Last edited 24 Sep 2024

Consultation on proposed reforms to NPPF and other changes to the planning system

1 Questions by topic with brief explanations
2 Related articles on Designing Buildings

[edit] Questions by topic with brief explanations

[edit] Methods to assess housing needs

Question 1: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made to paragraph 61?

Question 2: Do you agree that we should remove reference to the use of alternative approaches to assessing housing need in paragraph 61 and the glossary of the NPPF?

Paragraph 61 was previously revised to set out that ‘The outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting-point for establishing a housing requirement’, the revision also provided further context on the exceptional circumstances where the use of alternative approaches to assess housing needs may be appropriate. The proposal aims to make very clear that local planning authorities should use the standard method to assess housing needs, removing reference to exceptional circumstances and the use of alternative approaches to assess housing needs.

[edit] Clarifying urban uplift definitions

Question 3: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on the urban uplift by deleting paragraph 62?

Paragraph 62 was added to provide policy on the application of the standard method urban uplift. This sets out that the urban uplift should normally be accommodated within the cities and urban centres where the uplift applies, except in certain specific circumstances.

[edit] Character, density and stronger design codes

Question 4: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on character and density and delete paragraph 130?

Question 5: Do you agree that the focus of design codes should move towards supporting spatial visions in local plans and areas that provide the greatest opportunities for change such as greater density, in particular the development of large new communities?

Paragraph 130 was added to explain that local character can be taken into account when local planning authorities consider their ability to meet their housing needs. The policy sets out that significant uplifts in density may be inappropriate if this would result in development wholly out of character with the existing area. Local planning authorities are required to use authority-wide design codes to evidence the impact on character. Proposal to delete as local planning authorities should identify opportunities for maximising the efficient use of land, especially in areas well served by transport and other infrastructure.

[edit] The presumption in favour of sustainable development

Question 6: Do you agree that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be amended as proposed?

Proposals include 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. These safeguards will mean that schemes that rely on the presumption to secure approval will meet the high standards expected of all development

[edit] 5-Year Housing Land Supply, buffers and reporting

Question 7: Do you agree that all local planning authorities should be required to continually demonstrate 5 years of specific, deliverable sites for decision making purposes, regardless of plan status?

Question 8: Do you agree with our proposal to remove wording on national planning guidance in paragraph 77 of the current NPPF?

Question 9: Do you agree that all local planning authorities should be required to add a 5% buffer to their 5-year housing land supply calculations?

Question 10: If yes, do you agree that 5% is an appropriate buffer, or should it be a different figure?

Question 11: Do you agree with the removal of policy on Annual Position Statements?

Paragraph 77, was introduced to set out that previous over-supply could be set against upcoming supply. Given the chronic need for housing in all areas, the proposal is to remove this. The option of Annual Position Statements gave local planning authorities a route to to ‘fix’ 5-year housing land supply figures, though indication is it was little used and thinking is the need for 5 year figures is significant and possible.

[edit] Cross boundary, strategies and planning at scale

Question 12: Do you agree that the NPPF should be amended to further support effective co-operation on cross boundary and strategic planning matters?

Question 13: Should the tests of soundness be amended to better assess the soundness of strategic scale plans or proposals?

Question 14: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

[edit] Housing stock, baselines, supply and affordability calculations

Question 15: Do you agree that Planning Practice Guidance should be amended to specify that the appropriate baseline for the standard method is housing stock rather than the latest household projections?

Question 16: Do you agree that using the workplace-based median house price to median earnings ratio, averaged over the most recent 3 year period for which data is available to adjust the standard method’s baseline, is appropriate?

Question 17: Do you agree that affordability is given an appropriate weighting within the proposed standard method?

Question 18: Do you consider the standard method should factor in evidence on rental affordability? If so, do you have any suggestions for how this could be incorporated into the model?

[edit] Impacts of the revised standard method for calculating housing need

Question 19: Do you have any additional comments on the proposed method for assessing housing needs?

[edit] Brownfield passports, grey and the green belts

Question 20: Do you agree that we should make the proposed change set out in paragraph 124c, as a first step towards brownfield passports?

See article brownfield passports for further information.

Paragraph 124c to some extent allows the principle of development to be questioned, a consultation on an amendment should support that the default answer to brownfield development should be yes.

Question 21: Do you agree with the proposed change to paragraph 154g of the current NPPF to better support the development of PDL in the Green Belt?

