Housing delivery and economic growth the focus of revised NPPF

Planning law experts Iain Gilbey, Richard Ford and Michael Pocock of Pinsent Masons said the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (82-page / 847KB PDF) takes account of some industry concerns on the impact of the revised policy on the viability of land proposed to be released for development, expressed in response to an earlier consultation on the changes.

The government had consulted on updating the NPPF shortly after coming to power in July, with planning reform being a central pillar of Labour’s election manifesto and now an important driver of its ambitions for government, which include its plans to deliver 1.5 million new homes over the course of the current parliament and transform the UK into a clean energy superpower.

The updated NPPF, which applies in England only, encourages a ‘brownfield first’ approach to development, but also recognises that some development will need to happen on other land too if government objectives on housing delivery and addressing other infrastructure needs are to be met.

The NPPF requires local planning authorities to undertake a review of green belt land in their area and release what it has described as “lower quality ‘grey belt’ land” for development to meet local needs. Development on this ‘grey belt’ is to be prioritised ahead of development on the remaining green belt.

However, there are conditions on the development of land released from the green belt, with three ‘golden rules’ – on affordable housing; necessary infrastructure improvements; and regarding the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public – now set to govern the release of green belt land through local plans produced by local planning authorities or via individual planning decisions.

In its earlier consultation, in relation to the affordable housing ‘golden rules’, the government had proposed requiring developers proposing new housing schemes for green belt land to make provision for at least 50% affordable housing within those projects, with an appropriate proportion being social rent housing, subject to viability. That requirement has been softened in the finalised updated NPPF.

Gilbey said: “Many of those who responded to the consultation draft NPPF were concerned that a blanket requirement for 50% affordable housing on land to be released, would adversely impact viability and have a dampening effect on delivery. As a result, the final version of the policy framework has updated the ‘golden rules’ that will be applied to the release of such land and clarified that the 50% affordable requirement will apply ‘unless this would make the development of these sites unviable (when tested in accordance with national planning practice guidance on viability)’. It also clarifies that in the interim period, while local plans are updated to reflect the 50% requirement, affordable housing should be delivered at “15 percentage points above the existing affordable housing requirement’ up to a 50% cap.”

“This watering down of the headline requirement reflects wider viability and deliverability concerns raised by many who responded to the consultation,” he said.

Gilbey said the definition of ‘grey belt’ in the updated NPPF includes land that was previously developed or land that does not strongly contribute to green belt purposes. Whilst he welcomed the creation of this new category of land for planning policy purposes, he said the term’s “meaning and effect will be hotly contested between promoters, planning authorities and local interest groups” and that this would likely mean that grey belt land will not make an early or very significant contribution to housing land supply “until the limits of the definition have been tested through planning applications and appeals, and, no doubt, judicial and statutory reviews”.

Ford also welcomed the fact the draft NPPF was revised to address industry views but said the impact of the revised golden rule on affordable housing on scheme viability is likely to have a different impact in different areas of England.

“On grey belt, the relative land values of grey belt with the new golden rules versus greenfield sites outside of the green belt will now be looked at with considerable developer and landowner interest, balanced against sales values,” Ford said. “We will see hotspot grey belt in some green belt areas but less so in others. Simply speaking, the 15% affordable housing requirement premium will work in viability terms in some areas but not others.”

Pocock said the changes made to the rules around the release of land for housebuilding in the new NPPF provides “the shot in the arm the development and housebuilding sector has needed for some time”.

“The government has shown that it means business by strengthening the policy presumption in favour of development and removing some of the barriers which have inhibited the ability to secure planning consent,” Pocock said. “We fully expect to see a surge in planning applications for residential development and new communities as a result, particularly those in ‘grey belt’ areas which were previously constrained by green belt.”

Pocock added, though, that there are other barriers to speedy development that remain for the government to address, including the construction skills crisis. Because those issues remain, Pocock said the government’s policy target of 300,000 homes each year for the next five years “is going to prove very challenging” to deliver.

As well as providing the planning framework for new housing development, the NPPF also governs other forms of proposed development, including commercial and infrastructure development. Gilbey said changes made to the NPPF in relation to those types of development ensure that there is now a modern framework in place that encourages sustainable economic growth, citing the fact that the updated framework refers to the national industrial strategy the government has prepared and to being an enabler of the siting of “laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics”.

“The explicit reference to these categories of development is to be welcomed and reflects the changing nature of economic infrastructure and operational real estate in the UK,” Gilbey said.

Reflecting wider societal concerns on diet and lifestyle, among the other changes contained in the updated NPPF is a new explicit policy presumption against hot food takeaways and fast-food outlets within walking distance of schools and in “locations where there is evidence of that a concentration of such uses is having an adverse impact on local health, pollution or anti-social-behaviour”.