News Type: Policy Update

On 22nd November 2023, planning took centre stage in the Autumn Statement speech delivered by Chancellor Jeremy Hunt.

He announced that the Government intends to “back British business” through 110 growth measures. The first of which was to “remove planning red tape”.

Some of the key announcements include:

– Introduction of reforms to allow local authorities to recover the full costs of major business planning applications in return for being required to meet guaranteed faster timelines. If they fail, fees will be refunded automatically with the application being processed free of charge.

– An investment of £110m over this year and next to deliver high-quality nutrient mitigation schemes, intended to unlock 40,000 homes.

– An investment of £32m to “bust the planning backlog” and develop new housing quarters in Cambridge, London and Leeds.

– An allocation of £450m to the Local Authority Housing Fund.

– A consultation on a new Permitted Development Right to allow any house to be converted into two flats provided the exterior remains unaffected.

– Additional Investment Zones to those previously announced in the Spring, including in West Yorkshire, West Midlands, East Midlands, Greater Manchester and in North Wales.

– New devolution deals announced for Hull and East Yorkshire.

Should you have any questions on these announcements, please contact a member of the Firstplan team.

Consultation has recently commenced on the Government’s proposed Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, setting out how the Government intends to reform national planning policy over the medium to longer-term, but also proposing a number of more immediate changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The proposed reforms to national planning policy predominantly concern housing, namely the five-year land supply and the significance of local strategic planning in setting housing targets. Further changes proposed relate to the life-extension of existing renewable sites, notably to promote onshore wind development, and to give policy protection to agricultural land for food production.

In addition, the written ministerial document also sets out the envisaged role for National Development Management Policies (NDMPs). These are intended to save plan-makers from having to repeat nationally important policies in their own plans, so that plans can be quicker to produce and focus on locally relevant policies. These proposed policies will also potentially provide more consistency for small and medium housebuilders, who otherwise must navigate a complex patchwork of similar but different requirements.

This article explores the indicative changes proposed for the NPPF and explores the potential implications of these changes for the planning sector.

Policy Objectives

The proposals listed in the written ministerial document are designed to support the wider objectives of making the planning system work better for communities, delivering more homes through sustainable development, building pride in place, and supporting levelling up more generally. The following policy objectives associated with the consultation document are as follows:

-Building beautiful and refusing ugliness;

-Securing the infrastructure needed to support development;

-More democratic engagement with communities on local plans;

-Better environmental outcomes;

-Empowering communities to shape their neighbourhoods; and,

-Sustainable and integrated infrastructure for our communities and our economy.

Proposed ‘Immediate Amendments’ to the NPPF

The ministerial statement sets out a summary of the proposed changes to the NPPF. It states that the NPPF should, moving forward:

-Make clear how housing figures should be derived and applied so that communities can respond to local circumstances;

-Address issues in the operation of the housing delivery and land supply tests;

-Tackle problems of slow build out;

-Encourage local planning authorities to support the role of community-led groups in delivering affordable housing on exception sites;

-Set clearer expectations around planning for older peoples’ housing;

-Promote ‘more beautiful’ homes, including through ‘gentle density’;

-Make sure that food security considerations are factored into planning decisions that affect farmland; and,

-Enable new methods for demonstrating local support for onshore wind development.

As can be seen, the majority of the proposed changes to the NPPF are related to the housing sector, particularly in respect of both the setting of housing targets and ensuring the delivery of new homes, with the remaining changes concerning food security and farmland, and onshore wind development. The Consultation document states that the government remains committed to delivering 300,000 homes per year by the mid-2020s, and the immediate changes to the NPPF proposed, as will be reviewed below, demonstrate the Government’s prioritisation of delivering more homes.

National Development Management Policies (NDMPs)

An NDMP is a proposed new instrument which would act as national policy and would in effect be statutory. As stated above, these are intended to save plan-makers from having to repeat nationally important policies in their own plans, so that plans can be quicker to produce and focus on locally relevant policies.

The NDMPs will be set out in a document separate to the NPPF, and we are expecting a future separate consultation on NDMPs to go live in 2023. They will cover planning considerations that typically apply in decision-making across England, such as general policies for conserving heritage assets, and preventing inappropriate development in the Green Belt and areas of high flood risk. Further, before any NDMP was designated by the Secretary of State, there would be a public consultation. Separately, the NPPF would remain focussed on plan-making principles and requirements.

