Introduction
A new year of course brings with it more planning reform, even despite the ongoing Covid-19 lockdown.
The Government has recently announced a consultation which proposes changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
In addition to the proposed changes to the NPPF, the Government has also published for consultation a draft National Model Design Code, together with Guidance Notes for Design Codes.
The consultation will close on 27 March 2021.
An explanatory note discussing the proposed changes to the NPPF and the draft National Model Design Code, as well as the proposed amended text of the NPPF and draft National Model Design Code and Guidance Notes for Design Codes can all be accessed at the website link below:
In this blog post, we provide a summary of the above proposals being consulted on by the Government and our comments.
Proposed changes to the NPPF
There are the following important proposed changes to the NPPF:
- Policy changes in response to the ‘Building Better Building Beautiful Commission’ recommendations
The policies in the NPPF have been amended in response to the ‘Building Better Building Beautiful Commission’ recommendations to emphasise the importance of well-designed, beautiful and safe places in achieving the social objectives of sustainable development.
There is a new test introduced in paragraph 133 of the NPPF that development should be well-designed and if it is not (particularly where it fails to reflect design policies and guidance) then it should be refused. It also provides that significant weight should be given to development which reflects design policies and guidance and/or outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area.
There is a new paragraph 130 introduced into the NPPF which provides that planning policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-lined, that opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere in developments (such as community orchards), that appropriate measures are in place to secure the long-term maintenance of newly-planted trees, and that existing trees are retained wherever possible.
- Strengthening of environmental policies including clarifying policy concerning flood risk
The NPPF has been amended to ensure that infrastructure provision, environmental and climate change requirements are key to achieving sustainable development. The presumption in favour of sustainable development in paragraph 11 of the NPPF now requires all plans to align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects.
Paragraph 160(c) of the NPPF has been amended to clarify that plans should manage any residual flood risk by using opportunities provided by new development and improvements in green and other infrastructure to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding (making as much use as possible of natural flood management techniques as part of an integrated approach to flood risk management).
- Retaining and explaining statues
New paragraph 197 of the NPPF has been introduced which provides that in considering any applications to remove or alter a historic statue, plaque or memorial (whether listed or not), local planning authorities should have regard to the importance of retaining these heritage assets and, where appropriate, of explaining their historic and social context rather than removal.
- Use of Article 4 directions
Paragraph 53 of the NPPF has been amended to ensure that Article 4 directions (which seek to withdraw permitted development rights in a particular area) can only be used to remove national permitted development rights allowing changes of use to residential where they are targeted and fully justified. The Government proposes two different options here for consultation which would limit the use of Article 4 directions to either where this is essential to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts, or alternatively where this is necessary in order to protect an interest of national significance. The Government also proposes that Article 4 directions should be restricted to the smallest geographical area possible. Together these amendments would encourage the appropriate and proportionate use of Article 4 directions.
- Requirement that 10 percent of all major housing developments should be affordable housing
Paragraph 65 of the NPPF has been amended to clarify that, where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the “total number of” homes to be available for affordable home ownership, subject to the exemptions in that paragraph.
Further proposed changes to the NPPF which we note include the requirements that the design of isolated homes in the countryside now needs to be “outstanding” and the reference to “innovative” has been removed (paragraph 80 of the NPPF), and that larger scale residential developments are supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities including a “genuine choice of transport modes” (paragraph 73 of the NPPF).
National Model Design Code
The draft National Model Design Code (the Code) which has been published by the Government outlines the design standards that new developments will be expected to meet. The purpose of the Code is to provide detailed guidance on the production of design codes, guides and policies to promote successful design. It expands on the ten characteristics of good design set out in the National Design Guide, which reflects the government’s priorities and provides a common overarching framework for design.
The Code is intended to form part of the Government’s planning practice guidance. It is not a statement of national policy. However, once finalised, the Government recommends that the advice in the Code on how to prepare design codes and guides is followed.
Our comments
The current version of the NPPF was published by the Government in February 2019. Since that time there have been several announcements by the Government of proposed reforms to the planning system as well as written ministerial statements and legal cases impacting on the policies contained within the NPPF.
The proposed changes to the NPPF which the Government is currently consulting on as the Government itself states is not a wholesale revision of the NPPF, nor does it reflect proposals for wider planning reform which were set out in the previous Planning for the Future consultation, and it is expected that a fuller review of the NPPF is likely to be required in due course to reflect those wider reforms. Given the radical nature of the reforms to the planning system which were proposed in that previous consultation, we would expect that the NPPF will significantly change in its next wholesale revision. Accordingly, whilst the current proposed changes to the NPPF, taken together with the draft National Model Design Code, are clearly important in terms of their impact on the design of developments and making developments more “beautiful” (whatever that ultimately means as it is quite subjective and as they say “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”), these changes do appear to be essentially ‘tinkering’ around the edges of the NPPF compared to what we expect will come in the future.
The other stand-out point for us from the Government’s proposed changes to the NPPF is the changes to the use of Article 4 directions to withdraw permitted development rights allowing changes of use to residential. The Government is clearly concerned with how these directions are being used in practice by local planning authorities and the impact of these directions on housing development. In practice, we are aware of several authorities which have introduced these directions to restrict the use of permitted development rights allowing a change to residential use, particularly from uses such as offices, and it will be interesting to see what, if any, impact these changes will have on the use of Article 4 directions.
Note: all comments and views expressed in this blog are merely opinions and provided for information purposes only and do not constitute legal advice which can be relied upon. Should you require legal advice on a matter then please contact us
