1. Revised NPPF December 2024
Published in December 2024 (with immediate effect) the new NPPF is here, which Labour hopes will drive the 1.5 million homes it aspires to deliver. It contains significant changes to policy – restoring some policies that the Conservatives sought to remove – and shaking up Green Belt (GB) policy in ways we haven’t seen since the protections were introduced in the 1940s. Key changes include:-
- To the test to disapply the tilted balance in policy 11(d) – arguably making it slightly harder to refuse schemes where the test applies (e.g. an out of date Local Plan) but balanced against new requirements to consider (as relevant) whether the scheme is in a sustainable location, well designed and providing affordable housing etc.
- Sharp focus on the duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities (although – see proposals for devolution and regional plan making in any event).
- A new Standard Method to calculate minimum housing need for each authority resulting in significant uplifts in numbers (see also new PPG guidance to calculate it).
- A ‘vision led’ approach for transport planning.
- Substantial weight to be given to using brownfield land for housing and loosening of guidance on density.
- Removal of focus on ‘beautiful’ design.
- Review of GB boundaries where authorities cannot meet their housing need.
- New scenarios where development in the GB may not be ‘inappropriate’. This includes Grey Belt development provided it doesn’t fundamentally undermine the purposes of GB in the area, there’s demonstrable need for it, it’s located in a sustainable location and meets the Golden Rules.
- Land released from GB (as well as Grey Belt development) for housing must meet the Golden Rules (i.e. three requirements (i) up to 50% affordable housing subject to transitional policy provisions and viability (ii) improvements to local/ national infrastructure and (iii) new or improvements to public green spaces and for new residents).
2. Modernising planning committees
Trailed in the Kings Speech, Government wants to introduce through new legislation in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill :-
- A national scheme of delegation to bring standardisation to LPA planning committees. This will identify what types of planning application will be decided by committee or by delegation to officers. Options under consideration include delegation based on compliance with the development plan or as a default with prescribed exceptions e.g. departure application/GB development etc or a hybrid including delegation based on size of the scheme. In doing so Government hopes applicants will be encouraged to submit policy compliant schemes.
- Introduction of small, targeted planning committees for strategic development only (working alongside the main planning committee) possibly of 3-5 members including independent expert members.
- Introduction of mandatory training for planning committee members, which links to proposals in the Devolution White Paper for a more robust code of conduct for committee members.
3. English Devolution White Paper – Power and Partnership: Foundations for Growth
- The White Paper sets out the Government’s commitment to devolution across England and introduces a radical re-organisation of local government. Its effect will be wide-ranging, but the key issues for planning and delivery of housing /infrastructure are that it seeks to create what are termed ‘strategic authorities’ which in effect will be the GLA in London and Combined Authorities outside of London, plus the replacement of all two tier County and District Councils with a single tier unitary authority.
- Strategic Authorities will be responsible for local growth plans, as well as having a duty to develop a Spatial Development Strategy which will apportion housing targets. Other government agencies (for example Homes England) will also move to a more regional focus to support the strategic authorities in delivering their spatial and growth plans. Importantly Mayors outside of London will be given similar powers of “call in” on strategic planning matters as per the Mayor of London.
- There will be changes to how funding is applied for, with a move to “integrated settlements” whereby mayors can set the priorities for funding that suit their areas and needs best. There will also be the ability via the Devolution Framework to seek greater devolution/powers.
- In terms of London, the paper says it will review the Greater Authority London Act 1999 (as amended) with a view to ensure that the Act is still “fit for purpose” to support London growth and will therefore look at parts of the Act that may not to be working effectively or are outdated, with a view to removing or amending as appropriate.
- It will also look at how integrated settlement funding could be applied to the GLA from 2026 onwards while at the same time looking at how key infrastructure such as transport is funded and how operational TfL land is disposed of.
- Such fundamental changes to local government and funding will affect the delivery of infrastructure and housing and will require primary legislation. It also looks like a return to regional planning, bearing in mind the creation of the strategic authorities; a key difference will be that access to funding will be structured around these strategic authorities to aid delivery and make decision-making more effective.
