As an early Christmas present for those in the planning and development sector, the 2024 NPPF (“the Framework”) was finally released by the government on 12th December, further to the consultation which ran between July - September and which my colleague Gemma Macintyre covered here. The government received almost 11,000 responses - their full reply to the responses is available here.
Frequent NPPF updates are commonplace (recently in September and December 2023), however this is the first NPPF under the Labour Government which since being in office, have issued a series of strong statements about how they will transform the planning system. This revised version makes some significant policy changes particularly in relation to housing and development in the Green Belt.
We have provided a summary of some of the key changes, however all of the amendments to the previous NPPF can be found in the tracked changed version.
Paragraph references below are to the new Framework unless otherwise stated.
The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
The presumption in favour of sustainable development under paragraph 11(d) remains at the heart of the Framework. However, for decision making, there are amendments to the tilted balance.
Where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, permission should be granted, unless:
- The application of policies in the framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong[1] reason for refusing the development proposed; or
- Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.
There is no guidance on what a “strong” reason for refusal is – this is likely to be a matter of planning judgement.
Footnote 9 lists the key policies in relation to limb (ii) above which, where relevant, would inevitably fall within the planning balance, however there is a clear intention for extra weight to be accorded to these factors when taking a decision.
Housing
Calculating Housing Need and the Standard Method
Housing need is the assessment of the minimum number of homes needed within a particular local authority area.
Paragraph 62 of the Framework now contains a mandatory[2] requirement for housing need to be calculated using the standard method contained in the relevant section of planning policy guidance (PPG). The formula contained in the PPG is in two stages:
- Step 1 is to add 0.8% annually to the existing housing stock in the LPA area (0.8% is the average growth rate of housing stock based on figures generated over the last ten years).
- Step 2 is to add an affordability adjustment – the housing stock baseline figure (calculated in Step 1) is adjusted based on the affordability of the area.
This new formula has created a national annual requirement of circa 370,000 homes to be built in England which represents circa 1.8m units over the next 5 years. This increases the annual target by 70,000 homes, seeing areas such as Kensington and Chelsea, North Yorkshire and Westminster all needing to deliver more than 2000 additional homes per annum in comparison to the calculations under the previous standard method. The updated projections regionally can be found in this spreadsheet.
Clearly an ambitious target which has received widespread criticism for being unachievable. James Maurici KC’s excellent talk, Ten reasons why Labour will fail to build 1.5 million new homes is highly recommended to read.
These new figures places housing delivery on a level not seen for decades. In fact, the last time a record delivery of 70,000 homes was achieved was in the late 1970s.
Maintaining Housing Supply and Delivery
Paragraph 78 of the Framework makes it a mandatory requirement for local planning authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in strategic policies or against their local housing need where the strategic policies are more than five years old.
Quite significantly in paragraph 78, an appropriate buffer of 5% has been reintroduced to the supply of deliverable sites, and from 1 July 2026, a (brand new) 20% buffer will be applied where a local planning authority has a housing requirement adopted in the last five years examined against a previous version of the Framework, and whose annual average housing requirement is 80% or less of the most up to date local housing need figure, calculated using the standard method. In theory, this should incentivise LPA’s to ensure that their plans are kept up to date.
The 20% buffer where there has been significant under delivery of housing over the previous three years remains extant.
Housing Land Supply
In case this was not clear from the above, LPA’s will again be required to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, including when their Local Plan is less than five years old. The four-year housing land supply introduced by the previous government has been scrapped.
Affordable Housing
The government has recognised that there is an acute need for more affordable homes, particularly the social rent tenure which is now included in paragraph 63 in relation to establishing the types of homes needed, and in paragraph 66 relating to the mix of affordable homes contained within major development. There are further provisions on affordable housing in the Green Belt amendments which are set out below.
Green Belt and (NEW) Grey Belt Land
The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy to prevent urban sprawl has not changed (paragraph 142) and neither have the five purposes the Green Belt serves (paragraph 143). Inappropriate development in the Green Belt is still considered harmful and should not be approved except in “very special circumstances” (paragraph 153). There are however some fundamental changes in relation to grey belt land which relax the rules in relation to applying very special circumstances.
Reviewing and Releasing Green Belt Land
There is stronger wording contained in paragraph 145 that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified through the preparation or updating of plans. In the previous NPPF, discretion was afforded to LPAs to review and alter Green Belt boundaries.
What are exceptional circumstances to building in the Green Belt?
A new paragraph 146 states that “exceptional circumstances in this context include, but are not limited to, instances where an authority cannot meet its identified need for homes, commercial or other development through other means. If that is the case, authorities should review Green Belt boundaries in accordance with the policies in this Framework and propose alterations to meet these needs in full, unless the review provides clear evidence that doing so would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt, when considered across the area of the plan.”
There is a clear driver here to promote economic growth as the need here is not just limited to homes but extends to commercial uses.
Against this backdrop, paragraph 148 provides what seems to be a sequential approach to releasing Green Belt land for development at the plan making stage, with priority given to previously developed land. Where it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, the hierarchy is as follows:
- Firstly, look at previously developed land;
- Then consider grey belt land[3] which is not already previously developed;
- And “then” consider other Green Belt locations.
Clearly, Green Belt release should be a last resort. Interestingly, the consultation version included the wording “only then” under the third limb. These words were not carried forward to the final version which could suggest that Green Belt locations could be looked at in other circumstances.
Further exceptions to developing in the Green Belt
In addition to the exceptions listed in paragraph 151, a new paragraph 155 lists four further circumstances where development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate:
- Where 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;
- Where there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed;
- Where the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework;
- Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 of the Framework.
