Category: NPPF

Framework Good Work

I described MHCLG’s and the Mayor of London’s proposed emergency measures for London as “underwhelming” in my 13 December 2025 blog post.

By contrast, maybe the only word for this week’s draft revised NPPF, accompanying consultation paper (225 questions to respond to by 10 March 2026) and the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is “overwhelming”.

However, in suitably positive and festive mode, the theme of this blog post is as follows:

🎵 It’s beginning to feel a lot like we are moving towards a coherent, understandable, English planning system 🎵 and for that the relevant ministers and civil servants deserve a couple of weeks’ rest and reflection before the hard work begins again (because it certainly isn’t all finished yet…).

After all, doesn’t the following summary start to make sense to someone fresh to all this? In a way that the system hasn’t since the abolition of the regional strategies in 2010, or indeed long before that in much simpler times?

At a national level:

  • a comprehensive set of numbered policies setting out the approach to development plan-making to be taken by plan-making authorities at three levels: strategic (via procedures the framework of which is set out in the 2025 Act); local (via procedures the framework for which is set out in LURA 2023), and neighbourhood;
  • a comprehensive set of numbered policies to be followed when planning applications and appeals are determined, written in a rules-based style so as to minimise ambiguity – policies which (from the date the draft NPPF is finalised) override any inconsistent policies in any development plan (unless those policies have been examined and adopted against the finalised NPPF).

Planning practice guidance will still have an important “but supporting” role to national planning policy “and its status should be regarded in that light”.

At a strategic level (the boundaries of which in many cases will be determined in due course via the devolution process happening meanwhile in another part of the forest):

  • a comprehensive set of spatial development strategies focused on providing a clear spatial framework for investment and growth, including new housing, looking forward at least 20 years (to be altered at least every five years to reflect any changes to housing requirements for the local planning authorities in the strategy area and to be replaced at least every ten years). This will include apportioning to local planning authorities in the strategy area the objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses which those authorities should plan for in their local plans and identifying “broad locations for strategic development including new settlements, major urban extensions, major cross-boundary development and key locations with the potential for new homes and jobs” as well as strategic infrastructure requirements. There should be no duplication, substantive restatement or modification of the content of the NPPF, unless any policy in the NPPF so directs.

At a local level (the boundaries of which in many cases will be determined in due course via the local government reorganisation process happening meanwhile in yet another part of the forest):

  • slimmed-down local plans, to be prepared and adopted within 30 months, setting out a vision with a limited number of measurable outcomes, policies for minimum amounts of development to be provided for, land allocations (with a specified amount of detail), broad locations for growth, infrastructure requirements to support delivery of the plan and other policies “only where these support the delivery of specific allocated sites”. There should be no duplication, substantive restatement or modification of the content of the NPPF, unless any policy in the NPPF so directs. There must be “general conformity” with the relevant spatial development strategy. Supplementary plans may be used to address specific issues, subject to constraints set out in the NPPF.

At a neighbourhood level (optional):

  • allocating land to meet the development needs of the neighbourhood (with a prohibition on promoting less development than provided for in other parts of the development plan for the area) and policies to address particular local issues. Neighbourhood plans should accord with the plan-making policies in the NPPF and again there should be no duplication, substantive restatement or modification of the content of the NPPF.

At each level (strategic; local; neighbourhood) a specific set of tests is set out against which draft plans will be examined. There are specific requirements for plan-making authorities at each level to engage with infrastructure providers, other relevant plan-making bodies and other relevant bodies and to demonstrate this by way of statements of common ground. Expectations as to developer contributions should be set at the relevant level. Qualitative standards for development should not cover matters already addressed by Building Regulations with limited specific exceptions and should not cover matters relating to the construction or layout of buildings unless they are to implement the nationally described space standard. Plans are to be published in a searchable digital format – no more PDFs!

Aside from there being a more cohesive, tiered, policy basis for decision making, the decision-making process will be made simpler and more predictable by way of simplified procedural requirements for schemes of less than 50 dwellings, by way of increasing the standardisation of section 106 agreements and viability inputs and by way of greater delegation of decision-making to officers.

I’m focusing here more upon the structural framework of the system – the hardware as it were – rather than the substantive direction of the policies – the software as it were. But the software also now works more smoothly. Rather than the previous tilted balance, with its various caveats over time and footnotes, we have, front and centre, policy S4 setting out the principles to be applied to development within settlements and policy S5 setting out the principles of development outside settlements (including the new criteria for housing and mixed-use development within reasonable walking distance of railway stations which meet a specifically defined level of connectivity to jobs and services (with those criteria also now providing a new category of not inappropriate development in the green belt)) and the drive towards densification, a more diverse mix of homes, focus on particular areas and sectors (e.g. those names in the government’s growth strategy, AI growth zones, logistics, town centres and agricultural and rural development), minerals, a vision-led approach to transport, addressing climate change, a tidying up of heritage policies and finally a more strategic approach to the natural environment (with the read-across to local nature recovery strategies as well as the environmental delivery plans provided for within the 2025 Act).

Complicated? Inevitably. But refreshingly it does all hang together. In fact, the new system is probably more intimidating for all of us who have to get to grips with this quite different approach and unlearn a whole host of previous policy tests and workarounds than for someone coming at this afresh. Any attempt at a straightforward mark-up of changes from the current December 2024 NPPF is doomed to failure but this side-by-side comparison of the paragraphs of the draft revised NPPF as against the relevant paragraphs of the existing 2024 NPPF may help (for which I thank my colleagues Archie Hunter and Adam Choudhury).

What are the challenges ahead?

  • How to get there from here, i.e. transition. The NPPF’s decision-making policies will have full effect from the day that the final version of the document is published. We are of course going to have to wait longer for spatial development strategies (individual timescales dependent on dependent on individual devolution processes but against the government’s ambition of a full suite of adopted SDSs by 2029) and indeed the next generation of local plans (27 November 2025 written ministerial statement: “Local planning authorities covered by the NPPF transitional arrangements will have to commence formal plan making (Gateway 1) by 31 October 2026, while those that have a plan that is already over five years old must commence by 30 April 2027”).
  • Politics and administrative processes. The planning system is under major reconstruction but of course so is the whole architecture of sub-national government. The worst that could happen would be for any of these reconstruction jobs to be left half-done. Continuity is important and if this is going to work, for the long-term improvement of the whole system, those elected to prepare plans need to proceed in a way which is consistent with the timescales and objectives that have been set out – and to avoid every understandable temptation in a period of transition to wait first for the next jigsaw piece to fall into place.

Have a good Christmas everyone and don’t worry: I shall switch back to Grinch-mode in the new year I feel sure.

Simon Ricketts, 19 December 2025

Personal views, et cetera

Local Plans, LGR, Devolution: Goal Posts Moving On A Sloping Pitch For A Game Of Indeterminate Length With Shifting Rules & Teams

Am I wrong?

Let’s ease ourselves in gently…

Pragmatism, co-operation

I covered Matthew Pennycook’s 30 July 2024 letter to the Planning Inspectorate’s chief executive Paul Morrison in my 11 August 2024 blog post Plan-Making, Or, The Olympic Sport Of Trying To Hit A Slowly Moving Target, which announced a reversal of the previous Government’s “expectation that Inspectors should operate “pragmatically” during local plan examinations to allow deficient plans to be ‘fixed’ at examination. This has gone too far and has perversely led to years of delays to local plan examinations without a guarantee that the plans will ever be found sound, or that the local authorities will take the decisions necessary to get them over the line. This has to end.

[…]

Pragmatism should be used only where it is likely a plan is capable of being found sound with limited additional work to address soundness issues. Any pauses to undertake additional work should usually take no more than six months overall. Pragmatism should not be used to address fundamental issues with the soundness of a plan, which would be likely to require pausing or delaying the examination process for more than six months overall. Local authorities should provide regular progress updates of their work to the Planning Inspector during any agreed pause.”

Muscular stuff in that heady first month. Principles above pragmatism and the delays thereby arising, addressing the problem of submitted plans being allowed to limp on for years through long examinations, through authorities being given time by inspectors to try to fix soundness issues arising.  

