5 big things *not* in the new NPPF
Our English planning system. It’s a mystery wrapped in an enigma.
I mean. We’re told it’s “plan-led”: on which see my primer here. But if that’s so, how come last week’s headline-grabbing, launch-event-worthy changes have nothing to do with development plans? National planning policy - which since 2012, as all good #planoraks know, has resided in the NPPF - seems important doesn’t it. Heck, it is important. But, in the dry language of the statute, the NPPF’s nothing more than another “material consideration” which may indicate taking a decision otherwise than that which accords with the statutory development plan. There isn’t much “plan-led” about the NPPF.
And anyway: have you ever stopped to ask yourself why the Secretary of State gets to issue a national statement of planning policy in the first place? Any takers? The planning system is, our judges like to say, a “creature of statute”. A “comprehensive code imposed in the public interest”. Ok then. This week’s special prize goes to the reader able to locate the statutory power which allows our Secretary of State to issue national planning policy at all. 30 seconds. Ready. Set. Off you go…
Trick question, obvs, because there is no such statutory power. There used to be (you’ll all remember the Minister of Town and Country Planning Act 1943 allowing the Minister to “frame and execute a national policy”). But there isn’t such a power any more. This central plank of our system exists in a bit of a limbo, as my clients and I found out when Lord Carnwath asked us this question in the Hopkins Homes case in the Supreme Court a few years ago. Turns out the power to publish the NPPF is derived by implication from the planning acts as a whole which give the Secretary of State overall responsibility for oversight of the system. Annnnnnyyyywaaayy (this really is getting a bit planorak-y, now, isn’t it)…
Last week, we got a revised NPPF. As Wendy Cope would’ve put it: bloody NPPFs are like bloody buses: you wait for about 6 years, then as soon as a new one comes along, 2 or 3 others appear. Turns out it’s easier to do planning reform when you don’t have to worry about mutinous back-benchers voting down a new law - a point none other than Dominic Cummings was making last week. Anyway. Just like that! Your summer reading’s taken care of. No need for John Grisham or Danielle Steel when you can get this stuff for free.
So. What’s changed? Here you are. Most important change for practitioners: paragraph numbers (😡). Not much else. Lots of references to beauty. Stringent criteria for Article 4 directions (to make sure Class E - to - resi conversions aren’t all stymied). We have a National Model Design Code to think about (albeit its design ain’t coded so well unless you’re reading it on a screen the size of a bus). We now have to make sure that the “right trees are planted in the right places” - whatever that means.
And what isn’t there? Here’s 5 big things our new national planning policy’s missing:
Defining beauty. Yes, it isn’t easy to define. Fair enough. But if you’re going to tell us to plan for “beauty” and refuse “ugliness”, the very least you need to do is define your terms: for reasons I explained here. This point really matters. It’s already causing confusion. The new NPPF came out literally in the middle of the planning evidence for an inquiry I’ve been doing in West London. Architecture and design were mission-critical issues so the Inspector wanted to know what if any difference this new NPPF made to our case. It turned out to be hard to answer that question when the Government hasn’t told us - or given any way of working out - what on earth it means by “beauty”. One thing we know - “beautiful” apparently does not mean the same as “well-designed”: see the amendment to paragraph 8(b). So. You know. Crystal clear.
Adapting to Class E. As I kept saying last year, Class E’s one of the most significant rollings back of regulatory control in the planning system for decades. And, for reasons I explained here, the NPPF is deeply at odds with Class E. Well, we’ve a new NPPF now. But it still exists in a pre-Class E world for all the same reasons as last time. Which is a pretty big problem.
Adapting to First Homes. See my intro here. We’re in a weird and wonderful world now where the Written Ministerial Statement in May told us that e.g. First Home exception sites are intended to give entry-level exception sites the boot. But a brand new NPPF sticks with the latter, and says not a word about the former. 🧐.
None of the White Paper reforms. So, you can’t initiate “growth areas” by decree. You need a new law. Buuuuut… there are several ideas in Planning for the Future which the Government could do tomorrow. Without any changes to the law. Just by updating the NPPF. See e.g. the wonderful “modest proposal” of Steve Quartermain (veteran of these pages), Lord Matthew Taylor and Paul Tucker QC. Changing the approach to the “soundness” test for local plans (which I think is a good idea). Nationalising development management policies. That stuff could speed things up right now. And the NPPF could be the vehicle to do it. But alas, as Bojo likes to say. Alas.
Green Belt reform. Obviously. I know, right. But still. It’s worthy of note. Another round of national policy comes and goes. And almost 7 decades after the Government introduced a national policy on Green Belts, that area of English planning policy most known about but least understood has still barely shifted one iota. Not a sausage. Sure, the excellent report on “The future of the planning system in England” from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee suggested that “a review should examine the purpose of the Green Belt, including whether it continues to serve that purpose, how the public understand it, what should be criteria for inclusion, and what additional protections might be appropriate”? Well, that one’s a big fat no. Sigh. Chris Pincher confirmed that “we will not be accepting the recommendation in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report for a wholesale review of the green belt”. Alas.
Onwards and upwards, folks. I wouldn’t get too attached to this NPPF either, if I were you. For one thing, it has a few typos. And more important still - if and when the long-promised Planning Bill comes along, we’ll need a total re-write anyway.
But for now. Update those paragraph references. Think hard about beauty. And, of course, if you’re going to plant any trees… make sure they’re the right ones. In the right places. Not the wrong trees. In bloody awful places. Just the good places.
I hope you’re staying well, planoraks, and in the meantime - most important, of course: #keeponplanning.
