Industry bodies make case for planning policy revisions as NPPF consultation closes

The window for industry bodies to have their say on the government’s latest planning policy closed today, with ministers expected to publish the final version in the summer.

Updates to the National Planning Policy Framework were first published last December, with housing secretary Steve Reed announcing the introduction of a new ‘medium site’ category to help reduce costs for SME builders.

The proposed changes to the framework were subsequently put out for a consultation, which closed today (10 March). 

The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government had previously been expected to publish post-consultation revisions in the spring, but release of the final document has reportedly been pushed back to the summer.

Chris Williamson, president of RIBA, welcomed the proposals, particularly their emphasis on strategic planning and linking housing delivery to infrastructure. 

“This should help to create a planning system that is simpler, more efficient and gives communities and developers greater certainty about outcomes,” he said. He also stressed the need to prioritise design quality, accessibility and high standards on sustainability. 

RIBA is among a number of sector organisations that have expressed concern that the NPPF proposals would stop local authorities going beyond energy efficiency standards set out in the Building Regulations.

Regarding design quality, it welcomed the “improved clarity of the draft guidance”, but warned that design codes and tools could not compensate for under-resourced planning departments. 

Matthew Evans, planning partner at law firm Forsters law firm, said the proposed amendments were a “step in the right direction” and that a “rule-based system should enable developments to gain approval and proceed to construction more quickly”. 

However, he said there remained “huge questions over the viability of developments, especially those on brownfield land that require extensive remediation or are being brought forward by SME housebuilders”. 

Evans added that, regarding the new medium-size category, there needed to be “clarity on what qualifies as a medium-size site and what exemptions there are around affordable housing provision and biodiversity net gain regulations”.

The BPF welcomed the revisions but similarly stressed the need for changes to improve development viability.

It also called for new spatial development strategies to give equal weight to employment alongside housing and said local authorities should have to assess need for build-to-rent, student accommodation and senior living in local plans.

“There is a clear and urgent need to deliver more homes across the UK but national planning policy  should give equal weighting to employment uses, particularly industrial and logistics which underpins supply chains across the country, supports a wide range of employment and is vital for the delivery of the Government’s Industrial Strategy,” said chief executive Melanie Leech.

The organisation also noted that the revised NPPF proposed that local authorities should be more specific about expected developer contributions and infrastructure requirements when sites are allocated in Local Plans. 

It warned against “front-loading” detailed discussions on developer contributions, arguing that this could slow down plan preparation and impact site viability. 

Sarah Lee, director of policy and campaigns at the Countryside Alliance said the reforms needed to “strike the right balance between delivering the homes the country needs and protecting the farmland that underpins our food security”. 

“Productive agricultural land is a strategic national asset and the planning system should prioritise brownfield development while making it easier for farmers to invest in the buildings and infrastructure they need to remain productive and support the rural economy,” she said.

The organisation urged a strong presumption in favour of agricultural development and insisted that rural aras should not become “default sies for speculative housing developments” and that rural developments should include “meaningful levels of affordable homes”.