Paragraph 154g discusses Previously Developed Land (PDL) and providing special protections for certain sites such as previous petrol stations or carparks. Proposal to relax the restrictions currently applied to PDL and limited infilling in the Green Belt, to make clear that development is ‘not inappropriate’ where it would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Question 22: Do you have any views on expanding the definition of PDL, while ensuring that the development and maintenance of glasshouses for horticultural production is maintained?

Grey belt: For the purposes of Plan-making and decision-making, grey belt is defined as 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 this Framework) but excluding those areas or assets of particular importance listed in footnote 7 of this Framework (other than land designated as Green Belt). See also article grey belt for more information.

Question 23: Do you agree with our proposed definition of grey belt land? If not, what changes would you recommend?

Question 24: Are any additional measures needed to ensure that high performing Green Belt land is not degraded to meet grey belt criteria?

Land which makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt purposes

Land which makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt purposes will:
- a) Not strongly perform against any Green Belt purpose; and
- b) Have at least one of the following features:
  - i. Land containing substantial built development or which is fully enclosed by built form
  - ii. Land which makes no or very little contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another
  - iii. Land which is dominated by urban land uses, including physical developments
  - iv. Land which contributes little to preserving the setting and special character of historic towns

Question 25: Do you agree that additional guidance to assist in identifying land which makes a limited contribution of Green Belt purposes would be helpful? If so, is this best contained in the NPPF itself or in planning practice guidance?

Question 26: Do you have any views on whether our proposed guidance sets out appropriate considerations for determining whether land makes a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes?

Question 27: Do you have any views on the role that Local Nature Recovery Strategies could play in identifying areas of Green Belt which can be enhanced?

Question 28: Do you agree that our proposals support the release of land in the right places, with previously developed and grey belt land identified first, while allowing local planning authorities to prioritise the most sustainable development locations?

Question 29: Do you agree with our proposal to make clear that the release of land should not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole?

Question 30: Do you agree with our approach to allowing development on Green Belt land through decision making? If not, what changes would you recommend?

Question 31: Do you have any comments on our proposals to allow the release of grey belt land to meet commercial and other development needs through plan-making and decision-making, including the triggers for release?

Question 32: Do you have views on whether the approach to the release of Green Belt through plan and decision-making should apply to traveller sites, including the sequential test for land release and the definition of PDL?

Question 33: Do you have views on how the assessment of need for traveller sites should be approached, in order to determine whether a local planning authority should undertake a Green Belt review?

[edit] Golden Rules; affordability, infrastructure and green space

Government Golden rules to ensure public benefit. The Government has committed to introducing ‘golden rules’ to ensure that major development on land released from the Green Belt benefits both communities and nature. This will build on wider commitment for exemplary design.

The following golden rules are required where land is released through plans or individual planning decisions:
- a. in the case of schemes involving the provision of housing, at least 50% affordable housing, with an appropriate proportion being Social Rent, subject to viability;
- b. necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure, including delivery of new schools, GP surgeries, transport links, care homes and nursery places, to deliver well-designed, connected places, recognising that local leaders are best placed to identify the infrastructure that their communities need; and
- c. the provision of new, or improvements to existing, local green spaces that are accessible to the public – where residential development is involved, new residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their homes, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite facilities.

Question 34: Do you agree with our proposed approach to the affordable housing tenure mix?

Question 35: Should the 50 per cent target apply to all Green Belt areas (including previously developed land in the Green Belt), or should the Government or local planning authorities be able to set lower targets in low land value areas?

Question 36: Do you agree with the proposed approach to securing benefits for nature and public access to green space where Green Belt release occurs?

Question 37: Do you agree that Government should set indicative benchmark land values for land released from or developed in the Green Belt, to inform local planning authority policy development?

[edit] Land value and the golden rules of development in the NPPF

Limited use of viability assessments:

Approaches that government could take to ensure the appropriate use of viability include the following options.
a. Government sets benchmark land values to be used in viability assessments. When assessing, it is necessary to make an allowance for the amount of money to be paid to the landowner. Currently set by the local planning authority. Government could set indicative benchmark land values for land released from the Green Belt through national policy, to inform policies by local planning authorities. Allow for fairness, a premium above the existing use, reflecting the need for policy delivery against the golden rules. Different approaches to benchmark land value are likely to be appropriate for agricultural land, and for previously developed land.

b.Where land transacts at a price above benchmark land value, policy requirements should be assumed to be viable. As part of this approach, Government sets out that if land has been sold (or optioned) at a price which exceeds the nationally set benchmark land value, viability negotiation should not be undertaken. Under this approach, the planning authority should not be seeking higher contributions (e.g. 60 per cent affordable housing), but equally the developer should not be seeking lower contributions (e.g. 40 per cent affordable housing), as this represents value transfer from the public to private landholders. Proposed development with land transacts above benchmark land value, not complying with policy, would not generally be granted.

c. Late-stage review could be undertaken, similar to those taken by the Greater London Authority, to test actual costs and revenues against the assumptions made in the initial viability assessment. If, for example, the development is more viable than initially assumed, due to a rise in house prices, then additional contributions can be secured, to bring the development closer to or up to policy compliance.