But then, more recently, in his 9 October 2025 letter to Paul Morrison, pragmatism isn’t dead after all:

“In advance of the new plan-making system and mechanisms for cross-boundary cooperation coming into force, the final set of local plans being delivered within the current system remain essential to facilitating the effective delivery of housing, jobs and infrastructure. It is therefore critical that Inspectors approach examinations of current system plans with the appropriate degree of flexibility. The evidencing of expectations to establish whether the legal and soundness tests have been met – including with respect to the Duty to Cooperate – should be proportionate to the context in which plans in the existing system are being prepared. I very much welcome that in some cases Inspectors are already exercising a degree of flexibility to expedite adoption of local plans. For example, I note recent pragmatic decisions to proceed toward adoption in instances where a five-year housing land supply cannot be evidenced at the point of adoption but where the plan significantly boosts supply and still meets housing needs over the plan period or by providing additional opportunities to clarify compliance with the Duty to Cooperate. Relevant Planning Practice Guidance provides advice in respect of both of these matters, and will no doubt be of ongoing assistance in assessing whether proportionate evidence has been provided or considering whether stepped housing requirements may be justified.

It remains important that we do not see the adoption of poor-quality plans, or accept overly long examinations (I am grateful for the action that Inspectors have taken following my letter of 30 July 2024 in that regard). However, within those bounds, where plans are capable of being made adoptable, I want Inspectors to seek to do so in the examination process.”

It was unsurprising to see the pendulum swing back, because we aren’t ever really talking about, or dealing with, the planning system in isolation, are we? The three Ps in our world are planning, pragmatism and politics. Pragmatically, what is a plan-led system without … plans?

And p for pragmatism has been given extra oomph with the 27 November 2025 announcement that the forthcoming regulations that will specify how the new plan-making system is to work will (once made) immediately abolish the statutory duty to co-operate (i.e. affecting plan making under the current system as well). See the minister’s letter of that date to Paul Morrison :

“We intend to shortly lay regulations which will enable Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to initiate formal preparation procedures for new-style plans. These Regulations will also have the effect of abolishing the Duty to Co-operate for the existing plan-making system.

As you know, the Duty to Co-operate (“the Duty”) was inserted into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, through the Localism Act 2011, to help bridge the gap in co-operation resulting from the abolition of regional planning. The Duty requires LPAs to “engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis” with neighbouring authorities whilst preparing their local plan. However, as noted in your letter of 30 October, the Duty as a legal provision has, at times, been difficult to comply with and has led to some notable local plan failures. This is in part because any shortcomings relating to the Duty cannot lawfully be remedied during examination.

The new plan-making system provided by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 does not include the Duty. Instead, the new system will rely on revised national policy and the new tier of strategic planning to ensure effective co-operation between plan-making authorities. The Regulations for the new system will also ‘save’ the current plan-making system for a period to allow emerging plans to progress to examination by 31 December 2026. Given the above, and to help drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible and progress towards our objective of universal local plan coverage, we have decided not to ‘save’ the Duty, thereby removing this requirement for plans in the current system.

The Duty will therefore cease to apply when the Regulations come into force early next year, including for plans at examination at that point. On the basis of the government’s firm intention to abolish the Duty for the current system, examining Inspectors may wish to begin any necessary dialogue with LPAs in advance of the Regulations coming into effect, with reference to this letter. Of course, LPAs should continue to collaborate across their boundaries, including on unmet development needs from neighbouring areas and Inspectors should continue to examine plans in line with the policies in the NPPF on ‘maintaining effective co-operation’.”

This is perilously close to retrospective legislation it seems to me but, pragmatically, politically, a potential lifeline has been thrown to, for instance, the Mid-Sussex local plan and the South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse joint local plan. For some background on the Mid-Sussex local plan duty to cooperate issue, see my 7 June 2025 blog post Not Sure Why The Media Was So Focused On Musk v Trump This Week Given What Has Been Happening In Sussex since when the inspector, in a letter dated 3 November 2025,  had – can we say grudgingly? – agreed to hold a further hearing session in January 2026. The South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse joint local plan inspectors had written to the two authorities on 26 September 2025 indicating that they considered that the duty to cooperate had not been met. Since the minister’s 27 November 2025 announcement they have now written again to the authorities in a letter dated 1 December 2025 seeking their views on the implications of the announcement for the examination and “in particular how the Councils wish to proceed”.

Plan-making deadlines

Two reasons why the notion of a “plan-led” system is increasingly theoretical are surely:

  • Obviously, the continuing lack of up-to-date local plan coverage across England.
  • The increasingly impenetrable nature of the local plans system, already with plans proceeding under the previous and current NPPFs and now to overlap with the proposed new system, supposedly to be faster but that was initially designed with the concept of (a) statutory national development management policies (we will see if the non-statutory fudge makes a practical difference in that respect) so as to narrow down their role basically to the allocation of land for development and the designation of land for specific forms of protection and (b) a now abandoned watered-down “soundness” test.

Is a simpler, speedier system on the horizon? Hmm.

In his Q&A session with Sam Stafford at the LPDF conference on 27 November 2025, Matthew Pennycook revealed that timescales for authorities to prepare new style local plans would in some instances be brought forward, rather than the previously proposed phased introduction. That day we then had a press statement (New local plan system launching early 2026: latest update), a written ministerial statement (Reforming Local Plan-Making) and a detailed Plan-making regulations explainer.

From the written ministerial statement:

“Having considered carefully responses to the earlier consultation, I am announcing today that we no longer intend to roll the system out in a series of plan-making ‘waves’. Instead, local planning authorities will be encouraged to bring plans forward as soon as possible following the commencement of the regulations early in the New Year.

Whilst authorities will have discretion over how soon they start their plan, regulations will set out final ‘backstop’ dates for when plan-making must legally have commenced. Local planning authorities covered by the NPPF transitional arrangements will have to commence formal plan making (Gateway 1) by 31 October 2026, while those that have a plan that is already over five years old must commence by 30 April 2027. Further information will be set out in the regulations and in guidance.”

From the explainer:

“In general, the regulations will require that local planning authorities publish their Notice to Commence Plan-Making within 4 years and 8 months of adopting their existing local plan, or by 31 December 2026, whichever is the latest. They must then begin preparation of a new local plan (publish their gateway 1 self-assessment form) within 5 years of adopting their existing local plan, or by 30 April 2027, whichever is the later.

However local planning authorities who submitted a plan for examination on or before 12 March 2025 with an emerging housing requirement that was meeting less than 80% of local housing need will be required by regulations to publish their Notice to Commence Plan-Making by 30 June 2026 and their Gateway 1 self-assessment by 31 October 2026. This will not apply to areas where there is an operative Spatial Development Strategy which provides the housing requirement for the relevant areas. 

If an existing system plan is withdrawn from examination prior to adoption, regulations will require local planning authorities to publish their Notice to Commence Plan-Making in the new system at the same time as the plan is withdrawn, and to publish their Gateway 1 self-assessment 4 months later.

Further details on the initial rollout of the new plan-making system will be set out on Create or Update a Local Plan.

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) will remain in force until planning authorities adopt a new style local plan or minerals and waste plan. The final adoption date for new SPDs will be 30 June 2026, to ensure any advanced emerging SPD can be adopted. 

These Regulations will also have the effect of abolishing the Duty to Co-operate for the existing plan-making system, by not saving this provision for plans progressing to examination in the existing system by 31 December 2026.”

Whilst in theory encouraging an earlier start to plan making sounds positive, in many areas these emerging plans could well get stalled by a combination of local government reorganisation and the incoming spatial development strategies.

The local government reorganisation map is still unclear, with authorities in two tier areas outside the devolution priority programme having now submitted their proposals by the 28 November 2025 deadline, apparently proposing more than 50 different potential configurations for ministers to consider (Exclusive: Over 50 LGR proposals sent to MHCLG – Local Government Chronicle, 3 December 2025). Elections for the new authorities are due in May 2027 ahead of going live in April 2028. How many current authorities will push through their plans to a conclusion ahead of, and in the face of, what lies ahead?

The map is also unclear as to what will be the new England-wide strategic tier. The government’s commitment was that the new spatial development strategies, with which in the future local plans should confirm, would be in place by 2029, but this looks increasingly unlikely. Yes it is all complex, but one wonders what role politics will increasingly play. Last week there was the unexpected announcement that Mayoral elections in four areas within the devolution priority programme, Greater Essex, Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, and Norfolk and Suffolk have been delayed from May 2026 to May 2028. There is apparently nothing to prevent the new strategic authorities, once created, from making progress with preparing SDSs ahead of their Mayors being elected but how does this work democratically?

Oh and in a couple of weeks we will see the new consultation draft NPPF, incorporating, we assume, more targeted sets of policies for plan making and for decision taking. And the latest set of housing delivery test outcomes. And throughout, p for politics…

Essay question for the festive period: Is our planning system in practice currently plan-led or application–led? And is this likely to change?

Lastly, thank you Paul Morrison for your work as chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate over the last three years. PINS is the main glue holding the current system together and its performance remains impressive. Congratulations to new interim chief executive Graham Stallwood. No pressure Graham!

