Comment
Keep calm and plan on…
Considering the implications of the proposed NPPF consultation on Local Plan preparation
It was perhaps somewhat inevitable that some Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) would hit the ‘pause’ button on their Local Plans following Michael Gove’s Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) on 6 December 2022 which provided an update on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) and the subsequent launch of the consultation for the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which commenced on 22 December 2022.
Analysis published last week by the LPDF[1] shows that, since 6 December 2022 at least 13 LPAs have cited the WMS, LURB or proposed NPPF changes as the reason to delay or withdraw their Local Plan. This is in addition to the 27 Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) who had already delayed or withdrawn their plan prior to the statement. It is likely that these numbers will increase as the political uncertainty continues ahead of local elections in May and a general election by January 2025.
We took a further look at the 13 LPAs that have hit the pause button since 6 December 2022, to determine if there were any patterns. Ten are due to have local elections in May 2023, six are councils where no political party have overall control and five have Green Belt within their administrative boundaries. In short, no matter what the political make-up of the council, or whether there is Green Belt or not – if an LPA wants to pause their Local Plan, the proposed changes are giving the perfect opportunity to do so.
Notwithstanding the immediate reactions of a number of LPAs, it is important to consider what the changes to the NPPF are actually saying and what this could mean for Local Plan preparation. Some of the amendments are not as significant as may first appear, and transitional arrangements are proposed.
The importance of up-to-date Local Plans is reinforced
The Government remains committed to Local Plan preparation. A number of the proposed amendments seek to reinforce the importance of having up-to-date Local Plans and further incentivise LPAs to get one in place. This includes offering ‘protection’ from speculative five-year housing land supply applications (and the ‘tilted balance’) for five years from adoption or review of the Local Plan. Of course, the missing aspect of these proposed amendments remains there being no statutory requirement to maintain an up-to-date Local Plan. Further, unilateral ‘reviews’ of Local Plans by LPAs will have significant consequences, as we consider below. Some form of ‘checks and balances’ need to be put in place with a third party (the Planning Inspectorate or the Secretary of State?) reviewing whether plans really are still up-to-date.
Evidence and consideration of alternatives is still required
Significantly, the consultation proposes to remove the requirement for a Local Plan to be ‘justified’ from the tests of soundness (paragraph 35). Recently, a number of allocations were struck out of the emerging Bracknell Forest Local Plan[2] for not being ‘justified’. The omission of this important test could have significant implications for future plan-making.
Changes to the requirements for a plan to be ‘positively prepared’ are also proposed and require that the area’s objectively assessed needs are met “so far as possible, taking into account the policies in this Framework” with a reference to retained footnote 22 (previously footnote 21). It still confirms that, in relation to housing, such needs should be assessed using a clear and justified method, as set out at paragraph 61.
Whilst on the surface, removal of the ‘justified’ test could indicate that less evidence will be needed for a Local Plan to pass the soundness tests, the policies in the NPPF still require a significant amount of evidence and justification to be prepared, for example in relation to:
- Determining the housing requirement: Footnote 22 states “Where this relates to housing, such needs should be assessed using a clear and justified method, as set out in paragraph 61 of this Framework”. Paragraph 61 confirms that the outcome of the standard method is a starting point, and there may be exceptional circumstances which justify an alternative approach to assessing housing need. To comply with footnote 22, such needs should be assessed using a clear and justified method. The bar is therefore still quite high if an LPA wishes to deviate from the standard method. Further, paragraph 60 confirms that “The overall aim should be to meet as much housing need as possible with an appropriate mix of housing types to meet the needs of communities”.
- Sustainability Appraisals: Paragraph 32 remains unchanged; Local Plans and spatial development strategies should be informed throughout their preparation by a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) that meets the relevant legal requirements. Those legal requirements have not changed. Alternative options which reduce or eliminate significant adverse impacts should be pursued. During the preparation of a Local Plan, an LPA will therefore still need to consider alternative options through the Sustainability Appraisal process.
