NPPF: What you need to know Andrew Pritchard Director of Policy & Infrastructure

Introduction ● The View from DCLG ● Background ● What has the NPPF replaced (& what is still there) ● What has changed (and what has not) ● Transitional Arrangements ● What about RSSs? ● Assessing conformity with the NPPF ● What may be the impact of the NPPF? ● Conclusions

The View from DCLG (1) “The NPPF is a framework for local decision making and it is for councils to make a judgement on its interpretation” Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Planning Minister (20 April 2012)

The View from DCLG (2) “DCLG advice is not geared at telling you: ‘this is what the policy means’” Steve Quartermain, Chief Planner (18 April 2012)

Background: Coalition Planning Reform Agenda ● Absolute commitment to housing and economic growth ● Continue to protect and enhance the natural and historic environment ● Put power back into the hands of local people through the removal of top down targets ● Delivering a simpler & more effective system ● Introduce powerful incentives so communities gain the benefits of growth ● Restore the idea that development can be a force for good

Background: NPPF Process ● NPPF proposed in ‘Open Source Planning’ and was part of the Coalition Agreement ● Initial ‘issues’ consultation Dec 2010 ● Highlighted in 2011 Budget Statement ● PAG Draft published May 2011 ● Consultation draft published in July 2011 ● 16,000 responses ● Final NPPF published March 2012 and implemented with immediate effect

NPPF has replaced… ● 21 PPS/PPGs ● 9 MPS/MPGs ● 2 circulars ● 11 CPO letters

Which leaves… ● PPS10 (waste) ● 5 MPGs ● National & Regional Aggregates Guidelines ● 32 circulars ● 54 CPO letters

plus… ● A new separate policy statement on planning for Gypsies & Travellers (replacing Circulars 01/06 & 04/07) ● A new ‘NPPF Technical Guidance’ document covering minerals and flood-risk issues previously part of MPS/PPSs

and… ● Existing PPG and PPS practice guides and some ‘stand alone’ annexes ● A range of other best practice documents including the Plan Making Manual, Housing Market Assessment Guidance etc ● …all subject to review but extant for the time being (so you may want to make sure you have an electronic copy of anything useful!)

in addition… ● 12 National Infrastructure Policy Statements ● Some of which are also relevant to local planning decisions (e.g. Renewable Energy Infrastructure NPS – see footnote 17 in NPPF)

What policy has changed? Not as much as we might have expected from the draft, but still some significant changes, including: ● Presumption in favour of SD ● Viability ● Housing ● Greenbelt & Green Space ● Duty to Co-operate (see later presentation!)

Presumption in favour of SD ● Policy presumption (as opposed to the legal presumption in favour of the development plan) ● Emphasis on developing plans that meet ‘objectively assessed’ need and approving applications that are in conformity with plans quickly (subject to footnotes 9 & 10!) ● Without a plan, the NPPF becomes the starting point for decisions ● Model local plan policy available at: umption umption

Viability ● An important new policy emphasis – driven by the current economic situation ● ‘Investment in business should not be over- burdened by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations’ (para 21) ● Plan policies should provide for ‘competitive returns to a willing land-owner and a willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable (para 173)

Housing (1) ● Plans should meet objectively assessed housing need in full (as long as this is consistent with the rest of the NPPF!) ● Sites should be ‘deliverable’ (capable of being built in 5 years) ● 5 years supply of deliverable sites required– plus buffer of 5% brought forward from later in the plan period, or 20% where a record of persistent under-delivery (para 47) ● No definition of persistent under-delivery – but would seem to include most councils in the current circumstances

Housing (2) ● Affordable Housing definition in glossary a condensed version of that in PPS3 (see Government response to DCLG Select Committee) ● Windfalls can be considered as part of housing supply (para 48) – but only if well evidenced and excludes garden land! ● Conversion to housing from commercial use should normally be approved provided no ‘strong economic reasons’ why not (para 51) ● Garden Cities are back! (para 52)

Greenbelt & Green Space ● Strong political pressure to maintain existing greenbelts (ref footnote 9), and main substance of PPG2 remains ● Gypsies and Travellers sites are now ‘inappropriate’ in the Green Belt (G&T Policy) ● Some more flexibility within greenbelts for infill, replacing/extending buildings and local transport infrastructure, plus ‘Community Right to Build’ schemes ● New local green space designation – same development status as greenbelts

Other issues ● Brownfield emphasis remains, but no national target and subject to ecological considerations ● Quite a strong emphasis on design including reference to design review process (supported by OPUN/EMC initiative) ● Offices back as part of the town centre test ● Employment sites can be maintained unless there is ‘no reasonable prospect’ of development for that purpose (para 22)

What has not changed? ● The key issue is that we still have a ‘plan led’ planning system ● An adopted development plan is still ‘king’ (as long as it is consistent with national policy – which has always been the case). ● As long as this legal presumption remains, we have a viable planning system and councils can still have a strong measure of local control

Further reading… ● PAS NPPF self assessment checklist: ● Government Response to DCLG Select Committee Report on NPPF building/nppfresponse

Transitional Arrangements ● Adopted plans given full weight for one year, as long as only ‘limited conflict’ with NPPF (para 214) ● Emerging plan policies given weight relative to level of objections and conflict with NPPF (para 216) ● Saved policies still material, but trumped if in conflict with NPPF (para 215)

What does ‘limited conflict’ with the NPPF mean? ● No easy answer – it will be a question of ‘fact and degree’ ● PAS NPPF self assessment checklist will help to highlight the issues important to you ● In the end it will probably come down to the extent to which the plan can flexibly meet need in a way that is deliverable and sustainable

What about RSSs? ● No date for revocation yet – DCLG still working through the consultation responses to the SEA reports ● Where it would be appropriate ‘regional strategy policies can be reflected in local plans by undertaking partial reviews…and LPAs may…draw upon evidence that informed regional strategies.’ (para 218) ● You may also want to consider capturing useful regional policies in non-statutory strategic statements

What may be the impact of the NPPF? ● Will appeals rise in the short term as a result of the NPPF? ● Will the NPPF reduce the costs to business? ● Will the NPPF reduce delays in the planning system?

Will appeals rise in the short term as a result of the NPPF?* *Online survey by Planning Magazine

Will the NPPF reduce costs to business?* *Online survey by Planning Magazine

Will the NPPF reduce delays in the planning system?* *Online survey by Planning Magazine

Conclusions ● Do not expect any ‘divine insight’ from DCLG – it is down to you (plus PINS and the lawyers!) to work it out ● We are probably in for an extended period of uncertainty – so you will need to be flexible ● In the meantime, focus on understanding the evidence and working with Members and local communities to create deliverable plans

And Finally… Good planning is still good planning!