4. CPO Consultation
- A suite of measures to streamline the CPO process has been proposed in the consultation paper, a number of which are focused on amendments to procedural points intended as “quality of life” improvements. However, there are also a couple of fundamental changes proposed. These relate to:
- the much-discussed mechanism for removing the concept of hope value from CPO compensation; and
- mechanisms to introduce the temporary interest acquisition powers that have been part of TWAO and DCO compulsory acquisition powers for some time, but have yet to make their way into the CPO toolbox more generally.
- The first of the hope value proposals is that rather than only the Secretary of State being empowered to make such directions, Inspectors will instead be able to make such Directions directly, as well as the authority promoting the CPO in the case of unopposed “self confirmed” CPOs. Additionally there is a suggestion that Town and Community Councils should be included within the list of bodies whose CPOs are eligible for hope value directions.
- By far the biggest and most significant proposal is to move away from a scheme-by-scheme approach to directions for removing hope value, and instead to promote a mechanism whereby hope value can be removed against entire categories of sites which meet certain criteria. No definitive list is provided, however the Government has suggested that it would be interested in considering such directions for the following:-
- Brownfield sites in built up areas suitable for housing, which have no extant planning permission; and
- Sites with the benefit of an allocation in the Development Plan that have not yet come forward.
- This has the potential to catch a much greater number of sites, on a much broader brush basis, and the latter of these in particular appears to be the “stick” to go alongside the carrot of simplifying the decision-making process for allocated sites (as has been proposed in other consultation documents). How the Government would be able to balance the private and public rights arguments in taking such an approach remains to be seen however.
5. Right to Buy (RTB)
- In the RTB consultation the Government has confirmed that it has no proposals to extend RTB to anything other than local authority owned housing, and therefore RPs will not be affected (albeit that the right to acquire will remain).
- A range of mechanisms are proposed to make RTB less easy to invoke for those who aren’t long term residents of Council housing. As such there is discussion of various mechanisms to consider eligibility criteria, minimum term of occupation, and the extent of discounts. As well as this there is also discussion of the means by which the loss of providing and refurbishing social housing can be insured not to be lost through right to buy being engaged too quickly.
- A large part of the rationale behind the proposed amendments is to give local authorities a greater level of confidence in allocating funding to developing more affordable homes, without as much risk of these falling into private ownership and being re-let in the short term.
- As such the changes could lead to an increase in local authority activity in delivery/acquisition, particularly in light of the proposed changes around S106 pooling that we have already seen come into effect, and also the changes referenced in the consultation paper on allowing local authorities to retain all of the receipts. However, the consultation paper suggests that the quid pro quo for this would be requiring potentially a like for like replacement mechanism whereby receipts need to be applied in order to ensure that there is a similar unit provided in terms of size, tenure and location relative to that that is lost through the right to buy being exercised.
6. Development and Nature Recovery
- The Government wants to streamline the current legislative system to unlock development which is being prevented where there are underlying environmental changes – e.g. nutrient neutrality, water neutrality, protected species mitigation. It is inviting views on a move to a strategic-led approach to environmental mitigation, pooling individual contributions, to allow development to come forward whilst supporting nature recovery – similar to District Level Licensing for Great Crested Newts mitigation and the provision of SANGs (e.g. Thames Basin Heaths).
- Expected to be introduced as part of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, this would be achieved by:-
- a responsibility shift from multiple project-specific assessments in an area to a single strategic assessment and “Delivery Plan”;
- a responsibility shift for implementing those strategic actions to the state; and
- allowing impacts to be dealt with strategically in exchange for financial payments that helps fund strategic actions and project-level environmental assessments limited only to those harms not dealt with strategically.
- The intention is that “Delivery Plans” would set out underlying environmental issues, actions necessary and costs of intervention/mitigation and likely developments that would need to contribute – although matters such as the geographical extent and period of implementation would appear to be determined by a relevant Delivery Plan. Where development is proposed in an area covered by a Delivery Plan, the expectation is that the existing EIA process would not need be undertaken in relation to the environmental impact(s) covered by that plan – instead there being a requirement to make a financial contribution before development can proceed.