Introduction
On 30 July 2024, the Government issued a consultation paper on proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) together with a proposed draft text for the revised NPPF. At the same time, a Ministerial Statement entitled ‘Building the homes we need’ was made by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
In this blog post, we discuss the proposed changes to the NPPF and other planning reforms set out in these documents.
Ministerial Statement on Building Homes
The Ministerial Statement can be accessed at the following link:
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-07-30/hcws48
The Ministerial Statement sets out a broad outline of the planning reforms the Government proposes to make particularly focussed on improving the affordability and growth of housing to build the Government’s proposed 1.5 million homes over the next five years. These reforms include restoring and raising mandatory housing targets (the Government now is targeting 370,000 homes a year – up from 300,000), building on ‘Grey Belt’ land, delivering more affordable homes through changes to the planning system and a review of Right to Buy as well as changes to the Affordable Homes Programme, and expanding the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime to include infrastructure such as laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, electricity grid connections and the networks that support freight and logistics.
Consultation on changes to the NPPF
The Government’s consultation paper and draft text for the revised NPPF can be accessed at the following link:
The consultation runs for 8 weeks and will close on 24 September 2024.
The consultation paper proposes the reversal of many of the changes made to the NPPF in December 2023 as well as some new policies. A summary of the proposed changes to the NPPF is as follows:
(1) Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development – The Government proposes to strengthen and reform the presumption (set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF). Currently, the presumption is triggered when there are ‘no relevant development plan policies’, or those which are ‘most important for determining the application are out-of-date’ and the Government proposes making clear that the relevant policies are those for the supply of land. Further, the Government proposes changes to the presumption to add explicit reference to the need to consider locational and design policies, as well as policies relating to the delivery of affordable housing.
(2) Brownfield Land, Green Belt and the new ‘Grey Belt’ – The consultation proposes:
(a) Strengthening the presumption in favour of brownfield development in paragraph 122(c) of the NPPF.
(b) There will also be a requirement imposed on local planning authorities (LPAs) to undertake a review of the Green Belt where a LPA cannot meet its identified housing, commercial or other need without altering Green Belt boundaries.
(c) New paragraph 152 of the NPPF provides that development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where the development would utilise Grey Belt land in sustainable locations and the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or there is a demonstrable need for land to be released for development of local, regional or national importance. In the glossary of the draft text for the revised NPPF there is also a new definition of ‘Grey Belt’ land – broadly it is to be land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and any other parcels and/or areas of Green Belt land that make a limited contribution to the five Green Belt purposes (as defined in para 140 of the NPPF) but excluding those areas or assets of particular importance (listed in footnote 7 of the NPPF).
(3) Housing Need, the Standard Method and Urban Uplift – The urban uplift is proposed to be deleted from the NPPF and replaced with a new revised version of the standard methodology. It will be mandated that this standard method be used as the basis for determining a LPA’s housing need figures in all but a few limited circumstances. The Government is also consulting on whether to make the requirement of 10% of all local plan allocations being for small sites mandatory.
(4) Affordable Housing and First Homes – The Government is proposing the removal from the NPPF of the requirement to deliver at least 10% of the total number of homes on major sites as affordable homes (as set out in paragraph 66 of the existing NPPF) and to remove the requirement that a minimum of 25% of affordable housing units secured through developer contributions should be First Homes.
(5) Well-designed development – The existing NPPF includes references to the terms ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ when relating to well-designed development. Because the references to ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ may result in inconsistency in how it is applied in decision-making (as many find the term subjective and difficult to define) the Government is proposing to remove these references to beauty and beautiful in relation to well-designed development.
(6) The Infrastructure Levy – The Infrastructure Levy proposed by the previous Government under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 will not be implemented by the new Labour Government and is officially done. The confirmation to this effect is buried away in the consultation paper in Chapter 6, paragraph 3.
The above is a summary of the most significant proposed changes to the NPPF in our view, however there is plenty more to unpack from the proposed revised NPPF (which would require a much longer essay!).
Our comments
We are encouraged by the Government’s proposals as set out in the consultation paper and the revised NPPF text which are aimed primarily at promoting more home building and also to improve the affordability of homes. Also to our delight (and we suspect to that of many other legal and planning practitioners) the previous Government’s proposed Infrastructure Levy is now gone which if introduced would have added another complex layer to the planning system for both LPAs and developers to grapple with which was simply unnecessary in our view.
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