The written ministerial document states that the Government’s initial view is that the NDMPs would fall within three broad categories:

1. Existing policies aimed at decision-making already provided within the NPPF, subject to these being reviewed on a case-by-case basis so that the rationale for their inclusion is clear;

2. Selective new additions to reflect new national priorities, for example net zero policies that it would be difficult to provide evidence to support at a district level, but which are nationally important; and,

3. Selective new additions to close ‘gaps’ where existing national policy is silent on planning considerations that regularly affect decision-making across the country (or significant parts of it).

In addition, the government proposes that any NDMP would adhere to a number of principles:

-Cover only matters that have a direct bearing on the determination of planning applications;

-Limited to key nationally important issues commonly encountered in making decisions on planning applications across the country (or significant parts of the country); and

-Solely addressing planning issues, in other words that concern the development and use of land. An NDMP would not address subjects which are regulated through other legislation, for example the building regulations or acts relating to public health, pollution, and employment; although the government is minded to retain the scope for optional technical standards to be set locally through plans, where these remain appropriate, so that local planning authorities can go above certain minima set through building standards.

With the above in mind, it will be interesting to see how the consultation for NDMPs plays out in the near future, as it could influence national policy and play a crucial role in the decision-making process, due to a more top-down development management system.

Proposed changes to NPPF wording (first consultation)

As per the ministerial statement, the government proposes to make several immediate changes to the NPPF, in order to allow them to deliver their “commitments to building enough of the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, ensuring the environment is protected and giving local people a greater say on where and where not to place new, beautiful development.”

Housing and Housing Need

Paragraph 60 of Chapter 5 of the proposed amended NPPF regarding the delivery of a sufficient supply of homes now includes the following:

“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.”

It should be noted, however, that there are no immediate changes proposed to the standard method of calculating housing need. Despite this, it is evident from the proposed changes that the government is keen for local plans to play a bigger role in helping to achieve its housing targets, with an incentive for more local authorities to update their local plans. Paragraph 75 of the proposed amended NPPF regarding the maintenance of housing supply and delivery, is proposed as follows:

“Local planning authorities should monitor their deliverable land supply against their housing requirement as set out in adopted strategic policies. When the housing requirement set out in strategic policies becomes more than five years old, local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their local housing need (taking into account any previous under or over-supply as set out in planning practice guidance).”

Significantly, this means that the obligation for Local Planning Authorities to maintain five-year rolling  housing land will be removed in instances where local plans are considered to be up-to-date. Previously identified 5%, 10% and 20% buffers (of varying considerations), as was included within this paragraph of the NPPF, have been removed. Authorities with recently adopted Local Plans will therefore benefit, as will those with Local Plans that are at an advanced stage. The Government indicates that these changes will provide an incentive for local planning authorities to focus on and prioritise completing their respective Local Plans for the benefit of housing delivery.

Mansard Roofs

Paragraph 122 includes a new addition regarding Mansard Roof extensions. This states that Mansard Roof Extensions should be allowed where “their external appearance harmonises with the original building, including extensions to terraces where one or more of the terraced houses already has a mansard.” Of note, the Paragraph 122 also states that “A condition of simultaneous development should not be imposed on an application for multiple mansard extensions unless there is an exceptional justification.” Although minor, this will likely have considerable implications for Local Planning Authorities in their determination of applications in respect of roof extensions.

Green Belt

In terms of protecting green belt land, a new addition has been added to paragraph 142, which states that:

“Green Belt boundaries are not required to be reviewed and altered if this would be the only means of meeting the objectively assessed need for housing over the plan period.”

This has a considerable implication for Local Planning Authorities, who will not need to review their green belts, even if meeting their housing need would be impossible without such a review. Though this strengthens green belt policy, it is considered that in instances where the requirement for the intensification of urban areas has been demonstrated to be undeliverable, there will be no immediate solution to meeting housing needs. In such cases there may be no improvement to the delays currently being experienced in local plan making.

Support for Onshore Wind Development

With regard to meeting the challenges of climate change, Paragraph 160 (c) has been included as a new addition to the document. This states that when determining planning applications for renewables and low carbon development, local planning authorities should:

“approve an application for the repowering and life-extension of existing renewables sites, where its impacts are or can be made acceptable. The impacts of repowered and life-extended sites should be considered for the purposes of this policy from the baseline existing on the site.”