Simon Ricketts, 6 December 2025

Personal views, et cetera

Sam Stafford and minister Matthew Pennycook MP at LPDF conference 27 November 2025

“Government to overhaul planning and licensing rules to make it quicker and easier for new cafes, bars and music venues to open in place of disused shops”

This was the government press release from Saturday (26 July).

“Government to overhaul planning and licensing rules to make it quicker and easier for new cafes, bars and music venues to open in place of disused shops.

New ‘hospitality zones’ will fast-track permissions for alfresco dining, pubs, bars and street parties.

Reforms will also protect long-standing venues from noise complaints by new developments.”

“The reforms will make it easier to convert disused shops into hospitality venues, and protect long-standing pubs, clubs, and music venues from noise complaints by new developments – ensuring the buzz of the high street can thrive without being silenced.

As part of this, the Government will introduce the ‘Agent of Change’ principle into national planning and licensing policy – meaning developers will be responsible for soundproofing their buildings if they choose to build near existing pubs, clubs or music venues.

New dedicated ‘hospitality zones’, will also be introduced where permissions for alfresco dining, street parties and extended opening hours will be fast-tracked – helping to bring vibrancy and footfall back to the high street.

The new National Licensing Policy Framework will streamline and standardise the process for securing planning permission and licences, removing the patchwork of local rules that currently delay or deter small businesses from opening. This means that entrepreneurs looking to turn empty shops into cafes, bars or music venues will face fewer forms, faster decisions, and lower costs.

This transformation is already underway through the High Street Rental Auction Scheme, which gives councils the power to auction off leases for commercial properties that have been vacant for over a year—bringing empty shops back into use and turning them into vibrant community hubs where people can enjoy a meal, drink, or night out.”

We wait to see what all this means in practice for our planning and licensing systems. The agent of change is after all already in the NPPF. Paragraph 200:

“Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.”

Perhaps there will be a super-charged National Development Management Policy version? Anecdotally, I am still being approached by music venues finding that permissions have been granted for adjoining development without adequate noise mitigation conditions having been applied (most recently a London borough being prepared to consent to judgment in just such a situation). And is the government right to be removing the Theatres Trust as a statutory consultee on relevant planning applications, which is an important check against these sorts of problems arising in relation to some types of venue at least?

For more see my 11 May 2024 blog post Grassroots Music Venues Report/Agent Of Change which in turn references earlier posts.

Now shush, I need to work.

Simon Ricketts, 28 July 2025

Personal views, et cetera

A PPG Change Could Easily Mop Up This Surface Water Flood Risk Sequential Test Mess

It’s finally raining properly this morning. What else could I write about…?

The government’s general advice is that planning permission shouldn’t be granted for development in flood risk areas without an assessment first being carried out as to whether the development could be accommodated in a lower risk area. Fair enough, but a change to the government’s planning practice guidance in 2022 for the first time expressly extended this advice to “areas at risk of surface water flooding“, rather than just areas at risk of flooding from rivers or the sea.

Paul Smith wrote a brilliant explainer on this issue from a developer’s perspective in his 4 April 2025 blog post How puddles could stop the government building the homes we need.

The December 2024 version of the NPPF didn’t resolve the problem but at least alleviated it with the emboldened passage:

“170. Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.”

“172. All plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development – taking into account all sources of flood risk and the current and future impacts of climate change – so as to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property. […]

“173. A sequential risk-based approach should also be taken to individual applications in areas known to be at risk now or in future from any form of flooding, by following the steps set out below.

174. Within this context the aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding. The strategic flood risk assessment will provide the basis for applying this test.

175. The sequential test should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future (having regard to potential changes in flood risk).”

The problem is that we are still currently left with the specific reference in the PPG to the need for a sequential test in relation to areas at risk of surface water flooding (the passage I have emboldened) (and Mead Realisations v Secretary of State (Court of Appeal, 30 January 2025) of course tells us that there is no “legal principle that prevents national policy in the NPPF being amended, or altered, by guidance in the PPG.”):

“What is the aim of the sequential approach?

The approach is designed to ensure that areas at little or no risk of flooding from any source are developed in preference to areas at higher risk. This means avoiding, so far as possible, development in current and future medium and high flood risk areas considering all sources of flooding including areas at risk of surface water flooding. Avoiding flood risk through the sequential test is the most effective way of addressing flood risk because it places the least reliance on measures like flood defences, flood warnings and property level resilience features. Even where a flood risk assessment shows the development can be made safe throughout its lifetime without increasing risk elsewhere, the sequential test still needs to be satisfied. Application of the sequential approach in the plan-making and decision-making process will help to ensure that development is steered to the lowest risk areas, where it is compatible with sustainable development objectives to do so, and developers do not waste resources promoting proposals which would fail to satisfy the test. Other forms of flooding need to be treated consistently with river and tidal flooding in mapping probability and assessing vulnerability, so that the sequential approach can be applied across all areas of flood risk.

Paragraph: 023 Reference ID: 7-023-20220825

Revision date: 25 08 2022”

The Government had indicated in its 12 December 2024 response to the revised NPPF consultation process that it would “shortly be updating planning practice guidance to clarify the definition of reasonably available sites that should be considered as part of the sequential test”. We still wait for that updated guidance and in particular to see if it will address this particular difficulty over surface water flood risk. Paul’s blog post explains well the nonsense of, and work and cost involved in, carrying out a sequential test looking for sites at lower risk of surface water flooding.

Pending any amended guidance, there have at least recently been some pragmatic appeal decisions by inspectors, most recently:

Ham Road, Faversham, Kent (27 June 2025) This is summarised by Zack Simons KC in his 4 July 2025 blog post Floods, puddles and “strong” refusals (which also references two other recent decisions: Yatton (albeit that this is subject to legal challenge) and HMP Garth and Wymott, Lancashire. The Faversham inspector was faced with an appeal where no sequential test had been carried out despite the site being at risk of both flooding from the sea and by way of surface water. “The proposal includes changing the land levels, including raising them in some areas, with the result that all areas of proposed built development would be some 300mm above the design flood level, ie would not be at risk of flooding. This could be secured by conditions(s).”  

“The extent of pluvial flooding risk is relatively limited. It is from ponding on the site in existing depressions and similar factors. The depth of the flooding would be relatively shallow. There is no risk related to interrupting an off-site surface water flow path, or effects on other off-site properties. It is a fairly typical existing situation on an agricultural field. As part of the design detail for the proposal at reserved matters stages, the precise land levels, drainage solutions, and landscaping would all need to be considered. Given the limited nature of the existing and future surface water flood risk, designing out the flood risk could be comfortably accommodated as part of this natural detailed design process.

Overall, therefore, there is no real world harm from either the failure to undertake a sequential test for tidal flooding or the failure to properly undertake a sequential approach. This is because it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that mitigation measures can make the proposed development safe for its lifetime from tidal flooding. There are also reasons other than flooding that result, although likely only in part, in the land levels changing mitigation measures. There would also be no real world surface water flood risk to the finished and occupied development proposal.”

Nor was the failure to carry out the sequential test a “strong reason for refusal” such as to disapply the tilted balance in favour of granting permission (which applied due to the local authority’s poor housing land supply position).

Appeal allowed.

Sherwood Cross, Feniton (11 July 2025). Here, the site is “conducive to overland water flow in high rainfall events”. Water attenuation is proposed to the north of the site to protect the development site but also to provide overall betterment, the details of the proposed attenuation scheme to be the subject of a Grampian condition.

“The Sequential Test undertaken by the Appellant has not considered potential housing sites in the wider local authority area, as identified by the Council. That is on the basis of the Appellant’s claimed position that the proposal would uniquely include flood alleviation measures that would significantly lessen the flood risk off- site within that part of Feniton to the south of the site along Colestocks Road and further to the south, and that there are no other sites that could provide such benefits to Feniton. However, whilst the flood mitigation measures are an element of the proposal, as previously referred to, the northern attenuation areas have a dual function including to protect the proposed development from any flood risk.

The proposal is therefore fundamentally a housing scheme with attenuation measures necessary, in the absence of any other proposed mitigation, to protect it from flood risk, which would also take the opportunity to provide betterment to off- site flood risk. There is no substantive evidence to indicate that the various other potential sites for housing put forward by the Council would be unsuitable or not have a lower risk of flooding. As such, I have no substantive basis to find that there are no reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding. The proposed development therefore fails the sequential test, in conflict with the Framework in this respect.”

