Updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – opportunities for developers

Key points:

• LPAs must now review Green Belt boundaries where unmet housing needs exist.
• Grey Belt definition introduced for land that does not ‘strongly contribute’ to key Green Belt purposes and meets certain criteria.
• Development within the Green Belt is permissible where it utilises Grey Belt, meets unmet needs, and aligns with sustainable transport needs.
• Golden Rules for major development have been introduced, requiring significant contributions to affordable housing, infrastructure improvements, and accessible green spaces.
• LPAs must identify Specific Developable Sites for up to 15 years of the Plan Period.

MHCLG published the revised NPPF on 12 December. A summary of its provisions, and the implications include:

• Introduces significant changes aimed at addressing the national housing shortage and promoting sustainable development across England. Below are some of the key points for developers in the new framework.
• The changes are effective immediately and are ‘material considerations which should be taken into account in dealing with applications from the day of (the documents) publication’, so all pending applications and appeals are affected. This might slow down decision-making as planning officers potentially reconsider the ‘planning balance’ which might have previously been struck on some applications.

Paragraph 34 – Preparing and Reviewing Plans

• In more detail, In paragraph 34 on ‘Preparing and reviewing plans’, there is the existing legal requirement (under Regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012) for ‘Policies in local plans and spatial development strategies’ to be reviewed by LPAs in order to ‘assess whether they need updating at least once every five years’.
• Furthermore, ‘Reviews should be completed no later than five years from the adoption date of a plan’, taking into account ‘changing circumstances affecting the area, or any relevant changes in national policy’. Finally, ‘Relevant (local plan) strategic policies will need updating at least once every five years if their applicable local housing need figure has changed significantly’. They are likely to require earlier review ‘if local housing need is expected to change significantly in the near future’. This should help prevent local plans becoming ‘out-of-date’ and/ or being found ‘unsound’ by the National Planning Inspectorate and also provide more certainty for developers. It will also provide opportunities for developers through LPA-led ‘call for sites’ consultations and create greater certainty for them.

Paragraphs 72 and 73 – Identifying Land for Homes

• Planning policies should identify ‘a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability’. LPA planning policies should identify a supply of:
  • Specific, deliverable sites for five years following the intended date of adoption of the local plan; and
  • Specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for the subsequent years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the remaining plan period. This change will likely lead LPAs to consider and allocate a larger volume and broader range of sites for housing in their policies, bringing new opportunities for developers.
• Small and Medium Enterprise housebuilders and small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, with the development often built-out relatively quicky. To help promote a ‘good mix of sites’ LPAs should:
  • • Identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare. This change will favour urban sites, such as those with a previous industrial use, with the 10% figure providing a higher probability of them being allocated in future local plans.
    • Use tools such as area-wide design assessments, permission in principle and Local Development Orders to help bring small and medium sized sites forward. Encouraging planning officers to use the full suite of tools/ powers at their disposal to bring sites forward will encourage increased dynamic thinking when considering the ‘planning balance’.
    • Support the development of windfall sites through their policies and decisions – giving great weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes. This could be beneficial to sites currently adjacent to Green Belt/ Grey Belt land which might now be able to be put forward for housing development following the NPPF changes. It could also benefit developers with undeveloped ‘land banked’ sites surrounding existing settlements.
    • Work with developers to encourage the sub-division of large sites where this could help to speed up the delivery of homes. This could be beneficial to larger developers who have previously had a large-scale major development refused for scale/ massing related reasons by the LPA and who may want to proceed with a smaller scheme first.

Paragraph 77 – The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through ‘planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns’, provided they ‘are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities’. This is a significant addition to the NPPF and will help progress some of the larger sites from the bigger developers.

In Annex 2 of the Glossary, on page 73 – Definition of ‘Grey Belt’ Land

• For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, is defined as ‘land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that’, ‘in either case’, does not ‘strongly contribute’ to three of the five purposes of the ‘Green Belt’, as set out in the NPPF. These three purposes relate to the checking of ‘unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas’, preventing ‘neighbouring towns merging into one another’ and to ‘preserve the setting and special character of historic towns’.
• In regards to development opportunities, there is significant scope in this definition for a subjective interpretation by decision-makers, particularly on sites on the edge of a settlement or in an otherwise sustainable location and which provide suitable affordable housing and local infrastructure and do not significantly undermine Green Belt function.

Paragraph 148 – Grey Belt Land

• ‘Where it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give priority to previously developed land, then consider grey belt which is not previously developed, and then other Green Belt locations’. This provides clarity and certainty for developers in regards to the land ‘hierarchy’ and the ‘planning balance’ considerations when assessing housing development schemes.
• ‘When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should determine whether a site’s location is appropriate’. Again, this is a very positive development for developers, especially those with sites within the Green Belt which are adjacent to existing settlements.

Paragraph 149 – Defining Green Belt Boundaries

Plans should:

‘a) Ensure consistency with the development plan’s strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development;

b) Not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open;

c) Where necessary, identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period’

Paragraph 155 – Proposals Affecting the Green Belt

The development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where:

‘a. The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan;

b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed;

c. The development would be in a sustainable location’.

So-called ‘Golden Rules’ have been introduced for development in the Green Belt.  These Rules will require developers to provide the necessary infrastructure for local communities, such as nurseries, GP surgeries and transport, as well as a premium level of social and affordable housing.

In short, housing and commercial development is no longer regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt where it would be ‘Grey Belt’ land, it would not fundamentally undermine the wider purposes of the Green Belt and is in a sustainable location and, lastly, that there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed.