Revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018)
| Author | William Webster |
| Pages | 447-464 |
Chapter 24
Revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018)
INTRODUCTION
24.1 On 24/7/2018 (following the closure of the consultation on 10/5/2018), the Government published revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) issued in 2012. Planning practice guidance will, where necessary, be updated in due course to reflect these revisions. Under the transitional arrangements set out in Annex 1 to the revised NPPF, plans submitted
24.2 The revised NPPF has been updated and amended to accommodate judicial decisions on issues of interpretation (such as arose in the conjoined appeals of Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd; Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council,
24.3 Those routinely involved in planning matters will doubtless wish to download their own copy of the revised NPPF. Unfortunately, the Department of
Mayor sends to the Panel copies of all representations made in accordance with Town and Country Planning (London Spatial Development Strategy) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1491), reg 8(1), or equivalent. For neighbourhood plans, ‘submission’ in this context means where a qualifying body submits a plan proposal to the LPA in accordance with Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, reg 15.
448 Planning Law: A Practitioner’s Handbook
Housing, Communities and Local Government (DHCLG) has not produced an updated version of the NPPF which can be read alongside the former version in order that the various changes can be seen at a glance. This is beyond the scope of this book and what is proposed instead is that the main changes will be addressed herein in the approximate order in which they appear in the revised NPPF.
PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
24.4 The following is taken from the new paragraph 11 of the NPPF:
For plan-making this means that:
(a) plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change;
(b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas,
(i) the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area;
(ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
24.5 It should therefore be noted, in the case of plan-making, that there is a requirement to provide for objectively assessed needs, unless specific policies in the NPPF provide ‘a strong reason’ not to do so.
24.6 The remainder of paragraph 11 provides:
Revisions to the NPPF (July 2018) 449
For decision-taking this means:
(c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or
(d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date,
(i) the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed;
(ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
24.7 It should further be noted that, in the case of decision-taking, the former reference to where ‘the development plan is absent or silent, or relevant policies are out-of-date’ is replaced by ‘no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date’.
24.8 The presumption in favour of granting permission (which arises, for instance, in cases where relevant policies are out of date) now applies unless (with reference to policies which protect the environment) there is ‘a clear reason for refusing the development proposed’ (the wording of the former paragraph 14 was that development should be allowed unless specific policies in the NPPF ‘indicate that development should be restricted’).
ADOPTION OF THE APPROACH ADVOCATED IN THE WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2016 IN THE CASE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANS
24.9 Paragraph 14 provides:
14. In situations where the presumption (at paragraph 11(d) – see 24.6 above) applies to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing
450 Planning Law: A Practitioner’s Handbook
development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, provided all of the following apply:
(a) the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan two years or less before the date on which the decision is made;
(b) the neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement;
(c) the local plan authority has at least a three year supply of deliverable housing sites (against its five year housing supply requirement, including the appropriate buffer as set out in paragraph 73); and
(d) the local planning authority’s housing delivery was at least 45% of that required
24.10 In short, where the paragraph 11 presumption in favour of sustainable development otherwise applies in the absence of relevant or up-to-date plan policies, the adverse impact of allowing housing schemes which conflict with neighbourhood plans will be presumed to ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’ where the paragraph 14 proviso applies.
CROSS-BOUNDARY CO-OPERATION
24.11 New cross-boundary working requirements are introduced which require strategic policy-making authorities to provide and maintain statements of common ground with neighbouring authorities (paragraph 27).
PLAN REVIEWS
24.12 Paragraph 33 provides that policies in local plans and spatial development strategies should be reviewed to assess whether there is a need for updating every five years and should then be updated as necessary.
24.13 Paragraph 33 continues:
Relevant strategic policies will need updating at least once every five years if their applicable local housing need figure has changed significantly; and they are likely to require earlier review if local housing need is expected to change significantly in the near future.
Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, reg 10A.
Revisions to the NPPF (July 2018) 451
This might appear to be a less stringent review requirement than that proposed in the March 2018 draft, which referred only to actual or anticipated ‘increases’ in housing need figures.
PLANNING PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS
24.14 The NPPF and the guidance encourage pre-application engagement. Where the application is going to be large and/or complex, applicants and local planning authorities (LPAs) may sometimes enter into planning performance agreements with a view to agreeing timescales, actions and resources for handling the application. Paragraph 46, in its final form, states that such agreements, ‘… might achieve a faster and more effective application process … (and) are likely to be needed for applications that are particularly...
To continue reading
Request your trial