However, the inspector goes on to conclude:

“I have also found that, in respect of flood risk, the proposal fails the sequential test and does not fully accord with policy EN22 of the Local Plan and F1 of the NP, having regard also to the absence of an agreed surface water outfall. However, I have also found that there would be likely betterment relating to off-site flood risk resulting from the proposals, in the context of the proposals making the development safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. That would be subject to compliance with a Grampian condition to secure acceptable surface waterdrainage, which I have found would be appropriate in the circumstances of this case. Those factors therefore lessen the weight afforded to the above failures relating to the sequential test and development plan policy.”

Appeal allowed.

This pragmatism is all well and good but to assume pragmatism on the part of all decision-makers in the planning system is a mug’s game. Which is why we just need some clear guidance: of course if there is no certainty that any unacceptable risks arising cannot robustly be mitigated, surface water flood risk can and should be the basis for refusal of a planning application, but the sequential test should only be required in the case of sites at risk from flooding from rivers or the sea.

Oh and it’s still raining. Good.

Simon Ricketts, 19 July 2025

Personal views, et cetera

Village Legal

What is a village? As a result of the government’s latest green belt planning practice guidance (see my 2 March 2025 blog post Colouring In The Grey Belt: The PPG) the answer to that question has practical policy consequences. When judging whether land is grey belt:

  • in assessing the extent to which the site strongly contributes to green belt purpose (a), to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, the guidance states categorically: “Villages should not be considered large built up areas”.
  • in assessing the extent to which the site strongly contributes to green belt purpose (b), to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, the guidance states categorically: “This purpose relates to the merging of towns, not villages.”

So if you have land on the edge of a village, the role that the land plays in separating that village from another village, or from a town, or in preventing the settlements from merging with one another, is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether it is grey belt. Of course any potential development would have to meet other criteria, such as whether the location is “in a location that is or can be made sustainable”, but the distinction between town and village is now profound, for the purposes of applying green belt policy, both at local plan making stage and in determining planning applications and appeals.

Guess what, there is no definition of “village” in the glossary to the NPPF or indeed in national planning practice guidance. The issue is not entirely new given that one of the exceptions to development in the green belt being inappropriate has for many years been “limited infilling in villages” (now NPPF paragraph 154 (e)) but that was a relatively narrow point.

Because I live an interesting life, I participated this week in some lively WhatsApp debate on the issue (yes I’m looking at you, you and you others at this point). Someone pointed to the House of Commons Library’s research briefing City & Town Classification of Constituencies & Local Authorities (21 June 2018). Whilst interesting, this just deepened the mystery. It explains that according to an adjusted version of a taxonomy developed by the Centre for Towns, its classification (which is for wider public policy statistical purposes) was as follows:

12 Core Cities: twelve major population and economic centres (e.g. London, Glasgow, Sheffield)

24 Other Cities: other settlements with a population of more than 175,000 (e.g. Leicester, Portsmouth, Aberdeen)

119 Large Towns: settlements with a population between 60,000 and 174,999 (e.g. Warrington, Hemel Hempstead, Farnborough)

270 Medium Towns: settlements with a population between 25,000 and 59,999 (e.g. Gravesend, Jarrow, Exmouth)

674 Small Towns: settlements with a population between 7,500 and 24,999 (e.g. Falmouth, New Romney, Holbeach)

6,116 Villages and small communities: settlements with a population of less than 7,500 (e.g. Chapel-en-le-Frith, Cottenham, Menai Bridge)

But then the paper goes on to explain:

“This classification isn’t intended to resolve long-standing disputes about which settlements deserve to be called ‘cities’, ‘towns’, or ‘villages’. In fact, it takes no account of the ceremonial definition of ‘city’, using the term only as a way to identify larger settlements. For instance, St Albans is identified as a ‘large town’ here because its population is 86,000 – even though it has city status. Luton, on the other hand, doesn’t have city status, but is classified here as an ‘Other City’ because its population is 225,000.

The precise division between ‘large’, ‘medium’ and ‘small’ towns is, to a large extent, subjective.”

Hmm. So that doesn’t help. By coincidence I then saw a blog post on Bluesky posted by the Urban History Group, What is a town? It starts: “What exactly is a town? The answer to this question has been debated for many decades by medieval historians.” Oh no, many decades is no good. The short piece refers to the definitional uncertainty as between small towns and large villages – resonating with the equivalent uncertainty that there is in our modern planning world. Most local plans will have a table settling out the area’s settlement hierarchy, eg

Tier 1 – city/large town

Tier 2 – town

Tier 3 – small town

Tier 4 – large village

Tier 5 – medium sized village

Tier 6 – green belt village

Tier 7 – green belt hamlet

The distinction between ”small town” and “large village” is going to come under additional scrutiny, but without any government guidance, that I am aware of, as to the criteria to be applied in drawing that distinction.

I did have a brief, far from comprehensive, look at planning appeal decisions. There was one dating from 2019 for instance (APP/B3438/W/18/3211000) which revolved around whether the proposal was “limited infilling in a village” or in fact just a hamlet. The inspector resorted to a dictionary:

“The main parties dispute whether Ridgeway is a village or a hamlet.  This has consequences in terms of whether the scheme accords with Framework paragraph 145 e).  The Oxford Dictionary defines a village as a group of houses and associated buildings, larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town, situated in a rural area.  It defines a hamlet as a small settlement, generally one smaller than a village, and strictly (in Britain) one without a Church.  While a church may have once existed in Ridgeway, there is no church there now as it has been replaced by a dwelling known as Chapel House.  There are also no other associated buildings in Ridgeway that would, in my judgement, mean that Ridgeway is anything more than a hamlet.  The proposal does not accord with the exception in Framework paragraph [(now) paragraph 154(e)].

I think we are going to need some more specific guidance than dictionaries can provide. One WhatsApp response proposes an “if it has a Greggs it isn’t a village” test. I suppose that is a start but I am sure you can do better?

Whilst I’m being an annoying pedant, I would also like separately to draw attention to an inaccuracy in the NPPF glossary’s definition of “major development”:

The definition of “major development” in Article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 is as follows:

“major development” means development which involves one or more of the following—

(a) the winning and working of minerals or the use of land for mineral-working deposits;

(b) waste development;

(c) the provision of dwellinghouses where—

(i) the number of dwellinghouses to be provided is 10 or more; or

(ii) the development is to be carried out on a site having an area of 0.5 hectares or more and it is not known whether the development falls within sub-paragraph (c)(i);

(d) the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is 1,000 square metres or more; or

(e) development carried out on a site having an area of 1 hectare or more;

The definition of “major development” in the NPPF glossary is:

“For housing, development where 10 or more homes will be provided, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares or more. For non-residential development it means additional floorspace of 1,000m2 or more, or a site of 1 hectare or more, or as otherwise provided in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.”

The green belt “golden rules” only apply to “major development”. What if you have a scheme of say nine units on a site of between 0.5 and 1 hectares? Under the Development Management Procedure Order that is not major development. But under the glossary, because it has imprecisely summarised the definition in the Order, it would seem to be. Error?

What a time to be a planning lawyer.

NB Back on the main theme of this blog post: shortly after we announced we were setting up our new law firm eight or so years ago, Peter Village KC called me to say that Village Legal would have been such a better name. Maybe so.

Simon Ricketts, 23 March 2025

Personal views, et cetera

Colouring In The Grey Belt: The PPG

Now that the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal as having the same policy making status as the National Planning Policy Framework (see Mead Realisations Limited v Secretary of State (Court of Appeal, 30 January 2025), changes to the PPG might be seen as the MHCLG policy making equivalent of US Presidential executive orders in terms of immediacy. Last week’s PPG advice on grey belt might not have renamed the Gulf of Mexico but it does set some new firm boundary lines, effective from 27 February 2025.

In my 8 February 2025 blog post It Was The “Rushed And Incoherent” Jibe That Got Me I referred to the impact which the December 2024 NPPF has made by way of the introduction of the “grey belt” test, particularly in relation to decision making on planning applications and appeals. The flow of appeal decisions has continued and I refer to a couple of them later in this post, but since all of this (and indeed those decisions) we now have the government’s promised amendments to the PPG advice on the role of green belt in the planning system (27 February 2025) which will in my view serve to increase the number of proposals coming forward (given that its overall effect is to set the definitional boundary lines more clearly, largely to the benefit of promoters) whilst (to the extent that the advice is now more specific as to the way in which the grey belt tests should be applied) hopefully reducing the number of proposals that do actually have to go to appeal.

