More Radical Change: the Basic Conditions for Neighbourhood Plans

Buried deep in the Levelling Up & Regeneration Act 2023 that only the most keen-eyed neighbourhood planner would spot are two important changes to the way that these plans will be examined from 25 March.

The first change (in Section 99) tackles what has over the years been arguably the most contentious basic condition framing the relationship between neighbourhood plans and adopted local plans. Known as the ‘general conformity’ condition it has led to any number of problems in what that phrase means, what ‘strategic policy’ means, and if/how the condition should relate to parts or the whole of the local plan. It has even got as far as the High Court to make sense of.

Well, now it’s gone entirely and has been replaced with a new condition that requires only that the neighbourhood plan will not result in less housing development taking place in its area than if it was not made. Nothing about conformity with any other housing or non-housing policy, strategic or otherwise.

The change seemed odd when it was first proposed in the Bill as it harked back to the earliest days with the perceived threat of NIMBY-led neighbourhood plans seeking to undermine housing supply. To this day the NPPF still repeats the mantra that plans should not plan for fewer homes than is required for their areas.

But this threat was soon misplaced. Perhaps some of the earliest plans did push the boundaries a little when LPAs weren’t paying as much attention and the scrutiny of examiners was more generous. But no QB wanting to persuade an LPA that it should take responsibility for housing allocations or to secure the benefit of the NPPF to reverse the tilted balance has succeeded without playing the game by the rules.

Taking this problem off the table will be a great relief to QBs and their advisors! Oh, and to many developers too, who have been dismayed to see their proposed neighbourhood plan site allocations deleted by LPAs judging them ‘not in general conformity’.

The first and second change (in Section 98) also make clearer the limitations to the policy scope and content of neighbourhood plans. They require plans to show they have taken account of climate change and nature recovery strategies and they don’t repeat or conflict with the new national decision-making policies in the NPPF. So, no problem there then.

This is very good news for neighbourhood planning and its future looks a lot brighter than it has for some time. We now need the Government to use these changes to bring greater clarity to its desired role for neighbourhood plans in the development plan in the new NPPF.