The draft National Planning Policy Framework marks a clear shift towards a more rules-based, pro-growth planning system, but the detail matters.
Our senior team share their insights:
Strat Land
1) Adam Ross , Executive Director at Nexus Planning , comments:
“The draft NPPF is very clearly, and very deliberately, different in terms of its structure, presentation, and content. It now sets out government guidance as clear policies rather than descriptive text under thematic headings, an expression of the ‘rules-based’ approach that Matthew Pennycook MP has been referencing. It is unashamedly pro-growth and, whilst there is clearly a lot to digest, from a strategic land perspective there are a number of key changes that immediately caught my attention:
- A decision to make it clear that the PPG is subservient to the NPPF in terms of policy weight, contrary to the position established earlier this year by the Court of Appeal in the Mead Realisations case, which determined that the NPPF and PPG had equivalent weight as expressions of government policy.
- An ‘even more tilted balance’, my phrase rather than a defined term in the NPPF, where adverse effects now need to ‘substantially’ outweigh benefits at what is now Policy S5, a balance which seems to be permanently engaged for housing and mixed-use developments within a reasonable walking distance of a railway station with a high level of connectivity to jobs and services.
- A requirement that LPAs should alter Green Belt boundaries, as part of Local Plan reviews, where this would enable the development of land around stations.
- Changes to Local Plan soundness tests to remove the ‘justified’ and ‘effective’ tests and replace them with ‘appropriate’ and ‘realistic’.
- A specific requirement for Planning Statements to be ‘concise’, we probably all have some sympathy with that.
- Requiring that Local Validation Lists for planning applications are not used to unnecessarily muddy the waters on the documents needed to get an application validated and determined.
- The retention of what was paragraph 14 relevant to the weight to neighbourhood plans, now Policy S6.
- An apparent mandating that ‘substantial’ weight should be given to the benefits of housing, consistent generally with the approach of practitioners and appeal Inspectors.”
“Lots to digest over the holiday period and beyond but, certainly in comparison to what happened in December 2023, a nice early Christmas present.”
Reserved Matters
2) Tony Clements , Executive Director at Nexus Planning , says:
“While it would be preferable if they were statutory, the proposed introduction of national decision-making policies is welcomed, as is the stated objective that development proposals should be decided in a way that is proportionate, timely, and effective. It will be important that this overarching objective informs all decision-making. In this context, making clear that consultees should be engaged only where necessary and that untimely responses should not delay the determination of applications, Policy DM3, is a key policy development. It will be important that this is applied robustly against the overarching decision-making objective.
“Crucial to achieving timely implementation will be the strict application of Policy DM6; avoiding the unnecessary use of pre-commencement conditions, and ensuring that where they are used, they are dealt with quickly and efficiently is critical if the rate of home building is to accelerate meaningfully. Too often it is the clearance of planning conditions that is the reason that development is slow to commence following a grant of planning permission. Spelling out that the planning process should avoid duplicating the provisions of other regulatory regimes is also vital and encouraging planning and other regulatory processes to proceed in tandem without unnecessary delay is another important step towards facilitating faster implementation.
“To be effective, these changes should be read together across the Framework ensuring that planning authorities are clear that where planning permission is granted land should be brought forward without delay, Policy HO13. While shortening the period for implementing a permission may on the face of it appear to be a solution to speeding up development, any such provision must go hand-in-hand with the limited use of pre-commencement planning conditions and commitment to their timely discharge. The draft Framework could have included a more proactive approach to deemed discharge to ensure the implementation objective is met.”
Regeneration
3) Heather Lindley-Clapp , a Director at Nexus Planning in Manchester, notes:
“National Development Management Policies are now proposed to be integrated into the NPPF as a material consideration, with inconsistent local plan policies to be given ‘very little weight’. As a result, the draft NPPF represents a significant shift in both format and content, drawing a clearer distinction between plan-making and decision-taking. This reflects the changes introduced by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, with a clear emphasis on speeding up and streamlining the plan-making system.
“From a regeneration perspective, one of the most significant reforms is the introduction of a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development within settlements, unless harms would substantially outweigh benefits. This effectively creates a ‘default yes’ for brownfield development. The draft also provides in-principle support for development around rail stations, including minimum density requirements of 40 dwellings per hectare around all stations and 50 dwellings per hectare around ‘well-connected’ stations, reinforcing the Government’s focus on sustainable, transport-led growth.