You will already have read Zack Simons’ 27 February 2025 blog post The “Grey Belt” has arrived but here is my brief take on some of the main points to note from the new guidance:

  • The Government expects all local planning authorities reviewing green belt boundaries to identify where land is grey belt, dividing their green belt into separate assessment areas for the purpose of identifying grey belt. The same will apply in due course for strategic authorities carrying out spatial development strategies. To state the obvious, these assessments are going to be hugely important to landowners.
  • Given that the core principle in relation to identifying green belt land as grey belt is an assessment as to the extent to which the land strongly contributes to green belt purposes (a), (b) and (d), there is helpful guidance as to the considerations to be applied in considering each of those judgements, setting out illustrative features in each case which might point to the contribution being strong, moderate or weak.“
  • In relation to Purpose A – to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas – ignore villages, which are not to be considered to be “large built up areas”. An example of a strong contribution would be where, if developed, it would “result in an incongruous pattern of development (such as an extended “finger” of development into the Green Belt)”.
  • In relation to Purpose B – to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another – a moderate (not strong) contribution would be “being able to be developed without the loss of visual separation between towns. This could be (but is not limited to) due to the presence or the close proximity of structures, natural landscape elements or topography that preserve visual separation”. A weak contribution: areas that “form part of a gap between towns, but only a very small part of this gap, without making a contribution to visual separation.”
  • In relation to Purpose D – to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns – this relates to historic towns, not historic villages. Only moderate contribution if the areas “form part of the setting and/or contribute to the special character of a historic town but include one or more features that weaken their contribution to this purpose, such as (but not limited to):
    • being separated to some extent from historic aspects of the town by existing development or topography
    • containing existing development
    • not having an important visual, physical, or experiential relationship to historic aspects of the town”
  • Even if the area makes no strong contribution to purposes (a), (b) and (d), it needs to be shown that the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 to the NPPF (other than green belt) would not provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. The PPG makes it clear that it may still be possible for authorities to provisionally identify land as grey belt in advance of more detailed specific proposals.
  • Even if the area makes no strong contribution to purposes (a), (b) and (d) and even if footnote 7 is not a bar, its release or development must not “fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area as whole.” This apparently means that “authorities should consider whether, or the extent to which, the release or development of Green Belt Land would affect the ability of all the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan from serving all five of the Green Belt purposes in a meaningful way.”
  • The final steps of determining whether the development would not be inappropriate development, even if it meets the above criteria, are considering:
    • whether a development is sustainably located
    • whether it would meet the ‘Golden Rules’ contributions (where applicable), and
    • whether there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed

For the purposes of the inter-relationship between the affordable housing provision “golden rule” and the application of viability testing, we of course still await the updated viability PPG.

I’m running out of time this morning, but briefly now to turn to the decision letters I mentioned.

First of all, the Carrington decision letter dated 17 February 2025 . This followed a written representations appeal against Trafford Council’s refusal of planning permission for a 35MW battery storage facility at Wild Fowl Farm, Carrington. The inspector works through the grey belt tests methodically and concisely and finds that they are all passed.

Secondly, the Beaconsfield decision letter dated 24 February 2025 mentioned in Zack’s blog post. This followed an inquiry in relation to Buckinghamshire Council’s refusal of planning permission for up to 120 dwellings at Broad Lane, Holtspur, Beaconsfield. Again, the inspector works through the various tests, but here finds in his planning judgment that the appeal site strongly contributes to purposes (a) and (b). Accordingly this was inappropriate development so the “very special circumstances test” was to be applied and despite a housing land supply position that was agreed to be “dismal”, the appeal was dismissed (the grounds including findings as to substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area as well as substantial harm to biodiversity).

I agree with Zack that the inspector’s conclusions in relation to purposes (a) and (b) in the Beaconsfield appeal decision are potentially inconsistent with the new advice in the PPG. The PPG is definitely going to move the dial further in favour of release of sites and approval of development proposals.

Let’s take a step back. None of this is theoretical. The whole point of this “grey belt” branding is to secure more development in the green belt, sooner rather than later, on those sites which are least sensitive from the perspective of the traditional purposes for designation of green belt in the first place. I don’t find the tests, particularly in the light of the PPG, particularly challenging to navigate (although, as with so much in relation to planning, ultimately decisions will depend upon the application of human judgement, albeit within the tramlines of the policy guidelines). That is not to say that I don’t have any sympathy for opposite views: for instance this cri de coeur from my Strategic Planning Group compatriot (NB report from our group anticipated this Spring, watch this space) Andrew Wood in his 27 February 2025 blog post Grey Belt: Anti-strategic and wildly over-complicated. But, mindful of that need for development on appropriate sites, sooner rather than later, I don’t agree, and in my experience decision-making in relation to release and development of green belt sites was more of a “black box” process before the introduction of the grey belt.

Simon Ricketts, 2 March 2025

Personal views, et cetera

Some Blue Sky Thinking On Brown Field

MHCLG is seeking responses by 28 February 2025 to its planning reform working paper, Brownfield Passport: Making the Most of Urban Land (22 September 2024). I summarised the paper and set out some of the challenges in my 28 September 2024 blog post Brownfield Passports…To What? When? How?).

It is very difficult to think of a “one size fits all” policy intervention that would achieve what the government is looking for, namely “further action that we could take through the planning system to support the development of brownfield land in urban areas.”  The paper “proposes options for a form of ‘brownfield passport’, which would be more specific about the development that should be regarded as acceptable, with the default answer to suitable proposals being a straightforward “yes”. It seeks views in particular on the following questions:

  • “Could national policy be clearer if it were explicit that development on brownfield land within urban settlements is acceptable unless certain exclusions apply?
  • What caveats should accompany any general expectation that development on brownfield land within urban settlements is acceptable?
  • How best can urban areas be identified and defined if this approach is pursued?
  • Could national policy play a role in setting expectations about the minimum scale of development which should be regarded as acceptable in accessible urban locations?
  • What parameters could be set for both the scale of development and accessibility?
  • Could more use be made of design guidance and codes to identify specific forms of development that are acceptable in particular types of urban area?
  • What sort of areas would be most suited to this approach, and at what geographic scale could such guidance and codes be used?
  • How could Local Development Orders be best used with these proposals?
  • Are there any other issues that we should consider if any of these approaches were to be taken forward, in particular to ensure they provide benefits as early as possible?
  • In addition to streamlining permissions on urban brownfield sites, where else do you consider this type of policy could be explored to support economic growth?”

“Passport” is undoubtedly over-optimistic branding, but I suppose even one of those Easyjet speedy boarding passes would be helpful.

Published after the paper, on 12 December 2024, the final revised version of the NPPF does of course contain a strengthened presumption in favour of brownfield development in paragraph 125 (c):

“Planning policies and decisions should:

(c) give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land”


“Substantial weight”;  approval “unless substantial harm would be caused”: a strong signal one might think. However, it is interesting to see how the policy has been taken into account by appeal inspectors. Perhaps to state the obvious, it is not a “get out of jail free” card and in any event you do need to make sure you fit within the definition. We have found four examples but you may be aware of others:

  • Appeal reference APP/L1765/W/24/3344776 – decision letter dated 31 December 2024 dismissing an appeal for the demolition of existing office and ancillary buildings on site, conversion of an existing industrial warehouse and the construction of 9 residential properties in Denmead, Winchester. “…whilst the site comprises previously developed land, I do not find conflict with the substantial weight given within the Framework to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs (Paragraph 125 c)) given the countryside location of the site and the market housing nature of the residential development proposed.”
  • Appeal reference APP/N5090/W/24/3345445 – decision letter dated 15 January 2025 dismissing an appeal for a proposed care home in Barnet. “In addition to outlining the […] benefits of the proposed development, the appellant has drawn my attention to NPPF paragraph 125 c) which states that planning decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land. Furthermore, the appellant has highlighted the removal from the NPPF of what was paragraph 130 in the 2023 NPPF, which made reference to the possibility that significant uplifts in the average density of residential development may be inappropriate if the resulting built form would be wholly out of character with the existing area.” However, the inspector “found that there would be harm to the character and appearance of the area resulting from the proposed development. That harm stems from both the bulk and massing of the proposed development in a sensitive context, but also in relation to the retention of trees along the site’s frontage.”
  • Appeal reference APP/F2605/W/24/3344783 – decision letter dated 30 January 2025 dismissing an appeal for a single detached dwelling in Breckland. “The appellant has identified that the site, as part of the garden of 1 Sandfield Lane, constitutes brownfield land. The Framework, at paragraph 125 c) states that planning decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved. The site, as identified above, lies outside of any defined development boundary. It does, however, lie within a grouping of buildings focussed around the pedestrian level crossing. However, I have identified that the proposal would rely almost totally on the private car for transport. Thus, the site is not suitable, as it would, through the generation of greenhouse gasses, have an adverse effect on the natural environment.”
  • Appeal reference APP/W3520/W/24/3352607 – decision letter dated 4 February 2025 dismissing an appeal for 11 dwellings and a commercial unit in Mid Suffolk. “In line with paragraph 125c of the Framework I give the housing, in this context, substantial weight. Although not in a settlement, it is in an accessible location.” However, the “proposal would be contrary to the Council’s spatial strategy with houses of an unacceptable mix, would fail to secure 10% BNG together with appropriate affordable housing, infrastructure requirements, habitat mitigation and has not demonstrated that it would not increase or cause flooding elsewhere. Consequently, it conflicts with the development plan as a whole.”