This is notable for planning applications seeking to re-establish the use and life extension of existing renewable sites, for example replacing old wind turbines with more powerful and efficient models will be made easier, and therefore suitable for the goal of sustainable, low-carbon development.

Summary and next steps

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will consider even greater reforms to national planning policy in the coming months, and these will deliver potentially significant impacts on the planning system in 2023. In addition to the NDMP consultation highlighted above, consultations will also be held on matters such as permitted development rights and design codes; the design of the infrastructure levy; increases in planning fees; exploring how to do more through planning to measure and reduce emissions in the built environment, “Neighbourhood Priorities Statements” and “Street Views”, in addition to others. Significantly, the Government has already said that further proposed changes to the NPPF will be forthcoming. These are expected to be the subject of separate consultations.

The current consultation provides considerable scope to influence the draft proposed changes to the NPPF and indicates how future consultations can also be influenced. It will be important to follow and consider the implications for the housebuilding and construction industries, as well as Local Planning Authorities. Firstplan will continue to provide coverage on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill and will provide further updates on its journey through parliament.

A link to the latest written ministerial statement can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/levelling-up-and-regeneration-bill-reforms-to-national-planning-policy/levelling-up-and-regeneration-bill-reforms-to-national-planning-policy#chapter-15—about-this-consultation

 

Article by Rory Coles

The Mayor of London has recently adopted two new pieces of London Plan Guidance outlining the requirements for Whole Life-Cycle Carbon (WLC) Assessments and Circular Economy Statements. These currently apply only to strategic developments in London (i.e. all outline, detailed and/or hybrid applications that are referable to the Mayor). However, boroughs are also encouraged to apply the policies to smaller developments to support the Mayor’s wider sustainability priorities.  

The respective guidance documents are the third and fourth to be published since the adoption of the London Plan in March 2021. The London Plan Guidance carries no specific statutory weight; however, it is capable of being a material planning consideration enabling the implementation of adopted London Plan policies. 

What are Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessments?  

Whole-life Cycle Carbon (WLC) – sometimes known as ‘embodied carbon’ – refers to the carbon emissions of a building over its entire lifetime, from its materials, construction, operational use, future demolition, and subsequent disposal. A WLC assessment requires applicants to demonstrate how they have calculated and minimised the carbon emissions of their proposal and encourages the retention and reuse of existing materials and structures to promote sustainable building practices. 

For applications referred to the Mayor, applicants are required to submit a WLC Statement at the following stages:  

– pre-application (where relevant);

– planning application submission (i.e. RIBA stage 2/3); and

– post-construction (i.e. prior to occupation of the development. Generally, it would be expected that the assessment would be received three months post-construction). 

Although primarily aimed at strategic development, the GLA has advised that local authorities should take a proactive stance on WLC assessments. Following consultation, the guidance has been updated to confirm that local authorities should secure post-construction WLC assessments by condition or through a legal agreement with the planning applicant – draft wording for which has been made available.

The GLA has devised a WLC Assessment Template which, in response to consultation feedback, has been designed to try and ‘reduce the reporting burden’ and be more user-friendly.  The template can be found here.  

What are Circular Economy Statements?  

London Local Plan Policy SI 7 defines a circular economy as ‘…one where materials are retained in use at their highest value for as long as possible and are then reused or recycled, leaving a minimum of residual waste’. This approach offers an alternative to economically linear building practices which can be wasteful and unsustainable. A circular economy approach allows for buildings to be easily dismantled and adapted over their lifetime, prioritising the retention of existing structures above demolition where possible. 

The recently published guidance on Circular Economy Statements Guidance identifies 6 principles that should be fundamental to the design process of buildings:  

1. building in layers – ensuring that different parts of the building are accessible and can be maintained and replaced where necessary; 

2. designing out waste – ensuring that waste reduction is planned from project inception to completion, including consideration of standardised components, modular build, and reuse of secondary products and materials;

3. designing for longevity (with an emphasis placed on using secondary materials, with re-use on-site or locally preferred);

4. designing for adaptability or flexibility; 

5. designing for disassembly; 

6. using systems, elements, or materials that can be reused and recycled. 

For applications referred to the Mayor, applicants are required to submit a Circular Economy Statement at the following stages:  

– pre-application (where relevant and only on a voluntary basis);

– planning application submission (both outline and detailed); and

– post-construction (i.e. upon commencement of RIBA Stage 6 and prior to the building being handed over, if applicable.