“There is a strong drive to increase density in urban and suburban areas through infill development, upward extensions and development within residential curtilages, alongside clearer support for small and medium-sized housebuilders. This includes more proportionate information and validation requirements, the introduction of a new ‘medium development’ category for sites of up to 2.5 hectares or 10-49 homes, and more concise planning statements. While changes to viability policy point towards greater use of standardised inputs and tighter controls on when assessments are required, the draft NPPF also introduces important simplifications for delivery, including a biodiversity net gain exemption for sites under 0.2 hectares and reduced BNG requirements for small and medium-sized schemes.”
Retail
4) Matt Morris , a Director at Nexus Planning in Bristol, notes:
“The most eye-catching changes in the Town Centres chapter of the draft NPPF relate to the sequential test and the assessment of alternatives. Draft Policy TC3 retains flexibility but now brings wording from the Planning Practice Guidance into the NPPF, requiring different scales and forms of development to be considered. Crucially, it also introduces a requirement to consider whether proposals could be accommodated across multiple sites, marking a return to the concept of ‘disaggregation’ that was removed from national policy in 2012. This would represent a significant shift from current policy and case law, which generally require alternatives to accommodate an entire proposal as a single scheme.
“Other proposed changes include a new policy giving substantial weight to development that supports the long-term vitality and viability of town centres, alongside amendments to plan-making which remove the requirement to look at least ten years ahead when allocating sites, instead linking allocations to needs arising over the plan period. The draft also introduces specific references to the use of Article 4 Directions to remove permitted development rights where necessary, and places greater emphasis on design guides, design codes and masterplans to help deliver a clear vision for town centres.
“Disaggregation was a controversial element of national retail planning policy 15–20 years ago, set out in Planning Policy Statement 4, 2009, but removed from the 2012 NPPF. Subsequent appeal and call-in decisions, most notably Rushden Lakes, appeared to close the door on disaggregating edge- or out-of-centre retail and leisure proposals. Since then, the prevailing position has been that disaggregation no longer formed part of national policy, making it easier for larger edge- and out-of-centre schemes to pass the sequential test given the constraints of town and city centre sites.
“The proposed re-introduction of disaggregation has the potential to be significant, particularly for schemes made up of multiple, loosely linked elements such as retail parks, foodstores with café or restaurant units, and other main town centre uses including offices and hotels. This change will be welcomed by those who have called for a stronger, more explicit policy backing for town centres, and who felt that planning reform had yet to fully support one of the Labour Government’s stated priorities.”
Later Living
5) Sarah Roe , a Director at Nexus Planning in London, adds:
“The draft NPPF places increased emphasis on delivering more, and better quality, housing for older people. This is welcomed and signals a more proactive approach to planning for an ageing population, which is one of the most significant demographic challenges facing the country. However, it is surprising that the NPPF does not explicitly reference the ageing population or the ‘critical’ need for more housing for older people, as set out in the ‘Housing for Older and Disabled People’ PPG, which represents a missed opportunity.
“Policy HO1 retains the requirement for plans to assess the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups, including older people, and this is strengthened by Policies HO5 and HO9, which focus specifically on meeting the needs of these different groups. Policy HO5 requires site allocations or requirements for parts of allocated sites to provide specific housing types where an identified need exists. Given demographic trends, most areas are likely to demonstrate such a need, although if the objective is to plan proactively for an ageing population, it is considered that site allocations should be required regardless of current need, particularly as this is not a requirement applied to other forms of housing.
“Policy HO9 is welcomed in requiring housing for older people to meet M4(2) or M4(3) accessibility standards, helping to improve accessibility in new development. However, the additional requirement for such schemes to be located where residents can easily access services by walking, public transport or wheeling may further constrain the locations available for development, despite the pressing national need for this form of housing. Similarly, while Policy HO4 encourages large-scale developments to include housing for older people, this should arguably be a requirement to ensure that new settlements and urban extensions function as genuinely sustainable communities.”
Nexus Planning is a leading consultancy to the built environment. The UK-based planning and regeneration consultants work extensively with the private and public sectors to produce evidence-based solutions and strategies, in order to realise development potential which makes a positive impact to our communities.
