A New Dawn of the NPPF
Planning
After being teased and having our hopes dashed on having a new NPPF before the summer recess, finally the 2026 version of the NPPF has been formerly released, marking the most significant reform of national planning policy since the NPPF was first introduced in March 2012.
Whist here have been some shifts from the consultation version from the start of the year, many of the newly formed policies remain, and their relevance for agents, landowners, farmers, other business owners and developers who live or operate within rural areas remains key.
The new framework represents a more rules-based approach, providing greater certainty over what forms of development should and shouldn’t be permitted with a clear split of distinctive plan making policies and national decision-making policies. As with other versions, the document covers all matters of planning such as heritage, national landscapes, flood risk and of course rural development.
There is also the heavily debated matter of grey and green belt, which can be left for another time; here we focus on how the new NPPF supports rural development and growth. From the outset it is very encouraging to see that the new policy aims to boost rural economies by allocating ‘substantial’ weight to agricultural growth and business diversification and includes explicit recognition of the importance of agricultural modernisation.
There is now a clear recognition of market supply and demand and the need to take into account anticipated catchment areas and the changing needs of different sectors in meeting the needs of businesses, as a way of justifying the location of development in support of new policy S5. For rural areas, the sustainable growth of business in rural areas is strongly supported through the reuse of existing buildings as well as ‘well‑designed new development’.
Development is also better supported for the diversification of agricultural business with farm viability being acknowledged. Specifically, the new NPPF supports measures to retain and expand accessible local shops and services, which is vital for village communities to remain sustainable and most crucially, there is recognition that development proposals may need to be located outside settlement boundaries and in locations that are not well served by public transport in order to meet rural business needs.
In terms of housing however, the same consideration has not been afforded to rural areas.
Probably the most important goal and reasoning of the new NPPF is to accelerate and unlock the delivery of desperately needed new homes across England with most people well versed to the Government’s target of 1.5 million homes (for which time is truly ticking). Whilst a policy document on its own will not address the acute and entrenched housing crisis, it provides a supportive foundation to help to unlock the delivery of homes. To a point however, the NPPF has an urban bias failing to address unique rural living realities especially in meeting housing need and demand.
One of the most important changes in the NPPF is the shift of the familiar ‘tilted balance’ with a more permanent, location-based presumption in favour of sustainable development. In doing this, the revised NPPF prioritises development that is ‘suitably located,’ introducing policies S4 (within settlements) and S5 (outside settlements). Some would argue that this change shifts the starting point from initial resistance to development to a clearer route to approval for edge-of-settlement developments.
For developers, land owners and land managers, this should result in greater consistency and certainty when speculating on development sites; however, it could be considered that the splitting the presumption across those developments that are inside and those outside settlement boundaries could inertly push development towards larger towns, leaving villages and smaller market towns where needed homes are already in short supply and chronic affordability issues, with very little opportunity to grow.
There is support for residential and mixed-use development around ‘well connected’ railway stations outside settlements; but the new definition given to what ‘well connected’ means would rule out development near to the majority of train stations that are located in rural areas. This essentially overlooks genuine sustainable locations for new housing in these areas; a nuance point that has been ignored in the new NPPF.
The exception to allow development involving instances where LPA’s cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing need still applies, but this is restricted to where development would be ‘physically’ well related to an existing settlement. Such policy provisions overlook the unique needs of rural areas; this is despite rural settlements covering approximately 85% of the land mass of England and roughly 9.7 million people living in such places.
Notwithstanding the above, there are many development ‘hooks’ in the latest NPPF for housing in rural areas. For landowners and developers, working with experienced commercially aware planning teams will be vital to capitalise on the planning framework now available.
As the industry becomes more familiar with this new version of the NPPF, here at BoonBrown we will maintain an oversight and continue to monitor local planning committees, appeals and local plan progression to see how this national document impacts all aspects of town planning. We will continue to ensure that our planning strategies and submissions remain robust in light of such a significant policy change.