The Circular Economy statement must include two parts: a written report and the GLA’s Circular Economy template spreadsheet.

These two new LPG documents are useful in providing clearer guidance on the scope and information that applicants are expected to consider and submit at each stage of the planning process – to comply with London Plan policy.  The GLA have also indicated that training and resources will be made available to local authorities to support assessment and monitoring.

If you have any queries about Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessments or Circular Economy Statements, please feel free to contact one of the Firstplan team.

 

Article by Will Hayes

If you have any queries regarding the new Southwark Plan 2022 or have a development opportunity in the Borough you would like to discuss, please feel free to contact one of the Firstplan team.

The new London Plan (Policy G5) now requires all major developments to contribute to the greening of London by including ‘urban greening as a fundamental element of site and building design’.  Policy G5 requires ‘urban greening measures’ to be incorporated into new developments – such as green roofs and green walls.  These types of measures were encouraged in the previous version of the London Plan, and, in themselves, are nothing new.  Policy G5 does, however, differ from its predecessor by seeking to fundamentally shift the approach taken to incorporating landscaping (or more accurately, ‘urban greening’) into new development.

The policy is specifically designed to avoid proposed plans being ‘greened up’ at the last minute with, for example, the addition of a token green roof or the incorporation of grass lawn over a surplus corner of land.  Instead, Policy G5 requires urban greening to be given careful considered from the outset of the design process and places a very clear emphasis on quality over quantity.  Policy G5 is supported by a useful – albeit fairly simplistic – Urban Greening Factor (UGF) calculator, a tool that effectively evaluates and scores the provision of urban greening for new developments.   The Mayor has also now published draft Urban Greening Factor Guidance for consultation.

The ‘green space factor’ concept was first used in Malmö, Sweden and versions have since been successfully adopted in other European cities.  Policy G5 has real potential to incentivise the provision of high quality greening in London’s new developments, which is essential as the city continues to grow and densify.  In this article, we briefly outline what the UGF is, the key takeaways from the draft UGF guidance and our thoughts on how developers should factor in the Urban Greening Factor.

 

What is the UGF?

The UGF is a model developed by the Mayor to calculate the amount of urban greening a proposed development delivers.  A factor, or score, is attributed to different types of greenery which is then multiplied by the area of cover (sqm) within a site.  The scores for each surface type are added together and divided by the total site area to give a proposed development its UGF.   The scores range from 1 (the highest) for semi-natural vegetation or wetlands through to 0 for sealed surfaces such as concrete and asphalt.  The Mayor recommends a target score of 0.4 for ‘predominately residential schemes’ and a target score of 0.3 for ‘predominately commercial schemes’.

The UGF is currently only applied to major developments but the longer-term approach is for Boroughs to introduce their own UGF targets in Local Plans.  Importantly, this provides an opportunity to take local circumstances into account, and, if appropriate, set a preference for specific surface cover types. If a Borough has an identified deficiency in tree cover, a higher score could be attributed to new trees.

Local targets are already starting to materialise in some new and emerging Local Plans.  For example, the emerging City of London Local Plan 2036 proposes a UGF target of 0.3 ‘as a minimum’ for all major developments.   The supporting text advises that the City Corporation will take a flexible approach where delivery of the target UGF would ‘detract from the heritage significance of a building or conservation area’.  Others, such as Islington’s emerging Local Plan and Hackney’s adopted Local Plan (2020), are opting to mirror the London Plan’s interim UGF targets.

 

How should the UGF be applied?

In practical terms, the UGF calculations should be submitted as a stand-alone colour-coded drawing alongside a completed UGF table.  Below is an example of an UGF plan we submitted for a major application in Barnet where a UGF factor of 0.447 was achieved.

Drawings prepared by The Landscape Partnership

The UGF calculator is useful in that it prioritises and gives weights to certain surface cover to encourage ‘higher-quality urban greening, rather than large quantities of low-quality features’.  The same site can therefore achieve a very different score depending on the choice of greenery.  For example, not all green roofs are equal.  Depending on the depth and structure of a green roof, the same area of green roof can achieve a score between 0.3 and 0.8.    Similarly, an area of semi-natural open water is given a score of 1, whereas the score for a chlorinated water feature drops right down to 0.2.  A green wall on the other hand, scores 0.6 regardless of the system used.  It is also important to note that the retention of existing features counts towards the UGF score.   In the above example, the retention of the existing woodland area along the northern part of the site made a significant contribution to the overall UGF score which would have been difficult to match with new greenery.