The Golden Rules (paragraph 156)
The golden rules are that development on land released from the Green Belt through plan-making or decision-making must provide:
- Affordable housing[4];
- Necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure are factored in; and
- iNew, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public.
So, What of Grey Belt Land?
The definition of grey belt is contained in the glossary in Annex 2 of the Framework and copied into footnote 3 in this article. Green Belt land can be reclassified as grey belt where;
- The land does not serve the purpose of checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
- The land is not required to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; and
- The land is not required to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
This is quite a revolutionary change as development (in what is effectively ex Green Belt land) would not be considered as inappropriate development, and therefore decision makers would not need to consider whether very special circumstances apply before granting consent. This also means that where an authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, grey belt policies cannot provide a strong reason for refusing permission (under 11(d)(i)) - i.e. the tilted balance does not apply to grey belt land.
Under paragraph 158, “a development which complies with the Golden Rules should be given significant weight in favour of the grant of permission.”
It is expected that the relevant parts of the PPG will be updated in January 2025 to provide clarity on this.
Economic Growth
This is one of Labour’s key priorities which is reflected in the strengthened wording in paragraphs 86 and 87 of the Framework. A new subparagraph (c) in paragraph 86 requires that planning policies should pay particular regard to facilitating development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including by identifying suitable locations for uses such as laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics. Paragraph 87 expands on the types of facilities that should be provided within different sectors. Notably, there are no national targets placed on commercial uses and the Framework maintains the approach that each area should be allowed to build on its own strengths (paragraph 85).
Flood Risk
The sequential test still stands so that new development should be steered towards the areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source (paragraph 175). However, a new exception has been included where a sequential test will not be required. Paragraph 175 now states:
“The sequential test should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future (having regard to potential changes in flood risk).”
We are expecting more clarity from the government on the definition of “reasonably available sites” in relation to the sequential test in the new year.
Other Changes
Beauty
Quite notably the emphasis is no longer on providing “beautiful” buildings or spaces, but rather high-quality design is required as has always been the case (paragraph 139).
Transportation and Highways
Developers should note the vision-led approach [5] to identify transport solutions provided by paragraph 109.
Developers should also note the requirement to seek to ensure that transport considerations are part of early engagement with local communities and that transport considerations are integral to the design of a scheme (paragraph 109).
Climate change
New paragraph 163 requires a full range of climate change impacts to be considered in decision making. Climate change statements will now have to be prepared for planning applications which are not EIA development whereas they were previously only required for EIA development. We will need to wait for an updated PPG to see if it provides any clarity as to what detail is required in these statements.
Local plans
Amongst other changes, there is a continued emphasis on the duty to co-operate with neighbouring boroughs. As shown above under the Green Belt section, where land is released from the Green Belt in local plans, a higher provision of affordable housing is required.
Transitional Arrangements
The transitional provisions are contained in full in Annex 1 of the Framework.
Of particular note, the Framework applies immediately to development management decisions (paragraph 231).
For plan making, the policies apply from 12 March 2025 subject to certain caveats contained in paragraph 234.
Conclusion
There are a lot of changes to grapple with and an updated PPG is highly anticipated in the new year. Particular clarity is required in relation to the Golden Rules and the affordable housing provisions which cut across several paragraphs within the Framework.
The new housing needs figures will be a challenge for several authorities, particularly those that are already struggling, however some commentators suggest that about 230,000 hectares of grey belt land could come forward, which developers could optimise to help meet these targets. Operational changes to the system, such as cutting down on the number of applications going to planning committee are intended to speed up the decision-making process. The English Devolution White Paper builds upon the government’s key targets which if taken forward, will transform how planning (amongst other services) are delivered across local government.
The new NPPF is only one aspect needed to help us get Britain building again and to building a strong economy. The government still needs to tackle the skills shortages across the sector and assistance for SMEs which have struggled with building in part due to development costs and viability. Additional support for Registered Providers is urgently needed as we’ve seen several reports on the lack of contracts for affordable housing, most recently by the Home Builders Federation. One way of tackling this is the new database published by Homes England to register and buy Section 106 Affordable homes which was also published on 12th December but somewhat overshadowed by the new NPPF. Much of 2025 will be spent grappling with the changes.
Please get in touch with Wright Hassall’s Planning team for further guidance on the 2024 NPPF.
Footnotes
[1] The 2023 NPPF required a “clear” reason for refusal rather than a “strong” one.
[2] The 2023 NPPF stated that the standard method was an advisory starting point and set out some exceptional circumstances to assess need using an alternative approach to assessing housing need.
[3] Defined in the Glossary in Annex 2 as: “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/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey Belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.”
[4] The level of affordable housing will be subject to the requirements in paragraphs 156 (a), 66-68 and 157 of the Framework but in any event subject to a cap of 50% affordable housing, subject to viability.
[5] Vision-led approach is defined in the glossary as: "an approach to transport planning based on setting outcomes for a development based on achieving well-designed, sustainable and popular places, and providing the transport solutions to deliver those outcomes as opposed to predicting future demand to provide capacity (often referred to as ‘predict and provide’)."
The information provided in this article is provided for general information purposes only, and does not provide definitive advice. It does not amount to legal or other professional advice and so you should not rely on any information contained here as if it were such advice.
Wright Hassall does not accept any responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on any information published here. Definitive advice can only be given with full knowledge of all relevant facts. If you need such advice please contact a member of our professional staff.
The information published across our Knowledge Base is correct at the time of going to press.
