The New NPPF in Practice

In its review of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the government is setting planning on course to do the job it was always intended to do; to make informed and intelligent decisions about how our country’s finite and precious land should be planned for the benefit of the many. The Government has explicitly recognised the value of the planning profession in achieving its broader economic growth, infrastructure and housing delivery objectives.

We are optimistic that finally the role that our profession can play in creating a more equal society and a more sustainable future has also been recognised; we are not the architects of the system but perhaps feel its challenges most keenly. So, it is gratifying to realise that the new government has been listening. The new NPPF signals a genuine commitment to planning that has evolved, at least in part, by talking to those at the coal face during the run up to the general election.

However, the initial flurry of excitement and interpretation surrounding the review has now given way to the necessary in-depth analysis of its practical application. How can it best be made to work? We should be in no doubt that Westminster politicians, planners and the development industry recognise the need for change and are determined to seize this opportunity to unblock the planning system’s drag on housing delivery and wider economic opportunity.

Communities also need to have more effective inputs. Their engagement needs to start with a better appreciation of planning as a positive tool for understanding local needs, testing and selecting the best ways to fulfil those needs, and creating plans that deliver change as it was envisioned. The NPPF is silent on this, and there is no requirement for local planning authorities to change the way they interact with communities. Given the large increases in the numbers of new homes that will now need to be planned for, it seems inconceivable that more progressive ways to involve local people in planning the future of their villages, towns and cities are not included. Now is the time to reset the conversation with communities about the positive benefits of planning. Government must keep talking to the planning profession about this essential topic as it progresses its reforms, so energies and what will still be scarce resources can be focused on effective outcomes for communities rather than developments seen as imposed through High Court challenge.

The proposed transition arrangements indicate there are unintended consequences to the Government’s understandably hard line on local plan making. Local authorities that have not yet reached Reg.19 stage may incur yet more delays in bringing new local plans forward, meaning applications for draft allocations that are already being progressed (many with the co-operation of the planning authority) could be delayed, especially where Green Belt release is a necessary precursor to a successful consent, adversely impacting the ability to deliver new homes in policy compliant and sustainable locations. The government must urgently rethink this aspect of the reforms if its pledge to deliver 1.5million homes by the end of this term is to become a reality. Publication plus six months, rather than the currently proposed one month may be an appropriate compromise?

The need for an area to meet its housing requirements and to review Green Belt as part of this process, signals a welcome return to a more robust plan making system which is grounded in evidence and less subject to unjustified political manoeuvring. Adding grey belt into the mix is a good idea in principle, but in practice it may not have sizeable impact on housing need, as many sites will not be in the right places. In the absence of a strategic planning context to plan making, it is questionable whether being limited to a single administrative boundary in meeting authorities’ own housing needs, and having to review Green Belt in this context, will deliver a step change in sustainable patterns of growth and development. Without a requirement for strategic planning to support Green Belt review, and with a continued reliance on the imperfect Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) approach, only part of the jigsaw is in place and the government may have missed a trick in neglecting to include some form of strategic planning upfront in the NPPF revisions.

Recent research has concluded an overwhelming support in the profession for strengthened strategic planning. Rayner has committed to legislation on this within five years, but it needs to come much quicker if we are to fix the strategic context within which to deliver the homes and infrastructure the country needs in an effective and co-ordinated manner. Strategic planning takes time and requires a sensible conversation about the forward planning of infrastructure, about where growth should occur, and about the environmental, social and economic judgements that will inform that conversation. A national spatial plan, and complementary regional spatial strategies, would provide space for this to happen. They would also provide a platform to better coordinate efforts to tackle climate change, deliver the logistics and data centre capacity we need, and address the major infrastructure problems; energy supply and wastewater treatment capacity to name but two, which continue to hamper the planning and delivery of large scale development. These, and other challenging questions, will also test the newly established New Towns Task Force.

Finally, the changes relating to ‘beauty’ within the NPPF are a no-brainer, but what lies ‘beyond beauty?’ Can the new NPPF be effective in securing better placemaking? We’ve devoted a separate think piece to this question.

There is much to celebrate in the new NPPF and we hope Rayner and her new team will continue to drive the change that is needed while listening carefully to the responses of the profession. Our collective knowledge and experience can make a great difference to the success of a reinvigorated system.