Examples provided by the Greater London Authority (GLA)

UGF is, however, a fairly simplistic model and the UGF drawing only really presents the end product. In practice, many factors will have fed into a landscape design including site constraints, budgets, maintenance issues, and local circumstances – as well as other policy requirements such as biodiversity, amenity, drainage etc.  There will always be some juggling required between these, sometimes competing interests and there may be valid reasons why a higher scoring surface cover cannot be accommodated on a particular part of a site. The GLA therefore encourage applicants to support their UGF drawing with a written narrative (in the Design & Access Statement or Landscape Statement) briefly explaining the rationale behind the proposed urban greening strategy.

The GLA also place particular importance on the need to consider a site’s greening within its local context.  The starting point for considering urban greening should be to consider how the site sits within the surrounding area i.e. to look beyond the redline boundary.   For example,  there may be an opportunity to extend an established green space or create a new accessible green link.  There may also be potential to help address a specific local deficiency in say, open space, or tree canopy cover.   Again, the way in which a scheme responds to local context should be explained in the submission.

The UGF Guidance encourages applicants to look for synergies between urban greening and other policy requirements.  With clever design, one greening option can tick more than one box.  The Guidance cites the example of a SuDS system being designed to also provide natural play opportunities.  In the same vein, the GLA confirm that they will consider bio-solar roofs positively to avoid the potential conflict between roof mounted photovoltaics and green roofs.

Generally, Policy G5 and the UGF are designed to encourage a much more considered approach to urban greening in new development to ensure it is embedded in the final design.   Given that meeting the UGF target score will likely have implications for other design decisions, Policy G5 specifically requires urban greening to be ‘considered from the beginning of the design process’.  The UGF Guidance gives the example that ‘if a lack of space at ground level may result in non-compliance with the relevant UGF target score, the necessary structural considerations should be integrated early in the building design process to accommodate the required specification for green roofs and/or green walls to meet the UFG target score’.  

This approach requires a landscape architect or specialist to be appointed early in the design process and to be given the scope and freedom to liaise with the other members of the project team – in some cases, this will represent a big change from the accepted approach of dealing with landscaping towards the end of the design process with details secured by way of conditions.  The UGF Guidance does confirm that landscape design can be a reserved matter if an outline consent is sought.  The outline application should be accompanied by a UGF calculation based on an illustrative landscape plan and other information to demonstrate that the UGF target will be feasible at the detailed design stage. A condition should then be attached to the outline consent requiring the final UGF calculation to be submitted as part of the reserved matters application, and that the UGF target is to be met.

 

The UGF and Biodiversity

As a final note, it is worth mentioning that the UGF Guidance emphasises the opportunity urban greening provides to improving biodiversity – particularly as many London sites start with a low baseline level of biodiversity.  The UGF Guidance specifically states that ‘Applicants should ensure that any Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Reports or Ecological Impact Assessments they commission highlight opportunities for urban greening to deliver biodiversity gains, and that these documents are used to inform the Project Design Brief’.

Generally speaking, the highest scoring surface cover has the highest potential to enhance biodiversity.  However, this is not always the case and the GLA has published an Urban Greening for Biodiversity Net Gain: A Design Guide to assist.

The UGF also sits separately to the mandatory requirement to provide ten per cent biodiversity net gain (BNG) introduced this week in the Environment Act 2021.   BNG is calculated using Biodiversity Metric 3.0, which focuses solely on biodiversity, and is therefore quite different to the UGF calculator. Whilst this adds a layer of complication, the GLA is finding that schemes which meet UFG scores and provide high quality greening, generally meet BNG targets (largely due to the low baseline of many London sites).

Overall, the Urban Greening Factor is a well thought out policy concept and, importantly, is here to stay (at least for major developments in London).  Perhaps the two key messages are that London Plan Policy G5 requires landscaping to be considered early on in the design process and it’s all about quality over quantity.

If you have any queries about the Urban Greening Factor or Biodiversity Net Gain, please feel free to contact one of the Firstplan team.