Contact
Buckle up for Buckeroo or Preparing for Complexity?
The world of development, planning and architecture never stands still. Often it feels like we are struggling to keep pace with what is needed to get the basics done, let alone to make truly successful places. It’s also a challenge to get to grips with the ever-increasing levels of complexity that need to be navigated to get a scheme over the line; initially to secure planning permission and then if you are lucky, to get it built.
I call this constant change and increasing complexity the ‘planning Buckeroo’ (it could equally be referring to architecture (or policing, or health)) . For those too young to remember, Buckeroo was a 1970’s children’s game where the players took turns to load a small plastic donkey with all sorts of tools until it couldn’t take any more and ‘bucked’ the whole lot off. Needless to say that the last player to add a tool before it bucked lost the game.
I’m lucky enough to have worked in planning and development in local government for nearly 30 years and then to have spent the last five years advising a range of public and private sector organisations including BoonBrown. During this time I have seen ever more things loaded onto the planning donkey, and so it is no surprise that its legs are starting to wobble.
Given this complexity it is more important than ever to understand the challenges and motivations of our colleagues in other professions. I hope that current planning, engineering, and architecture courses pay more attention to understanding and working effectively with other professions than mine did. Shout out to the excellent @New London Architecture and @Future of London/Manchester who do great work to bridge this gap, alongside two wheeled versions such as @club Peloton and others.
So, what sort of complexity and change is coming down the track in relation to architecture and planning? Setting aside the macro impacts of the cost-of-living crisis and the failure of the post-Brexit economic phoenix to rise from the ashes, there are a few suggestions below:
Firstly, the Government is still searching for the precise combination to unlock the future shape of the planning system. How to allow the right things – let’s call it well designed and supported places – to happen in the right locations, but quicker. All while ensuring communities have a genuine opportunity to have their say and benefit from the outcome.
But do we need this change at all? Some might look at places like Kings Cross and say with the right teams and attitudes on both sides it clearly works. However, there are many places where the opportunity for good decisions and outcomes is missed. For my money I would suggest leaving the system as it is and resourcing it properly – particularly local Government. Also more talking up the great work of our planners and architects. Less trash talking please.
Can we take a few tools off the donkey? Probably not, but perhaps they can be made lighter and easier to use? In the next year the dials of the Government machine should whirr and click into place and the answer emerge. Or depending on how radical the answers are, they may not. See the next point.
Secondly, there will be a new Government in the next 18 months. If the predictions of commentators (and some Conservative MP’s it would seem as they are not standing again) are to be believed, then this will not be another Conservative Government. However, whoever is in power we should be prepared for more change – perhaps more radical and speedier if it’s Labour? Hopefully they will want to make big decisions early, having learnt from their failure to be more radical when first elected in 1997? If so, what would be the implications of Labour’s recent announcement on securing land for housing at prices more akin to their pre-planning permission/allocation value? What about ‘sensible’* release of the green belt?
Thirdly, some of the current headaches will start to clear – perhaps leading to other complexity – but at least removing the waste of time and energy that it currently takes to work in a world of uncertainty. See Tom’s last blog about 2nd stairs; but also where things are going with nutrient neutrality; national policy support for life sciences; or funding infrastructure etc.
Fourthly, the increased focus on social value will continue. Particularly how all players in the ‘development system’ can do more to address net zero, support people into work, invest in local communities and so on. It is exciting, and a bit sad because it has taken so long, to see how quickly things have started to move since companies have been required to report on their ESG performance. This requirement now extends to 1,300 of our biggest businesses. It has started to cascade through the supply chain and that is a good thing. Expect and demand more.
Finally, and this is more of a wish based on being a parent whose children need somewhere to live rather than a prediction. It is also nothing new. When, oh when, will we really try, really hard, to access the views of those who are currently excluded from the system and whose voices are not heard when deciding planning applications. How can we give weight in decisions to those who would benefit from a proposal? Perhaps we can take a punt and say that for every objection there are ten people on a housing waiting list who would support it? Too often politicians and planning committees are swayed by the vocal few who are ‘in the room’ and who think they have something to lose and little to gain from a new housing scheme in their area. I know this is not the case everywhere, and I applaud brave politicians and good officers up and down the country, but I know it happens in lots of places. Young people and those on low incomes need homes. Pre-loved or new doesn’t matter, but its existence and affordability does. This doesn’t take legislation, just willing decision makers.