Question 38: How and at what level should Government set benchmark land values?

Question 39: To support the delivery of the golden rules, the Government is exploring a reduction in the scope of viability negotiation by setting out that such negotiation should not occur when land will transact above the benchmark land value. Do you have any views on this approach?

Question 40: It is proposed that where development is policy compliant, additional contributions for affordable housing should not be sought. Do you have any views on this approach?

Question 41: Do you agree that where viability negotiations do occur, and contributions below the level set in policy are agreed, development should be subject to late-stage viability reviews, to assess whether further contributions are required? What support would local planning authorities require to use these effectively?

Question 42: Do you have a view on how golden rules might apply to non-residential development, including commercial development, travellers sites and types of development already considered ‘not inappropriate’ in the Green Belt?

Question 43: Do you have a view on whether the golden rules should apply only to ‘new’ Green Belt release, which occurs following these changes to the NPPF? Are there other transitional arrangements we should consider, including, for example, draft plans at the regulation 19 stage?

[edit] Publication of a local plan

Stage 19 Publication of a local plan

19. Before submitting a local plan to the Secretary of State under section 20 of the Act, the local planning authority must
- (a) make a copy of each of the proposed submission documents and a statement of the representations procedure available in accordance with regulation 35, and
- (b) ensure that a statement of the representations procedure and a statement of the fact that the proposed submission documents are available for inspection and of the places and times at which they can be inspected, is sent to each of the general consultation bodies and each of the specific consultation bodies invited to make representations under regulation 18(1).

Question 44: Do you have any comments on the proposed wording for the NPPF (Annex 4)?

Question 45: Do you have any comments on the proposed approach set out in paragraphs 31 and 32?

Paragraph 31. The Government considers that limited Green Belt release, prioritising grey belt, will provide an excellent opportunity for landowners to sell their land at a fair price, while supporting the development of affordable housing, infrastructure and access to nature. Where such land is not brought forward for development on a voluntary basis, the Government is considering how bodies such as local planning authorities, combined authorities, and Homes England could take a proactive role in the assembly of the land to help bring forward policy compliant schemes, supported where necessary by compulsory purchase powers, with compensation being assessed under the statutory no-scheme principle rules set out in Part 2 of the Land Compensation Act 1961.

Paragraph 32. In such cases, these rules would operate to exclude any increases or decreases in value of land caused by the compulsory purchase scheme, or by the prospect of it, and valuation of the prospect of planning permission (‘hope value’) for alternative development would reflect the golden rules outlined in the NPPF. Use of compulsory purchase powers may also include use of directions to secure ‘no hope value’ compensation where appropriate and justified in the public interest. A comprehensive justification for a no hope value direction (e.g., which includes a high proportion of vital affordable housing being delivered) will strengthen the argument that a direction is in the public interest. This would align with the Government’s aspiration for high levels of affordable housing to be delivered on these sites.

Question 46: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

Question 47: Do you agree with setting the expectation that local planning authorities should consider the particular needs of those who require Social Rent when undertaking needs assessments and setting policies on affordable housing requirements?

[edit] Delivering affordable housing, well-designed homes and places

Question 48: Do you agree with removing the requirement to deliver 10% of housing on major sites as affordable home ownership?

Question 49: Do you agree with removing the minimum 25% First Homes requirement?

Question 50: Do you have any other comments on retaining the option to deliver First Homes, including through exception sites?

The Government believes local areas are best placed to decide the right mix of affordable housing for their communities, including a mix of affordable homes for ownership and rent. NPPF already sets the expectation that when establishing housing requirements, but currently, social rent or tenure breakdown not included. Housing needs assessments should consider social rent and authorities specify their expectations on social rent delivery as part of broader affordable housing policies. This is for local leaders to determine the balance that meets the needs of their communities.