 

 

Back in June 2019, the UK government passed legislation committing it to achieving ‘net zero’ greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy has now published the ‘Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener’ policy paper which sets out proposals for decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy in order to realise this ambitious, world-leading 2050 net zero target.  The Strategy takes a largely positive stance, seeking to make the UK the ‘birthplace of the Green Industrial Revolution’ with an emphasis on the ‘unique creative power of capitalism’ driving innovative change and bringing down costs of green technologies.

So how does the planning system fit into the Net Zero Strategy?  It takes a bit of searching, but the Strategy does recognise the importance of the planning system ‘to common challenges like combating climate change and supporting sustainable growth’. Indeed, the net zero transition will require innovative spatial planning to initiate significant land use changes and deliver infrastructure. The Paper recognises that low carbon solutions rely on transforming the infrastructure needed to deliver them which is highly dependent on enablers that have intrinsic knowledge of local circumstances and opportunities for generation. Planning, alongside building regulations, is one of the fundamental controls and influences on the decarbonisation of new buildings. In addition, the re-purposing of current building stock which will represent 80% of the built environment in 2050, also often requires planning permission.

Whilst it is clear that the planning system will play a key role in delivering change, it is very much a case of ‘wait and see’ what this will look like as part of wider planning reforms.  The Strategy does confirm that ‘as part of our programme of planning reform we intend to review the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to make sure it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible’ – although no specific timetable is given.  At present, the NPPF (2021) has no specific mention of net zero requirements.  In contrast, the London Plan (2021) includes examples of more rigorous low carbon policies being imposed, with major developments expected to achieve net zero-carbon, as displayed through a detailed energy strategy.   As well as committing to updating the NPPF, the Strategy also advises that the energy National Policy Statements will be updated and ways to streamline the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) will also be explored.

As we wait for updates to these planning policy documents (and possible wider planning reforms), there are various policies in the Strategy which will have an immediate impact on developers.  For example, as recognised in the Paper, the UK has around 30 million buildings which are responsible for around 17% of our national emissions. From 2025 onwards, the Future Homes Standard will be applied to new buildings, ensuring all new homes in England are ready for net zero by having a high standard of energy efficiency, with low carbon heating installed as standard. Regarding non-domestic buildings, a consultation has been carried out on introducing a performance-based policy framework to large commercial and industrial buildings, with a pilot scheme proposed in 2022.

For some, the Net Zero Strategy doesn’t go far enough, for others, it goes too far.  Importantly, the Strategy sets out a pathway with expected carbon reductions by 2035 from 1990 levels.  This bridges the gap to the ‘far off in the distance’ date of 2050 and, in doing so, requires more immediate action over the next decade.  Of course, the planning system is only one part of the collective effort across all sectors to achieve net zero.  However, as the role of the planning system is to plan, it is essential that it is allowed to be on the front foot – any reforms and policy changes therefore need to be made promptly to ensure that appropriate Local Plans and policy frameworks can be in place to help deliver net zero.

The full Net Zero Strategy can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/net-zero-strategy

 

 

Greater emphasis than ever before will now be placed on quality and design in the planning system. On 21 July 2021, the Government announced a variety of initiatives with the aim of creating “a planning system that make beautiful, sustainable and life-enhancing design a necessity, rather than a luxury”. This follows last year’s publication of the ‘Building Better, Building Beautiful’ Commission’s report, ‘Living with Beauty’ and the 2020 White Paper on planning reform.

National Planning Policy Framework 2021

Last month, the Government published their updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was first launched in 2012 to provide a planning framework for England. The updated version places greater emphasis on beauty, place-making, the environment and sustainable development; and underlines the importance of local design codes, with Robert Jenrick announcing that the revised NPPF will “ensure that communities are more meaningfully engaged in how new development happens [and] that local authorities are given greater confidence in turning down schemes which do not meet locally set standards.”

What are the key changes to the NPPF?

The overarching principle of Sustainable Development within the NPPF has been updated, with Paragraph 7 now including the UN’s 17 Global Goals for Sustainable Development.

The definitions of the social and environmental objectives of sustainable development have also been updated within Paragraph 8, with the social objective adding beauty as a requirement, and the environmental objective now including the requirement to “protect and enhance” the environment and “improve biodiversity” instead of “contribute to” protection and “helping to improve” biodiversity.

In terms of design, Paragraph 134 now states that “significant weight” should be given to development which reflects local design policies and outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability. It sets a clear emphasis on and standard for design, stating that “development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design”.