Given the range of questions raised by MHCLG, what might be additional appropriate interventions look like? Because I’m sure there will need to be various interventions. This is the part where I can plug last week’s Homes for Britain publication, Brownfield Planning Passports: The Fast Track To Growth, sponsored by Berkeley Group, which contains 14 essays with practical ideas from a wide range of public and private sector people (including me, returning to some of the themes of my 5 January 2025 blog post,  How About A Five Yearly Review Of The Use Classes Order & GPDO, Starting This Year?). As you prepare your responses by 28 February, do have a read and it may spark some additional, or perhaps better, ideas.

PS I couldn’t mention blue sky without mentioning Blue Sky again. If you’re still looking for a replacement for whatever the present unpleasant tense of Twitter may be, come join. Link here.

Simon Ricketts, 17 February 2025

Personal views, et cetera

It Was The “Rushed And Incoherent” Jibe That Got Me

The House of Lords Built Environment Committee published its conclusions from its inquiry on grey belt on 5 February 2025, by way of a letter from Lord Moylan (its chair until 30 January 2025 since when he has been succeeded by Lord Gascoigne).

The stated purpose of the inquiry, which was commenced in September 2024, was to “to gain a better understanding of what Grey Belt land is, how it can contribute to housing targets and what sustainable Grey Belt development looks like.”

Obviously, this was in the context of the 30 July 2024 draft revised NPPF which introduced the “grey belt” concept, the idea having been specifically part of the Labour Party’s June 2024 manifesto:

“Labour is committed to preserving the green belt which has served England’s towns and cities well over many decades. Under the Conservatives, greenbelt land is regularly released for development but haphazardly and often for speculative housebuilding. Without changing its purpose or general extent, Labour will take a more strategic approach to greenbelt land designation and release to build more homes in the right places. The release of lower quality ‘grey belt’ land will be prioritised and we will introduce ‘golden rules’ to ensure development benefits communities and nature.”

The party had of course been floating the proposal well before that (eg my 20 April 2024 blog post Labour’s Green Belt Grey Areas/Sadiq Khan’s London Manifesto).

The proposals in the draft July NPPF have since been refined but I had summarised them in my 2 August 2024 blog post 50 Shades of Grey Belt. The final version of the NPPF was of course published on 12 December 2024.  Links to the various relevant documents are set out in my 14 December 2024 blog post I Love It When A National Planning Policy Framework Comes Together and Zack Simons posted a brilliantly readable blog post if you don’t simply want to read section 13 of the NPPF and the definition of “grey belt” contained in its glossary.

We still await updated planning practice guidance green belt and on the identification of grey belt (expected this month) and on viability assessment (relevant to the application of the so-called green belt golden rules).

The Built Environment Committee inquiry was an important opportunity to review the “grey belt” refinement to existing green belt policy, in the context of government’s objective: (quoting from that manifesto) to “get Britain building again, creating jobs across England, with 1.5 million new homes over the … parliament” whilst not changing the “purpose or general extent” of green belt. This was a chance to recommend some improvements to its formulation and operation.

In my view that opportunity was missed, in favour of some political point scoring (Labour peers being in a minority on the Committee). Here are the Committee’s main conclusions:

“The fact that the NPPF has been finalised at the same time as so many other complementary and interconnected policies are being developed raises significant concerns about the extent to which we can be confident that any of the individual policies contained within the NPPF will be successful. This is particularly the case for grey belt land, the benefits of which we now believe will be marginal, at best. Moreover, in the absence of any clear understanding of how the success of the policy will be measured or monitored, we cannot see how the policy can be implemented or developed in a robust and coherent way.

Ultimately, our assessment is that the grey belt policy has been implemented in a somewhat rushed and incoherent manner, and we do not believe that it is likely to have any significant or lasting impact on planning decision-making or on achieving your target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament.”

Surely any proper examination of the issues should have started with a reflection on the operation of green belt policy itself prior to the introduction of the grey belt concept; its ad hoc, unplanned, growth both in extent and purposes and its incoherence in terms of the public’s conception of it as serving more than as a means of containing urban growth but as an indicator of environmental or landscape quality. That examination could have considered the subjective and politised nature of the existing tests in policy – the requirement for “exceptional circumstances” to justify release by way of local plans and “very special circumstances” to justify planning permission for so called inappropriate development.

Against that background and the Government’s various commitments flowing from that manifesto (including the reintroduction of strategic planning) it is a bit rich for the Committee to be complaining at the pace and extent of policy change! Whether you support individual policies or not, many will regard the business-like and speedy delivery by MHCLG, largely without surprises or u-turns, of what was promised as a breath of fresh air after previous regimes (remembering the instant dismantling by Eric Pickles in 2010 of regional planning with nothing in its place) or the constant yo-yoing of recent years: The 2020 Planning White Paper left to wither on the vine, followed by the Gove-led, changed priorities, December 2022 draft NPPF, only finalised a full twelve months later (despite Spring 2023 having been the promised publication date). And were any of the policy changes “robust and coherent”? Hmm.

Yes we still do not have a fully coherent system for determining what land should be released from the green belt, but I would argue that we now have more coherence than simply relying on those “exceptional circumstances” and “very special circumstances” tests. We’re also dealing with revisions to a policy which itself is incoherent, within a planning system which is incoherent. Against a pressing national need for homes and economic development, I suppose the choice is between “rushed and incoherent” or “delayed and incoherent”; you takes your choice.

It seems that part of the Committee’s thinking as to why the concept of “grey belt” is “largely redundant” (to use its own words) is that “more significant changes to other aspects of the NPPF…will be likely to result in Green Belt land being released through existing channels instead”, by way of green belt reviews via local plans and in due course spatial development strategies. If that turns out to be the case in the longer term, that is surely a good outcome. But the harder edged function of the concept in the meantime is to enable a consenting outlet that is not dependent on the much more uncertain “very special circumstances” test, where there is need that is not being accommodated in accordance with up to date plans and where delivery is falling short.

One only has to see (James Maurici KC’s LinkedIn posts are my usual source but you will no doubt have your own) the stream of appeal decision letters emanating from the Planning Inspectorate to have a sense of how often schemes are being promoted at present on the basis that they fall within the definition of “grey belt”, with “very special circumstances” as the fall-back, with many of those appeals being allowed. Surely, this has been exactly the sort of policy intervention that has been needed, albeit of course no overall panacea.

I have one final point to make in what has turned out to be a mini-rant, for which apologies (and of course I look forward to the happy sound of my phone buzzing as your rebuttal comments come in). I corrected Lord Moylan when I gave evidence to the Committee on 29 October 2024 and to my surprise at the time he appeared to be under the assumption that grey belt policy is only relevant to residential development. This was the exchange:

“The Chair:  Take an old abandoned industrial site inside the green belt. There could be strong arguments that a proper and effective use would be as a new industrial site. This policy is focused entirely on housing. Are you saying that you could still apply for that to be a new industrial site, but you would have to use the very special circumstances route to do so; grey belt simply would not apply to that?

Simon Ricketts: No. In fact, grey belt applies to commercial development as well as to residential development. It is a great problem with discussion about the planning system at the moment that everything is about housing. Allowing for logistics, industrial, life sciences and other development is just as important. The draft policy says that “housing, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where … “, and then sets out the criteria for grey belt that I have previously indicated.

There is a problem in that, if you are bringing forward housing development, it is easy to see whether there is an unmet housing need, because you apply the methodology that is in the public domain. However, in relation to commercial development, you have to show that “there is a demonstrable need for land to be released for development of local, regional or national importance”. There is no real guidance as to what the methodology would be for demonstrating that.

The Chair: That is under the very special circumstances test, or under the grey-belt test.

Simon Ricketts: Under the grey-belt test, if you consider that there is an unmet need for logistics development in your area and there is a piece of green belt that you consider to be grey belt because it makes a limited contribution to the purposes of the green belt, you can apply for planning permission if you can show that there is a demonstrable need for that land to be released for that form of development. That is inevitably more complicated than when you are dealing with housing development, because you will need to arrive at the right methodology.