In line with this, removal of prescriptive requirements relating to affordable home ownership products, which are currently prioritised over homes for affordable rent, with particular priority given to First Homes. Steps to boost home ownership are agreed but the not the prescriptive prioritisation of these above rental. Thus proposal to remove requirement to deliver 10% of the total number of homes on major sites as affordable home ownership and propose removing requirement for 25% of affordable housing units to be secured through developer contributions should be First Homes ( see ‘Affordable Homes Update’ Written Ministerial Statement of 24 May 2021). Changes to be reflected in the NPPF Glossary definition of affordable housing and Starter Homes removed (as repleced by First Homes)

[edit] Promoting mixed tenure development

Question 51: Do you agree with introducing a policy to promote developments that have a mix of tenures and types?

Question 52: What would be the most appropriate way to promote high percentage Social Rent/affordable housing developments?

Question 53: What safeguards would be required to ensure that there are not unintended consequences? For example, is there a maximum site size where development of this nature is appropriate?

Question 54: What measures should we consider to better support and increase rural affordable housing?

Delivering sites with a mix of tenures can provide a range of benefits, including creating diverse communities as well as supporting the timely build out of sites. This can include a mixture occupiers including rented affordable housing, build to rent, older people’s housing and student accommodation, and plots sold for custom or self-build. New policy proposed that that expects local planning authorities to take a positive approach to mix-use and tenure.

Question 55: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 63 of the existing NPPF?

Question 56: Do you agree with these changes?

Question 57: Do you have views on whether the definition of ‘affordable housing for rent’ in the Framework glossary should be amended? If so, what changes would you recommend?

Question 58: Do you have views on why insufficient small sites are being allocated, and on ways in which the small site policy in the NPPF should be strengthened?

To support the provision of this type of housing, we are proposing to include explicit reference to looked after children in paragraph 63 of the current NPPF, which sets out that the housing needs for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies. This amendment supports the written ministerial statement on planning for accommodation for looked after children made on 23 May 2023.

National Model Design Code

Question 59: Do you agree with the proposals to retain references to well-designed buildings and places, but remove references to ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ and to amend paragraph 138 of the existing Framework?

Question 60: Do you agree with proposed changes to policy for upwards extensions?

Question 61: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

Propose to make small amendments to the changes made in 2023 to paragraph 138 of the existing Framework to clarify the original intention for this wording to reflect that the National Model Design Code. now in widespread use and that the NMDC or where available local design guides and codes, prepared in line with the national guidance, is the primary means of assessing and improving the design of development.

[edit] Changes to the NPPF to support modern economies

Question 62: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraphs 86 b) and 87 of the existing NPPF?

Question 63: Are there other sectors you think need particular support via these changes? What are they and why?

Question 64: Would you support the prescription of data centres, gigafactories, and/or laboratories as types of business and commercial development which could be capable (on request) of being directed into the NSIP consenting regime?

Question 65: If the direction power is extended to these developments, should it be limited by scale, and what would be an appropriate scale if so?

Question 66: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

Proposed changes to paragraph 86 b) seek to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern and changing economy, by making it easier to build laboratories, gigafactories, data centres and digital infrastructure, and the facilities needed to support the wider supply chain.

Proposed changes in paragraph 87 a) aim to further support development of knowledge, creative, high technology and data-driven sectors, by giving more explicit recognition of the need to support proposals for new or upgraded facilities and infrastructure (including data centres and electricity network grid connections) that are key to the growth of these industries.

Proposing wording in paragraph 87 b) to ensure supply chains, transport innovation and decarbonisation are considered, in terms of the locational requirements of the storage and distribution sectors. These proposals aim to support the growth of the freight and logistics sector by encouraging decarbonisation, adaptation to changing patterns of global trade, and adoption of new and emerging technologies across its transport, distribution and storage operations.

Proposal for paragraph 87 c) aims to support the expansion or modernisation of other key growth industries by consulting on an expectation that additional commercial sites (outside of those identified in paragraphs 87 a) and 87 b)) are identified in plans and positively considered in planning decisions, when they are of local, regional or national importance, and to further support economic growth and resilience.

[edit] Delivering community needs

Question 67: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 100 of the existing NPPF?

Question 68: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 99 of the existing NPPF?

Question 69: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraphs 114 and 115 of the existing NPPF?

Question 70: How could national planning policy better support local authorities in (a) promoting healthy communities and (b) tackling childhood obesity?

Question 71: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

Question 72: Do you agree that large onshore wind projects should be reintegrated into the s NSIP regime?

Question 73: Do you agree with the proposed changes to the NPPF to give greater support to renewable and low carbon energy?

[edit] Green energy and the environment

Question 74: Some habitats, such as those containing peat soils, might be considered unsuitable for renewable energy development due to their role in carbon sequestration. Should there be additional protections for such habitats and/or compensatory mechanisms put in place?