Furthermore, Paragraph 80, which aims to prevent the development of poorly designed and isolated homes in the countryside, has removed the criteria relating to innovative design, and now solely refers to design that is “truly outstanding”.

With regards to biodiversity and sustainability, Paragraph 131 has been added to acknowledge the importance of trees to the character and quality of urban environments, with a new requirement for planning policies and decisions to “ensure that new streets are tree-lined”. It is proposed that applicants and local authorities should work with highways and tree officers to ensure trees are planted in the right places. In addition to this, Paragraph 180 also states that design proposals should incorporate opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments.

The wording within Paragraphs 161 and 162 encourages an integrated approach to flood risk management, and now takes all sources of flood risk into account. Alongside this tightening of the restrictions around development in flood risk areas, there is an increased emphasis use of natural flood management techniques, including the improvement of green infrastructure, which seeks to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding. Finally, the new Flood Risk Vulnerability Classifications are set out within Annex 3, as referenced in Paragraph 163.

The introduction of Paragraph 96 states that Local Planning Authorities should work “proactively and positively” with developers, delivery partners and statutory bodies, to promote faster delivery of public service infrastructure (such as education facilities and hospitals) and resolve any key issues ahead of applications.

In addition, Paragraph 22 emphasises the need to consider a “vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years), to take into account the likely timescale for delivery” for major infrastructure projects.

In relation to delivery of homes, Paragraph 65 provides clarification on the required quantity of provision of affordable homes, now stating that “planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the total number of homes to be available for affordable home ownership”.

In a further bid to shape the quality and quantity of development, Paragraph 53 provides further guidance on the use of Article 4 directions to incorporate the changes to national permitted development regarding non-residential to residential uses, and to restricting application of Article 4 Directions to “the smallest possible geographical area”.

Paragraph 176 updates guidance regarding the scale and extent of development within all designated areas, to preserve beauty and conservation of heritage and wildlife.

Further to this, and possibly in response to recent socio-political movements, Paragraph 198 now provides guidance on applications to remove or alter historic statues or monuments, and emphasises the “importance of their retention in situ and, where appropriate, of explaining their historic and social context rather than removal.”

New National Model Design Code and Office for Place

Alongside the changes to the NPPF, and new National Model Design Code was launched, to provide a toolkit to help councils develop their local design codes, with the ultimate aim of ensuring consistent, beautiful development. The government propose this will shift power from big developers back to local communities and ensure that “residents and planners will find it easier to embrace beautiful, practical design while rejecting the ugly, unsustainable or poor quality.”

To aid this, and to reinforce the policy changes, the government also announced the launch of the ‘Office for Place’ which will offer “world-class design expertise to help local councils and communities develop user-friendly, effective design codes for their communities, requiring beauty by default within the planning system to drive up standards.”

Any Questions?

This revised NPPF is now a material planning consideration and could indicate the possible direction of the wider planning reforms proposed within the 2020 Planning White Paper. If you have any questions relating to the NPPF, and what these changes could mean for your developments, contact Firstplan.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government continues to keep us on our toes with yet another consultation. On 29th January 2021 the MHCLG commenced a consultation exercise to obtain views on draft revisions to the National Planning Practice Framework (NPPF) and a draft of the new National Model Design Code along with an accompanying guidance document.

The NPPF revision is not a full review – it is likely that a more significant overhaul will accompany the Government’s wider planning reforms when they progress. Instead, this revision seeks to include a number of policy changes primarily in response to the ‘Living With Beauty’ report, published a year ago by the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission (BBBBC). The key changes to the NPPF demonstrate a concerted effort to ensure that beauty and placemaking are key considerations in policy-making and decision-taking.

The review also sweeps in a number of other updates and amendments, including:

• Amendments relating to flood risk and climate change;
• Changes arising from recent legal changes;
• The removal of out-of-date text;
• Inclusion of advice on the approach to historic statues;
• An update to the use of Article 4 directions.

On affordable housing, a change to paragraph 64 is proposed which clarifies the previously hazy wording regarding affordable home ownership. Major developments involving the provision of housing should provide at least 10% of the total number of homes as affordable home ownership.

Biodiversity is pushed a little further into the spotlight and a new paragraph is inserted to state that development whose primary aim is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported. In other developments, opportunities to improve biodiversity should be integral to a proposal’s design – particularly where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity and improve public access to nature.

