New National Planning Policy Framework: NPPF Dec 2024

 Just in time for Christmas, the Government has now published the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

This advice note highlights key changes that directly affect neighbourhood planning, and other changes that may have a significant indirect effect. Clients are advised to also review the more general commentary on the proposals and their context to gain a rounded picture of the planning system. This includes changes made to the online Planning Practice Guidance of which much more is expected within the new year.

Which NPPF Dec 2024 changes impact on Neighbourhood Plans?

§11 Presumption in favour of sustainable development

The changes signal the particular importance of the location and design of development, securing affordable homes and making effective use of land when the tilted balance is engaged. It balances these ‘safeguards’ with the wording change in providing a ‘strong’ basis for refusing an application rather than a ‘clear’ reason to strengthen the presumption’s wording in the context of the Government’s commitment to increase the supply of homes. Whether the promise of these ‘safeguards’ means that schemes relying on the presumption to win approval will deliver developments that are of a high standard remains to be seen. The inclusion of the housing delivery test now having to fall ‘substantially’ below 75% might appear to raise the bar for the presumption to be triggered. However, other revisions mean that the tilted balance is likely to be engaged more frequently even where there are no housing land supply or delivery test failures (see §232).

This change indicates a clear signal that local communities should be prepared to respond to new proposals for development which are likely to come forward. Having a clear framework upon which to base that kind of engagement remains important. Town, Parish and Community Councils should make sure they have strategies in place that will prepare them for taking part in pre-application discussions, responding to planning applications, taking part in planning appeals, responding to local plan consultations and using the tools available to them to respond proactively and positively to the growth agenda on behalf of its communities. This can include preparing a Neighbourhood Plan and/or design code. 

§14 Neighbourhood plans and the presumption in favour of sustainable development

The provisions of §14 in relation to neighbourhood plans and the tilted balance has been retained. It is not currently clear how the provisions of §232 will affect the application of §14. This matter is likely to be explored at neighbourhood plan examinations given the provisions of §69 in assessing ‘circumstances that affects the requirement’. We will continue to work with our clients and LPAs in navigating these changes in forthcoming examinations.

We are pleased that §14 has been retained in its current format. This continues to place a premium on neighbourhood plans allocating housing land to secure this benefit, noting that §14 does not replace the presumption in favour of sustainable development – it never did – but has the effect of re-tilting it back towards the primacy of the plan-led (neighbourhood plan) system. However, as many Qualifying Bodies engaging with plan-making will know, very few Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) are willing to provide an indicative housing requirement figure (§70) until their emerging Local Plans have reached at least the draft (Regulation 18) or pre-submission (Regulation 19) stages. For those neighbourhood plans coming forward in advance of a new Local Plan, and wanting/anticipating the need to allocate land for housing, it remains to be seen how many LPAs will be willing to engage new §14 in planning application decisions – the track record so far is patchy at best. As ever, Qualifying Bodies need to ensure their LPAs understand how §14 operates.

§30 Non-strategic policies

We note that the footnote to this paragraph (now 17) continues to refer to the ‘general conformity’ basic condition. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (LURA) has replaced that condition with a condition that is only related to a specific housing supply matter. Although that part of the LURA is yet to be enacted, the retention of this footnote is confusing and, we would hope, will be soon outdated.

We continue to urge relevant organisations, including Town and Parish Councils, to lobby for the secondary legislation (LURA) that includes the proposed changes to basic conditions for neighbourhood plans to be enacted.

§63/64 Housing needs

Specific provision has been made for Social Rent and looked after children with a recognition that further steps need to be taken to support social and affordable housing as part of the national development management policies (expected in 2025). It continues to operate with §62 which relates only to strategic policy (i.e. Local Plans) but could be expected to send a signal to neighbourhood plans planning for housing needs either through site allocations and/or housing mix policies. It is also noted that some of the outstanding secondary legislation for the LURA included provision that clarified the contents of a neighbourhood plan, and requirements for affordable housing. The requirement from the 2023 NPPF to deliver at least 10% of the total number of homes on major sites as affordable home ownership, as well as the requirement that 25% of affordable housing units delivered through section 106 planning obligations should be First Homes, both no longer apply. See below for changes on housing needs in the Green Belt.

We noted that this is already considered in the Housing Needs Assessment reports being produced for Qualifying Bodies through Locality but it may be that it will become more important for neighbourhood plans to make specific provision. We also continue to urge relevant organisations, including Town and Parish Councils, to lobby for the secondary legislation (LURA) that includes clarification that neighbourhood plans can set a requirement for affordable housing. 

§72/76/78/79 Housing supply

As part of other changes to the housing supply section – on which many others will comment – we note new provision in footnote 36 for the development plan to make specific provisions on the scale of community-led housing which may be different to that set out in national policy and the definition of community-led development in the glossary. The provision for First Homes Exception sites also remains with a wider review planned for the best approach to exception sites in the future. The government’s response also recognises the valuable contribution almshouses make to the provision of affordable housing, but does nothing at this time to recognise that some LPAs continue to interpret the NPPF definition of ‘affordable housing’ to mean that an almshouse charity which is not a Registered Provider should be treated as if it were not a provider of ‘affordable housing’ for s106 purposes. This issue therefore remains.

The provisions on community-led housing development strengthen the support for community-led development to a certain extent. We continue to urge relevant organisations to lobby for the almshouse matter to be resolved so that established and new almshouse charities can continue to contribute to the provision of affordable housing.

More generally, we note changes to the standard method for assessing housing needs has resulted in very little significant changes to those proposed during the consultation in July 2024, the reversal of previous changes and the introduction of §78c on maintaining land supply, particularly relevant to those LPAs who are seeking to push through Local Plans within the current system. The housing delivery tests remains in place, per §79. The changes indicate that the presumption in favour of sustainable development may be triggered more frequently and that there will be very limited circumstances within which LPAs can justify delivering a lower supply than that required from the standard method leaving many with a housing land supply quandary.