- Green Belt and Exceptional Circumstances: Paragraph 142 (previously paragraph 140) states that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Further, paragraph 143 (previously paragraph 141) continues to require an LPA to demonstrate that they have examined fully “all other reasonable alternatives” for meeting its identified need for development before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt Boundary.
It’s also worth flagging that, under the transitional arrangements set out in Annex 1 (proposed paragraph 226), the amended tests of soundness will only apply to plans that have not reached Regulation 19 (pre-submission) stage, or that reach this stage within three months of the publication of the revised version of the NPPF.
The presumption in favour of sustainable development remains
To ensure that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, the presumption in favour of sustainable development continues to remain at the heart of the NPPF. Paragraph 3 has not changed and confirms that the NPPF should continue to be read as a whole. This principle is repeated at paragraph 11, within “the presumption in favour of sustainable development” itself.
The approach to economic growth is unaffected
Significant weight continues to be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, as set out in paragraph 83 (previously paragraph 81). The amendments proposed to paragraph 142 (previously paragraph 140) only relate to objectively assessed need for housing over the plan period and excludes any reference to employment land. As such, there appear to be no changes to considering Green Belt release to meet employment needs or economic growth aspirations.
There is still an opportunity to promote large-scale development (including new settlements) within the Green Belt
Despite the headlines, there is still an opportunity to promote larger scale development and new settlements, including those sites within the Green Belt. The NPPF continues to acknowledge that “the supply of large number 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” (paragraph 74, previously paragraph 73).
In addition, there remains a clear process to be followed for LPAs who determine that it is necessary to review Green Belt boundaries, including an expectation that “plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport” (our emphasis) (paragraph 144, previously paragraph 142). There is, therefore, still potential to promote larger scale development within the Green Belt, where it would be well-served by public transport.
The principle of increasing Local Plan coverage is laudable, but it will be critical to ensure that those plans are aspirational and can deliver economic growth and meet housing needs.
Taking the above points into consideration, we remain optimistic about the potential to continue to promote strategic land for development through the Local Plan process; particularly in the medium – long term. It is, however, necessary to reflect on the anticipated policy changes and period of political uncertainty attributed to the local elections in May and the general election in 2024, and to carefully devise planning strategies which are bespoke to the specific site and local context. In particular, it will be important for developers / land promoters to work more closely with LPA officers to ensure that strategies are aligned, and sites are promoted in partnership.
It will also be necessary to consider how larger sites can be effectively promoted in a world where Local Plans may have shorter time horizons (given the need for review every five years). In some areas, allocating larger site(s), which can deliver homes and employment growth over multiple plan periods, is likely to remain attractive.
The apparent purpose of these changes is to encourage more Local Plans to be in place. But these changes, if implemented in their current form, will have profound consequences for the quality of plan-making as we have identified above. It is also difficult to see how they will encourage new plan preparation when there is no real incentive to meet full housing needs or undertake Green Belt reviews. These proposed changes will do very little to help address the urgency and magnitude of the housing crisis in the country, or deliver the Government’s ambitions for economic growth, including ‘levelling up’. However, as we’ve discussed above, some of the proposed amendments are perhaps not quite as drastic as some of the headlines or Government rhetoric would have you believe. Local Plans are still a critical part of our planning system (perhaps increasingly so) and the need to proactively engage with the plan-making process is crucial; now more than ever.
At the end of last week we heard that the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee has said that it will be examining the consultation. The committee said it will start to hear evidence on its inquiry from March onwards, after the closing date of the Government’s consultation. We await their input with interest.
Please contact your local Turley office to discuss further.
6 February 2023
[1] https://www.hbf.co.uk/documents/12248/Delayed_Local_Plans_-_23_January_2023.pdf
[2] https://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning/planning-policy/emerging-bracknell-forest-local-plan/examination