On heritage, a new paragraph is added to clarify the approach to be taken to historic statues, plaques and memorials. Emphasis is to be placed upon explaining their historic and social context rather than removal, ‘where appropriate’.

Throughout the draft document references to sustainability are enhanced and refined in the context of the provision of open space, opportunities for sport and recreation, and encouraging sustainable transport.

However, the headline act is design. Beautiful design. The increased focus of the NPPF on design represents a key shift in emphasis and introduces some new words to the planning vocabulary. Quality in design and place-making are emphasised throughout, and increased weight is given to design policies and the importance of good design in decision-making. The use of masterplans and design codes seek to encourage a variety of well-designed and beautiful homes. Reference is also made to the value of area-based character assessments to encourage the efficient use of land, in a way that is also beautiful and sustainable. The word ‘beautiful’ makes its debut appearance in the NPPF. It appears five times in the text.  The BBBBC report spoke passionately on the battle between beauty and ugliness and recommended a strong focus on beauty in planning policy. The first two goals of the 2020 report were to ‘ask for beauty’ and ‘refuse ugliness’. The NPPF takes this on, albeit in a more conservative manner than the BBBBC report advocated.

The NPPF places greater emphasis on the need to refuse poorly designed development, and the move towards widespread use of masterplans, design codes and character assessments seeks to provide local planning authorities with the necessary tools to implement this approach. And right on cue along comes the draft National Model Design Code, also open for consultation.
Local Planning Authorities are instructed to prepare design guides or codes consistent with the principles of the National Design Guide (originally published in 2019 and updated in January 2021) and the National Model Design Code.

Whilst it will not be a national policy, the National Model Design Code is intended to form part of the government’s planning practice guidance. It provides guidance on the production of design codes, design guides and policies to encourage local planning authorities to, in turn, seek beautiful design.

The guide deals with the process of analysis and scoping, through vision-setting and master planning, and finally produces a design code with design parameters and area policies. These codes must be developed in consultation with local communities.

The document does not, however, tackle the pertinent issue of how overstretched and under-funded planning departments will take on this additional work. Even the BBBBC report clearly acknowledges that budgets for planning teams fell between 24% and 46% between 2010 and 2015. It addresses the obvious challenge of dedicating time and resources to the work required to develop the necessary skill-sets and documentation. The need to shift resources from development control towards strategic planning is highlighted, so that planners can be freed up to plan, and not process-manage. Key to this is the transition to a greater use of digital technology.

A shift to a digital planning culture is included in the Government’s recent White Paper, but there is still a long way to go before any of its proposals are implemented. So, the question of how planning authorities will resource this work remains unanswered. However, we look forward to seeing the outcome to this consultation exercise. There is an opportunity here for a reliable, practical solution to ensure good design forms a central pillar of the planning process. A clear, consistent and practical approach will be essential, one which offers some clarity on how to approach the subjective issue of good design.

The consultation closes on 27th March 2021.

Following the Mayor of London’s letter to the Housing Secretary on the 21st December, Robert Jenrick has responded to the Sadiq Khan confirming that there were no further matters to raise on the Intend to Publish version of the London Plan and that the Mayor could move forward and publish the Plan.

Within the letter, Mr Jenrick confirms that, having considered the Intend to Publish version of the plan, he has no further matters to raise. However, this confirmation is immediately followed by a stark reminder to the Mayor “…I would remind you of powers afforded to me under sections 340 and 341 of the GLA Act 1999 (as amended) that allow me to direct you to review or alter your London Plan.”

Although the Minister is content for this version of the London Plan to be published, it is still abundantly clear from the letter that concerns remain on how London’s housing need is to be addressed. On housing need, Mr Jenrick states that it is “something your plan clearly and starkly fails to achieve”. Indeed, the Secretary goes on to affirm his ambition to work with London Boroughs who wish to deliver over and above the targets set out for them within the Plan and concludes that this is “something that would not have been possible without my earlier directions”.

Despite the new publication, it seems that we are already looking to the next London Plan. When setting out the “next steps”, Mr Jenrick states:

“Now that you are in a position to be able to publish your London Plan I fully expect you to start working to dramatically increase the capital’s housing delivery and to start considering how your next London Plan can bridge the significant gap between the housing it seeks to deliver and the actual acute need London faces.”

The letter dated 29th January 2021 can be found here:

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/letter_from_sos_mhclg_london_plan_29_jan_21.pdf