The Chair: But it would be doable.

Simon Ricketts: Yes, absolutely.

The Chair: So it is perfectly possible that the grey-belt route could be used for non-housing development.

Simon Ricketts: Yes.”

Notwithstanding this exchange, is there anything in his letter to the Secretary of State which makes any reference whatsoever about anything other than housing? Nope.

 Simon Ricketts, 8 February 2025

Personal views, et cetera

I realised I’m currently wearing just the right t-shirt this morning.

I Love It When A National Planning Policy Framework Comes Together

As John “Hannibal” Smith never quite said on The A-Team.

You’ve read the various summaries of the 12 December 2024 NPPF and accompanying announcements.

This is just a set of links to the various documents and a summary of what they tell us as to what is to come.

I give you:

  • The following revised elements of the government’s planning practice guidance:

“Local plan intervention

The Secretary of State has wide-ranging plan-making intervention powers under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. What are the policy criteria that apply to certain intervention decisions?

Decisions on intervention will be taken in line with relevant legal tests and should have regard to plan progress and local development needs. The Secretary of State may also consider other matters that they deem relevant to the case, including sub regional or regional or national development needs. 

These criteria will be used by the Secretary of State to inform decisions on exercising local plan intervention powers set out in sections 27 and 27A of the 2004 Act. They will also be used to inform decisions on local plan and minerals and waste plan intervention taken under sections 15HA and 15HD of the 2004 Act (when amended by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023). They replace the previous criteria in the 2017 Housing White Paper.

Planning authorities will be invited to put forward any exceptional circumstances that they think that the Secretary of State should consider in relation to any plan-making intervention action”

  • Viability – the only revision being to include this new passage:

“Golden Rules for Green Belt development 

Where development takes place on land situated in, or released from, the Green Belt and is subject to the ‘Golden Rules’ set out in paragraph 156 of the National Planning Policy Framework, site specific viability assessment should not be undertaken or taken into account for the purpose of reducing developer contributions, including affordable housing. The government intends to review this Viability Guidance and will be considering whether there are circumstances in which site-specific viability assessment may be taken into account, for example, on large sites and Previously Developed Land.

Prior to development plan policies for affordable housing being updated in accordance with paragraph 67 in the National Planning Policy Framework, the amount of affordable housing contributions required are subject to an overall cap of 50% (see paragraph 157 of the NPPF). This 50% cap does not prevent a developer from agreeing to provide affordable housing contributions which exceed the 50% cap, in any particular case.

In paragraph 157, the highest existing affordable housing requirement that would otherwise apply means the highest requirement that the local planning authority could seek in line with its existing policy. For example, (a) if a policy is framed as “up to 30%” then the uplift is applied to 30%; and (b) if a policy is framed as “30% subject to viability” then the uplift should be applied to 30% regardless of viability. The percentage uplift should be applied to the proportion of affordable housing that would otherwise be delivered on site.”

What is still to come? Well, we can glean at least the following from the above:

From the Government’s response document:

  • Whilst of course we are expecting a paper on strategic planning before Christmas, ahead of a Devolution Bill, the response document says this: “Given that government has committed to introduce a universal system of strategic planning, specific wording to address how strategic plans are tested will be considered in a future revision to the National Planning Policy Framework. No changes to the National Planning Policy Framework will be made at this point.”
  • Possible further measures in relation to brownfield development: “Following the launch of the consultation, the government published a paper on ‘Brownfield Passports – Making the Most of Urban Land’. The purpose of the paper is to consider whether there are opportunities to go further in terms of providing faster and more certain routes to permission for urban brownfield land. Although not a formal consultation, the paper is intended to inform further discussions on this issue. The government will take into account the views received in deciding what further action could be taken, with the intention that any changes to policy would be incorporated as part of future planning changes to deliver a set of national policies for decision making.”
  • “We will also be publishing further guidance on Green Belt reviews in January 2025, to ensure a more consistent approach to the identification of grey belt land. This will assist in ensuring inappropriate or high performing land is not identified for release or development and will set out how the performance of Green Belt should be assessed. This guidance will also provide guidance on how to ensure that parcels of land identified for development do not fundamentally undermine the purpose of the wider Green Belt.” This will also include further guidance on the identification of grey belt.
  • “…we intend to publish planning practice guidance on Local Nature Recovery Strategies as soon as possible in January 2025. This will further clarify the role of Local Nature Recovery Strategies when it comes to enhancing the Green Belt and provide greater certainty for stakeholders when it comes to the role of Local Nature Recovery Strategies in the planning decision making process and the plan-making system.”
  • “In the context of our wider reforms to planning policy, we will review the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites next year.”
  • As regards viability assessment in relation to green belt sites: “To make sure that the viability system works to optimise developer contributions, allowing negotiations only where genuinely necessary, the government intends to update viability planning practice guidance. Prior to new viability guidance being published, site specific viability assessment should not be used. As part of the review, government will consider the circumstances in which site specific viability assessment is allowed, with specific reference to large sites and Previously Developed Land.” “Overall, the government still believes there is merit in providing more guidance on benchmark land values. However more work is required to review and then implement the approach. The government is therefore considering the treatment of benchmark land values as part of a review into the viability planning practice guidance in 2025.”
  • “The government is considering making reforms to the compulsory purchase process and compensation rules to improve land assembly, speed-up site delivery and lower costs of development delivered through compulsory purchase powers to ensure benefits are delivered for communities. Any government reforms to the compulsory purchase process and compensation rules will be considered as part of the changes to be made in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and will be subject to the consultation process for that Bill.”
  • The government will consider further the approach to exception sites and will also take further steps to encourage the delivery of mixed tenure developments “including setting a site size threshold above which sites must deliver a mix of tenures”. It will consider what further steps it can take to support social and affordable housing as part of its national development management policies promised for next year.
  • In relation to measures to encourage build out of permitted schemes:

“To bring greater transparency and accountability we will go further, and take the steps necessary to implement build out reporting. We will implement the following provisions in the Levelling–up and Regeneration Act 2023, following technical consultation:

Housing developers will be required to formally notify  local planning authorities before they commence development (via development commencement notices) and then report annually to them on their actual housing delivery (via development progress reports). This will ensure that local planning authorities can clearly identify where delays occur, enabling them to work more effectively with developers to tackle the issue.

We will also be bringing forward a measure to provide local planning authorities with the power to decline future planning applications made by developers who fail to build out earlier planning permissions granted on land in the authority’s area at a reasonable rate.”

  • Updated policy guidance will be published on how the ‘vision-led’ approach to transport planning should apply in practice.
  • “After considering the comments received requesting further clarity on terminology and the application of policy for renewable and low carbon energy development, we will shortly be updating planning practice guidance to support these changes in practice.”
  • “The government plans to publish a 12-week consultation on land use early in the New Year. The consultation will inform the development of a Land Use Framework for England, to be published in 2025. This will set out the government’s vision for long-term land use change and focus on the principles for land use decision making and priority areas for policy change.”
  • On energy standards for developments:

“The government will bring forward future standards next year which will set our new homes and buildings on a path that moves away from relying on volatile fossil fuels and ensures they are fit for a net zero future. We will also keep building regulations under review to ensure that new buildings are built to mitigate the risk of climate change, including through a potential review of Part O, which seeks to mitigate the risk of overheating, and water efficiency options.” “…we intend to update planning practice guidance to assist local authorities in considering carbon emissions within the plan-making process, and to support developers in using carbon accounting to reduce carbon emissions as part of their development proposals.”

  • “We will consider whether further changes are required to manage flood risk, coastal change and sustainable drainage systems provision through the planning system when we consult on further planning reform, including a set of national policies related to decision making.”
  • On planning application fees:

“The government intend to bring forward regulations to implement the increase of householder application fees at the earliest opportunity, subject to Parliamentary procedures. The charge for prior approvals notifications will also be increased at a similar rate to the increase for householder application fees. Through these regulations the government also intend to increase fees for applications to discharge conditions and to introduce a new banded fee structure for S73 applications to reflect different development types. The previous government consulted on this proposal in the consultation ‘An Accelerated Planning System’ in March 2024.

The government have announced their intention to take forward measures in the proposed Planning and Infrastructure Bill to introduce a power for local planning authorities to be able to set their own fees. As part of these proposals, we will conduct a comprehensive review of all national fees in order to establish a robust baseline for full cost recovery of fees and to inform a national default fee.”

