour publicly support a (hitherto unmet) target of 300,000 new residential units per annum as key to solving the current housing crisis. While the present Government may be relaxing policy now, it is very likely that whoever is in power after the 2024 general election will be looking to harden the policies again. Hence, any advantages or disadvantages of the 2023 version of the NPPF could be short-lived.
The Buckles Planning Team regularly advises developers and land owners on housing planning applications. If you have any queries about anything in this article please feel free to contact us.
[1] Consultation in 2023 on yet further changes to the NPPF to bring it in line with the provisions of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (the LURB) are promised in the LURB consultation document
[2] There are a range of other changes of interest, in particular increased support for renewable energy proposals in chapter 14. However, this article will focus on housing issues.
[3] Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012