So, be prepared for more change and if you can, take a walk in some else’s shoes – perhaps a planner, an architect or a young person. You might find that you learn something from the discomfort.
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)
Planning
Written by Elizabeth Malone
Elizabeth is a Chartered Landscape Architect, passionate about creating sustainable landscapes. She is particularly interested in urban design, conservation and naturalistic planting design.
As of November 2023 (TBC), it will be mandatory for developments requiring planning permission to achieve Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). The Environment Act 2021 introduced the requirement that new planning applications for development meet the following objective ‘biodiversity value attributable to the development exceed the pre-development biodiversity value of the on-site habitat by at least 10%’.
Land development is one of a number of factors that has contributed to the degradation of the natural environment, by providing a more meaningful and quantifiable approach to biodiversity value – the environment can be enhanced by development and land/estate management through the principles and process of Biodiversity Net Gain.
At BoonBrown, our Landscape Architects work closely with Ecologists to realise the biodiversity requirements of a site. It is imperative in this process, that Landscape Architects and Ecologists are brought on board early on in a design project to seek to maximise the biodiversity value of a site, whilst also leading to enhanced places to work and live – effectively creating places and spaces of benefit to all – centred around nature. We balance site-specific requirements against other environmental concerns, such as flood mitigation and the need for landscapes to be resilient to climate change. We are also experienced in producing Landscape and Ecological Management Plans and working alongside Ecologists to deliver Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plans – to maximise the benefits of your site.
As part of the requirements of BNG, it is essential that solutions are designed and built to last and to achieve the required distinctiveness and condition as intended – in line with the minimum maintenance period of 30 years, we are able to produce dynamic landscape and ecological management plans that can be adapted throughout this period – to ensure that the habitats and spaces created are fulfilling their potential and are designed for the long-term. It is critical therefore that maintenance costs be calculated at the design stage.
In some instances, it may not be possible to achieve BNG on-site – we are able to work across both rural and urban environments and tailor our approaches to biodiversity creation accordingly. Where BNG is not possible, we can work alongside developers to recommend alternative approaches – including the exploration of BNG via off-site units or through statutory credits.
Where off-site units are required, BNG provides opportunities for farmers and landowners to partner with developers to implement biodiversity enhancement measures on their land to at least the minimum 10% BNG requirements and they will receive a payment from the developer for doing so. At present, there are no guidelines for appropriate monetary values, and the sum(s) paid for taking land out of production and putting it forward for BNG development is to be negotiated on the open market. The terms of agreement between the farmers / landowners and developers is to be negotiated between the two parties, but is likely to be the minimum maintenance period of 30 years. BNG is also seen as a form of farm diversification and is therefore seen as an additional income stream related to land stewardship.
Statutory credits can be bought by developers as a last resort, when onsite and local offsite provision for habitat creation do not meet the BNG requirements. Biodiversity credits will be set higher than prices for equivalent biodiversity gain on the market. It is intended that this system will be run by a national body and not at a local level. The forthcoming DEFRA consultation on BNG secondary legislation will provide further clarification on this matter.
BoonBrown’s Landscape Architecture team seek to address BNG through creating spaces and places of benefit to nature through enhanced and better joined up habitats, where wildlife can thrive, through promoting health and well-being, through connecting people with the outdoors and creating more attractive and resilient places to work and live, natural capital assets also improve the economy and are a meaningful contribution towards climate change mitigation and net-zero targets.
For your BNG requirements, BoonBrown will be happy to work with you through this process, ensuring that your developments maximise their biodiversity value – leading to enhanced sites and more attractive and resilient places to work and live.