“The government intends to take forward measures in the proposed Planning and Infrastructure Bill to introduce a power for local planning authorities to be able to vary or set their own fees. The government intends to pursue a model that would enable local variation from a national default fee. In varying or setting their own fees, local authorities will not be able to be set fees above costs. The government will provide guidance on fee setting, including what costs can be recovered. Where local planning authorities set their own fees, or vary from a national fee, they will have to consult and publish their schedule of fees. The Secretary of State will have the power to intervene where it is considered fees are excessive or unjustified. The government will continue to monitor the performance of local planning authorities. These measures are all subject to Parliamentary procedures.

The detail of fee localisation will be set out in affirmative regulations and supported by guidance. We will also undertake a benchmarking exercise to establish a robust baseline for full cost recovery of fees and to inform a national default fee. We will consult further on the details of local fee setting model and the benchmarking of costs in due course.”

From the minister’s statement to the House of Commons:

  • “As part of the Government’s plans to deliver much needed affordable homes, Homes England is today launching a new clearing service to help unblock the delivery of section 106 affordable housing. This follows reports in recent months of developers experiencing greater difficulty in selling section 106 affordable homes for which they have planning permission. This new service will help improve the functioning of the market for affordable housing, by supporting buyers and sellers to find each other more effectively – with developers able to share details of unsold section 106 affordable homes for registered providers and local authorities to search. The service aims to facilitate dialogue and partnerships that allow homes to be delivered in line with the originally agreed tenure mix set out in section 106 agreements. It will also provide new data and insight into the section 106 market. The Government is calling on all developers with uncontracted section 106 affordable homes, including small and medium builders, to proactively and pragmatically engage with the new clearing service, and on registered providers and local planning authorities to engage positively as providers and enablers of affordable housing. This is an important step in unlocking these homes and driving delivery.”

(Details of Homes England’s new Section 106 Affordable Housing Clearing Service are on its website). 

  • “As proposed in the summer, we will bring onshore wind back into the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects consenting regime, and raise the threshold of projects for both onshore wind and solar to 100MW. We will follow through with prescribing data centres, gigafactories and laboratories as types of business or commercial development capable of being directed into the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects consenting regime, depending on the scale of the project.”

That’s all for now, until the next door on MHCLG’s advent calendar opens.

Simon Ricketts, 14 December 2024

Personal views, et cetera

Brownfield Passports…To What? When? How?

At 9.30 am last Sunday out popped an MHCLG policy paper Brownfield Passport: Making the Most of Urban Land  and an accompanying press statement New ‘brownfield passports’ to seize the growth opportunities of urban areas (22 September 2024).

The timing was interesting:

  • Obviously, synchronised with the Labour party conference in Liverpool last weekend – Sir Keir Starmer’s speech there promised: “‘we are introducing new planning passports that will turbo-charge housebuilding in our inner cities.” In more general terms Rachel Reeves there: “What you will see in your town, your city, is a sight that we have not seen often enough in our country – shovels in the ground, cranes in the sky, the sounds and the sights of the future arriving. We will make that a reality.”
  • Coincidentally, synchronised with a presentation starting, also starting at 9.30 am last Sunday, by the first of that day’s Oxford Joint Planning Law Conference speakers, Ant Breach of Centre for Cities: “BOLDER: A Zoning System for England”. In some ways, the idea of passporting particular types of development is nothing if not zoning.

“We have been clear that development must look to brownfield first, prioritising the development of previously used land wherever possible. To support this, we will make the targeted changes set out below, including making clear that the default answer to brownfield development should be “yes”, as the first step on the way to delivering brownfield passports.”

If the work had been done in time, it would obviously have made more sense for the proposals in the latest working paper to have been part of the July 2024 consultation, both so that those responding had a better understanding of the intended policy end-point and so that the changes could be introduced at the same time that the revised NPPF itself is published (still, we hope, before the end of this year – maybe keep 20 or 23 December free of meetings folks…).

We are where we are. What do we learn from this latest policy paper? I hesitate to be hyper-critical as we all know that a new government is moving at pace, that these issues are difficult and that the objective is to be applauded (in my view at least) but…

It is a bit of a “throw ideas at the wall and see what sticks” piece of work isn’t it? “Brownfield passport” is nice branding, up there with “grey belt”, but what rights would this “passport” actually bring?

Its purpose is to be “more specific about the development that should be regarded as acceptable, with the default answer to suitable proposals being a straightforward “yes”.”

This needs to be viewed against the changes to the NPPF that are already proposed that would reinforce the presumption in favour of granting planning permission for development proposals on brownfield land. Paragraph 122 of the draft revised NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should, amongst other things: “give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be regarded as acceptable in principle, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land” (the underlined text is what is proposed to be inserted into what is already within the current NPPF at paragraph 123 (c)).

So how is the “brownfield passport” concept intended to move the dial still further in favour of brownfield development?

Well first of all, it’s not the equivalent of planning permission: “while we are not considering the granting of automatic planning permission on suitable brownfield sites or removing appropriate local oversight of the development control process, we do want to explore ways in which providing more explicit expectations for development could lower the risk, cost, and uncertainty associated with securing planning permissions on brownfield land.”

Instead:

“In order to maximise clarity and certainty about the opportunities to make best use of urban land, we think there is scope to make further policy changes, at both a national and local level, relating to the principle, scale, and form of development in different types of location.

We see these potential changes as a form of ‘brownfield passport’: setting clear parameters which, if met, serve as accepted markers of suitability, with approval becoming the default and a swifter outcome.”

Hmm.

MHLG floats a number of options:

  • First, tightening the NPPF further, by “being explicit that development on brownfield land within urban settlements is acceptable unless specified exclusions apply. Those exclusions could, for example, include that there is no adverse impact in relation to flood risk and access that cannot be mitigated.”
  • Secondly, by using the proposed National Development Management Policies system “to set minimum expectations for certain types of location where a particular scale of development may be appropriate.

Policy could, for example, say that development should be of at least four storeys fronting principal streets in settlements which have a high level of accessibility, and/or set acceptable density ranges that allow for suitable forms of intensification. A similar approach has been used successfully in some other countries where efforts have been made to densify urban areas through ‘upzoning’. While it would still require approval from the local planning authority, it would establish a very strong starting position which would carry significant weight in making decisions and create an expectation that compliant schemes are approved.

The policy parameters, such as height and what conferred a high degree of accessibility, would need to be set carefully, both to make the most of suitable opportunities and to avoid inappropriate development.”

It would surely be difficult to do this on a blanket, national, basis. MHCLG recognises this, so a less exciting variant is that “policy could be amended to encourage such parameters to be set through local development plans, which could also be articulated through design codes for appropriate locations – whether across whole urban areas or at a more local scale.”

  • Thirdly, “the potential to use design guides and codes that draw on the existing character of places, to identify these opportunities and provide clarity on the types of development that are regarded as acceptable in particular locations.”
  • Fourthly, for local planning authorities to make local development orders “in order to provide upfront consent to developments that meet the specified criteria…Combining them with criteria on the scale and/or form of development as suggested above would allow a local planning authority to effectively establish one or more zones in which particular types of development had planning permission without the need for individual applications.”
  • Fifthly, whether any of these proposals “could be supported by linking them to the national scheme of delegation, which [the government has] committed to provide for through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.” Now there’s an idea!

The paper ends with this paragraph:

“As part of wider action to support the development of small sites, we will also consider whether any of these proposals could apply to non-brownfield land in urban areas, with suitable safeguards to retain land which should be kept open or has important environmental benefits.”

So, having established that we are not really talking about “passports” – rather, various ways in which the planning system might further assist in the promotion for development of particular categories of schemes,  and we aren’t really just talking about “brownfield” either.

There will in due course be a call for evidence.

“Brownfield land“ in planning-speak is “previously developed land”, or PDL. I’m beginning to wonder whether there should be another specific terms that we might all find helpful: Previously Developed Policy Interventions, or PDPI. Nicola Gooch wrote a great blog post last Sunday, Brownfield Passports: building on old foundations? reflecting some of the PDPIs which have sought in recent years to encourage brownfield development and the promote the ‘gentle densification’ of urban areas, e.g.:

  • Street votes
  • Permissions in principle
  • Zoning (as per the 2020 white paper)

To this I would add the various waves of changes to the General Permitted Development Order including Part 20 of Schedule 2  – construction of new dwellinghouses. Or indeed, what about this for déjà vu, the previous government’s 13 February 2024 consultation paper Strengthening planning policy for brownfield development (13 February 2024)?

Someone quipped to me this week that a brownfield passport is all well and good but that the big question will be how easy it will be to get the visa that allows us actually to get anywhere. Mind you that wording on the inside cover of your passport does always sound good:

“His Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of His Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.”

Let’s not lose sight of that as the objective!

Simon Ricketts, 28 September 2024

Personal views, et cetera