The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the biggest update to planning policy in a generation, is a gamechanger for the development sector - delivering a pro-growth agenda designed to boost housing and promote development around train stations and brownfield sites.
Ros Trotman, Partner in our Planning and Environment team, highlights five key changes SME developers should know about.
The supremacy of national policy
The new NPPF is a brave new world, rewriting England's planning system with a shiny new set of plan-making policies and national decision-making policies (NDMPs). The NDMPs carry the status of a material consideration of critical importance. Where an existing local plan policy is materially inconsistent, that plan now carries only very limited weight.
For SME developers who've previously had to navigate a patchwork of local policy quirks, this shift towards a more standardised, nationally led planning system should mean more consistency.
It’s a bold step but watch the space for whether the government take the even bolder step of giving NDMPs statutory status - a matter that remains under review.
A permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development
Out with the old presumption and "tilted balance" test* and in with the new more permanent and explicit presumption – setting out clearly which types of development should be supported, and where.
The newly enhanced tilted balance now looks like this:
- For inside settlements – see policy S4 – a default yes for your proposed project – as long as its benefits are not substantially outweighed by adverse effects and assuming there is no NDMP to refuse it.
- For outside settlements – see policy S5 – it’s another default yes for your proposed project if your site falls within the categories listed, again, as long as the benefits are not substantially outweighed by adverse effects. Key categories include:
- previously developed land;
- evidencing an unmet need (e.g. where there isn’t a five-year housing land supply) where the site is physically well-related to an existing settlement (unless the nature of the development would make this inappropriate) and where of a suitable scale;
- residential and mixed-use development within a reasonable walking distance and physically well-related to a well-connected station, and of a suitable scale, whilst not prejudicing long-term comprehensive development. More on this below.
Even if you are outside a settlement and don’t fit into any S5 categories (i.e. a default no), there is still the opportunity to argue “exceptional circumstances”.
Full steam ahead for sites near stations
In a push to drive development of new homes and mixed-use developments in and around transport hubs, the new suite of rules now provide for a strong presumption for those sites within reasonable walking distance, of a “well-connected” railway, tram or underground station regardless of the settlement boundaries or green belt designation (subject to compliance with the Golden Rules for major developments**).
Reasonable walking distance broadly means 800 metres or around a 10-minute walk. Meanwhile, a well-connected station means one in a top 80 Travel to Work Area and which, in the normal weekday timetable have at least four trains/trams per hour overall, or at least two trains/trams per hour in any one direction.
Crucially, the density requirements attached to this have been softened considerably from what was originally proposed – landing at 35 dwellings per hectare, rising to 45 near the very best-connected stations.
Green belt and grey belt policy remains intact
Despite speculation, 2024 changes to green belt policy remain in place with only minor tweaks, and grey belt land continues to be actively promoted for development. But ministers have been clear that grey belt status doesn't guarantee permission. The five purposes of the green belt haven't changed, and its overall extent hasn't been reduced.
Continuity should be welcome for SME developers with grey belt sites in the pipeline but, be aware, schemes will still need to comply with the Golden Rules for “major developments” delivering meaningful public benefits – affordable housing, infrastructure and green space among them.
Room to make the case on viability
Viability policy stops short of the standardised inputs (fixed profit levels and benchmark land values) originally floated, with a more comprehensive update expected via planning practice guidance in due course.
Policy-compliant schemes are assumed viable, but an assessment can still be justified where:
- the development proposed or site characteristics are materially different to those in the viability assessment that informed the plan;
- development is demonstrably burdened by costs which were not taken into account at plan stage (with the price paid for land not being justification) or where site or economic circumstances have shifted significantly (equivalent to a recession).
Notably, for grey belt sites looking to satisfy the Golden Rules, a viability assessment can now be submitted:
- where a scheme is on previously developed land and demonstrably burdened by costs associated with that previous development which were not taken into account in the viability assessment that informed the plan;
- for a strategic site meaning multi-phased sites, with significant infrastructure requirements and a masterplan (typically at least 1,500 dwellings if residential, lesser numbers for higher mixed use); or
- where the development is for a wholly different development to that considered in the viability assessment that informed the plan.
Also worth noting
A couple of extra points to flag:
- The Housing Delivery Test, published alongside the NPPF rather than forming part of it, has landed with real teeth. Recent reporting suggest around a third of councils face the toughest sanctions for under-delivery, meaning more pressure on those authorities to say yes to deliverable schemes.
- One disappointing point is the scrapping of proposals for developers of “medium” sites, a new category covering schemes of 10 to 49 homes, paying a cash contribution instead of delivering affordable housing on-site. The policy would have increased flexibility to help schemes that struggle to absorb on-site affordable housing costs.
Thrings’ Planning and Environment lawyers have extensive experience in navigating complex local and national planning policy legislation and have successfully supported developers through the approval and appeal processes. To find out more and for advice on your development proposals, please do get in touch.
* The mechanism under the former NPPF para 11(d) that nudged decisions towards approval when a council lacked relevant development plan policies, or when policies were out of date (such as a lack of five year housing land supply).
** Major development: for housing, development where 10 or more homes will be provided, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares or more. For non-residential