See also §11 insights above. It will be important for councils and qualifying bodies to be prepared to respond to the growth agenda proactively and positively, in order to best represent their communities.

§86/87 Modern economy

New provisions are made specifically for facilitating development that meet the needs of the modern economy such as data centres, gigafactories, freight and logistics etc.

The change may make some difference to neighbourhood plans that have been wanting to break free from the ‘predict and provide’ model on meeting employment needs – which can be too restrictive - over realising an economic vision for each area and supporting economic growth and resilience. We have observed an interest in communities wanting their neighbourhood plans to take this on and welcome the changes made. We recognise however that the location of such provision needs to be carefully considered.

§109 Vision-led approach to transport solutions

Changes introduce the concept of vision-led transport planning. This is defined in the glossary. It asks proposals to move away from the ‘predict and provide’ model – where changes to networks are proposed on a development-by-development mitigation basis - to a ‘vision-led’ model of transport planning over a wider area. Our clients have long been identifying issues on transport-related matters, most notably in identifying key problem areas, and in some cases specific mitigation measures, where improvements to transport are required to enhance the travelling environment. Our clients already use a vision-led approach in guiding decisions made on the location of site allocations in their neighbourhood plans. Updated planning practice guidance on this matter is promised in the government’s response to the July 2024 consultation.

We welcome this change and continue to see value in neighbourhood plans making provisions for vision-led transport planning measures. The change may also guide the decisions made on the location of allocations in Local Plans. 

§125 Brownfield land

The change at §125c clarifies that proposals for development on brownfield land should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. The government’s response indicates that additional work is being undertaken on ‘brownfield passports’ to consider whether there are opportunities to go further in terms of providing faster and more certain routes to permission for developers of urban brownfield land.

We have observed a noticeable interest from communities in wanting their neighbourhood plans to maximise delivery from brownfield land. We therefore welcome the change and look forward to seeing additional provisions as part of future planning changes.  

§67/68/108/145/146/148/154-159 Green Belt

 We note the retention of a strategic policy hook before neighbourhood plans can stray into the territory of reviewing Green Belt boundaries and the introduction of a sequential test in releasing land from the Green Belt with brownfield first, then Grey Belt then other locations in the Green Belt. We also note funding made available to LPAs towards the costs of local plan delivery and Green Belt reviews with no announcement yet on funding to support neighbourhood plan making. Those who have been in the game for some time now will recognise the disruption the delay to such announcements have in progressing neighbourhood plans.

We note the change to supporting previously developed land in the Green Belt to come forward for redevelopment by removing:

• the need to contribute to meeting an affordable housing need (but note the new ‘Golden Rules’ on housing need at §67/68 and promised guidance in the new year);

• the need to demonstrate no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt (but note the retention of the qualifier ‘which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the green belt’).

There are also amendments to the glossary on previously developed land and the introduction and definition of the Grey Belt. This may release or bring back into play schemes and sites that have not previously been successful.

Finally, we welcome the clarification in §108 and footnote 45 that the provisions relating to grey belt and previously developed land does not apply to local green spaces, as designated in many neighbourhood plans.

We remain concerned that the provisions continue to prevent communities that want to modify Green Belt boundaries to deliver local sustainable development from doing so unless a Local Plan allows them to.

§231-243 Transitional arrangements

Our calls for transitional arrangements for neighbourhood plans have been answered and §239 now expressly makes provision for neighbourhood plans. All neighbourhood plans submitted to their LPAs (Regulation 15) on or before 12 March 2025 will be examined under the previous iteration of the NPPF (December 2023). There are other notable changes here in terms of decision-making (see above on §11 and §232). The impact of paragraph §232 means that those local and neighbourhood plans that come forward under the previous housing requirement figures, have a limited period in which to begin action on new or reviewed plans, to take into account the higher growth required after this point and protect the primacy of their plans.

We welcome the clear transitional arrangements for neighbourhood plans but note that it remains to be seen what the effect of the provisions have on the application of §14 of the NPPF. Qualifying Bodies wishing to retain the primacy of their neighbourhood plan should enact their robust implementation and monitoring strategies – including considering renewal of plans and other planning measures that may be appropriate.

Summary

Preparing for growth remains the message from Government. We’re also very mindful of the recent publication of the English Devolution White Paper and what that may mean for Town, Parish and Community Councils. Now is the ideal time for councils to prepare for responding to development to secure better outcomes for their place, it is important to take a long term view and consider all options that may become available, including changes in the services your council may deliver. We will publish further thoughts on the white paper in due course.

For neighbourhood planning, it would appear that proposals remain generally positive meaning plans can continue to offer a mechanism to manage change positively. For those clients preparing, or reviewing, neighbourhood plans our advice is therefore to continue to do so. For those that remain unsure of whether a neighbourhood plan is the best mechanism to secure outcomes for their place, having a vision upon which to base responses to development as a guiding element is invaluable.

Many of you will be sighing at the thought of the word vision linking this to an elusive concept that is not going to achieve results. You might also associate it with dreamy ideals. What if a vision for your place was about your local knowledge, foresight, prescience, and arming your community to respond to development to secure better outcomes for your place?

Once a vision is established, it is easier to make informed decisions on where to focus efforts and resources in the most impactful way to secure better outcomes for your place. Your vision can inform an action plan guiding how your organisation can take part in the planning system. If you would like to place your organisation in a better position to respond to the government’s drive for growth through securing better outcomes for your place, or you already know what kind of delivery project you need to influence outcomes for your place, contact us.

ONH: Planning for Good: info@oneillhomer.co.uk