Question 75: Do you agree that the threshold at which onshore wind projects are deemed to be Nationally Significant and therefore consented under the NSIP regime should be changed from 50 megawatts (MW) to 100MW?

Question 76: Do you agree that the threshold at which solar projects are deemed to be Nationally Significant and therefore consented under the NSIP regime should be changed from 50MW to 150MW?

Question 77: If you think that alternative thresholds should apply to onshore wind and/or solar, what would these be?

[edit] Climate mitigation and adaptation

Question 78: In what specific, deliverable ways could national planning policy do more to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?

Question 79: What is your view of the current state of technological readiness and availability of tools for accurate carbon accounting in plan-making and planning decisions, and what are the challenges to increasing its use?

Question 80: Are any changes needed to policy for managing flood risk to improve its effectiveness?

Question 81: Do you have any other comments on actions that can be taken through planning to address climate change?

Question 82: Do you agree with removal of this text from the footnote?

Question 83: Are there other ways in which we can ensure that development supports and does not compromise food production?

Question 84: Do you agree that we should improve the current water infrastructure provisions in the Planning Act 2008, and do you have specific suggestions for how best to do this?

Question 85: Are there other areas of the water infrastructure provisions that could be improved? If so, can you explain what those are, including your proposed changes?

Question 86: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

[edit] Local plan intervention policy criteria

Question 87: Do you agree that we should we replace the existing intervention policy criteria with the revised criteria set out in this consultation?

Question 88: Alternatively, would you support us withdrawing the criteria and relying on the existing legal tests to underpin future use of intervention powers?

[edit] Fee increases and cost recovery

Question 87: Do you agree that we should we replace the existing intervention policy criteria with the revised criteria set out in this consultation?

Question 88: Alternatively, would you support us withdrawing the criteria and relying on the existing legal tests to underpin future use of intervention powers?

Question 89: Do you agree with the proposal to increase householder application fees to meet cost recovery?

Question 90: If no, do you support increasing the fee by a smaller amount (at a level less than full cost recovery) and if so, what should the fee increase be? For example, a 50% increase to the householder fee would increase the application fee from £258 to £387.

If Yes, please explain in the text box what you consider an appropriate fee increase would be.

Question 91: If we proceed to increase householder fees to meet cost recovery, we have estimated that to meet cost-recovery, the householder application fee should be increased to £528. Do you agree with this estimate?

Yes / No – it should be higher than £528 / No – it should be lower than £528 / no - there should be no fee increase
or Don’t know. If No, please explain in the text box below and provide evidence to demonstrate what you consider the correct fee should be.

Question 93: Are there any application types for which fees are not currently charged but which should require a fee? Please explain your reasons and provide evidence on what you consider the correct fee should be.

Question 94: Do you consider that each local planning authority should be able to set its own (non-profit making) planning application fee? Please give your reasons in the text box below.

Question 95: What would be your preferred model for localisation of planning fees?

Full Localisation – Placing a mandatory duty on all local planning authorities to set their own fee. / Local Variation – Maintain a nationally-set default fee and giving local planning authorities the option to set all or some fees locally. /
Neither / Don’t Know. Please give your reasons in the text box below.

Question 96: Do you consider that planning fees should be increased, beyond cost recovery, for planning applications services, to fund wider planning services? If yes, please explain what you consider an appropriate increase would be and whether this should apply to all applications or, for example, just applications for major development?

Question 97: What wider planning services, if any, other than planning applications (development management) services, do you consider could be paid for by planning fees?

Question 98: Do you consider that cost recovery for relevant services provided by local authorities in relation to applications for development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008, payable by applicants, should be introduced?

Question 99: If yes, please explain any particular issues that the Government may want to consider, in particular which local planning authorities should be able to recover costs and the relevant services which they should be able to recover costs for, and whether host authorities should be able to waive fees where planning performance agreements are made.

Question 100: What limitations, if any, should be set in regulations or through guidance in relation to local authorities’ ability to recover costs?

Question 101: Please provide any further information on the impacts of full or partial cost recovery are likely to be for local planning authorities and applicants. We would particularly welcome evidence of the costs associated with work undertaken by local authorities in relation to applications for development consent.

Question 102: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

[edit] Transitional arrangements

Question 103: Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements? Are there any alternatives you think we should consider?

Question 104: Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements?

Question 105: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

Question 106: Do you have any views on the impacts of the above proposals for you, or the group or business you represent and on anyone with a relevant protected characteristic? If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, or which businesses may be impacted and how. Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified?