Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Plan-making policies
Chapter 3: Decision-making policies
Chapter 4: Achieving sustainable development
Chapter 5: Meeting the challenge of climate change
Chapter 6: Delivering a sufficient supply of homes
Chapter 7: Building a strong, effective economy
Chapter 8: Ensuring the vitality of town centres
Chapter 9: Supporting high quality communications
Chapter 10: Securing clean energy and water
Chapter 11: Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals
Chapter 12: Making effective use of land
Chapter 13: Protecting Green Belt land
Chapter 14: Achieving well-designed places
Chapter 15: Promoting sustainable transport
Chapter 16: Promoting healthy communities
Chapter 17: Pollution, Public Protection and Security
Chapter 18: Managing Flood Risk and Coastal Change
Chapter 19: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Chapter 20: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Written Ministerial Statements and other documents
Annex A - Data Centres and onsite energy generation
Annex B - Viability: Standardised inputs in viability assessment
Annex C - Reforming Site Thresholds
Consultation introduction
1) Do you have any views on how statutory National Development Management Policies could be introduced in the most effective manner, should a future decision be made to progress these?
The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) acknowledges the reasoning publicly set out by the Government in making national decision-making policies (NDMPs) non-statutory in the revised draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Given the potentially significant outcomes of this decision, we also welcome the Government’s intention to keep the decision in review, which could be conducted in tandem with a broader monitoring and evaluation approach taken to the revised draft NPPF as a whole. If the need to change approach on this matter were to be clearly evidenced through such a review, ensuring a smooth transition would be critical. This is particularly relevant regarding the continued preparation and adoption of local plans as we move towards the Government’s intention to deliver a plan-led system. We note the approach taken to transition arrangements in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 whereby provisions address incompatibility of statutory local and national policy, with the more recently adopted one prevailing if a tension is identified.
2) Do you agree with the new format and structure of the draft Framework which comprises separate plan-making policies and national decision-making policies? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Strongly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
The RTPI welcomes the new format and structure of the draft NPPF. This includes the separation of plan-making policies and NDMPs. Whilst the two sets of policies are now clearly delineated to ensure a consistent system is implemented, careful harmonisation and alignment is required, especially when considering comparable policy areas. We also warmly welcome the inclusion of a purpose of planning which constitutes a long-standing ask of the RTPI. We consider that this purpose should be clearly set out at the beginning of the document and consistently embedded throughout, to ensure that every element of the planning system is aligned with this purpose and that it guides all activities, actions, resourcing and behaviours.
Whilst we strongly endorse the new format and structure as presented, as set out throughout this response, the RTPI would wish to see a clearer delineation between the different spatial tiers of the new plan-led system throughout this document.
3) Do you agree with the proposed set of annexes to be incorporated into the draft Framework? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Strongly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
No further comment.
4) Do you agree with incorporating Planning Policy for Traveller Sites within the draft Framework? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Strongly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
No further comment.
Further questions
Transitional arrangements
192) Do you agree with the transitional arrangements approach to decision-making? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Partly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
193) Do you have any further thoughts on the policies outlined in this consultation?
The RTPI welcomes the consideration regarding transitional arrangements set out in the consultation document. Our research has previously highlighted issues local planning authorities experience when adapting to changes to national policy, which has often resulted in delays, especially in local plan preparation. Therefore, there is a need to clearly identify the multitude of issues potentially deriving from such an ambitious set of reforms, to ensure short and long-term economic prosperity. It is vital that such considerations are cognisant of the range of scenarios and outcomes that could manifest from the transition in different localities and regions of the country, especially when layering consideration of local government reform on top.
There are several imminent considerations relating to the transition arrangements, particularly in reference to local plans currently at a later stage of preparation and likely to be adopted in advance of the finalised NPPF being published, or soon after. Whilst we understand the Government’s aims and ambitions in creating a clear and distinct break from the previous local plan system through these arrangements, there may be unintended consequences. The RTPI believes that the local plan examination process should be utilised to ensure that late-preparation-stage, old style local plans - once adopted - achieve optimal contemporaneity with the new framework, thereby supporting effective decision making. The examination could, for example, identify and resolve tensions between old style plans and the new proposed framework to avoid such occurrence happening on an application-by-application basis. A transition period could be introduced by Government to support late-stage local plans, ensuring their continued preparation be brought forward (without the need for intervention from the Secretary of State), and assuring local authorities that their final adopted plan will still have relevance. The RTPI notes the approach taken in Scotland in their recent transition to national decision-making policies in the NPF4. Here, proposed Local Development Plans (LDPs) prepared prior to the adoption and publication of NPF4 were given the opportunity to reconcile identified inconsistencies through the examination process. However, there were clear limitations to this, with the scope of an examination limited to issues raised in representations and the process remaining proportionate and fair.
As a compromise, and to ensure a level of consistency between old-style plans and the new framework, the RTPI proposes that development plan policies which are substantially inconsistent with the national decision-making policies in this Framework should be given very limited weight, except where they have been examined and adopted against this Framework and there is a clear and justified reason for addressing particular local issues. Furthermore, the current wording stating that “LP policies that are in any way inconsistent with NDMPs should be given very limited weight unless examined and adopted against the Framework” may be overly blunt. Local plan policies can often be considerably long and in many situations, inconsistency could arise in only a small part of a local plan policy, with the rest remaining relevant and useful to the decision-maker. A slight change to allow for some flexibility in these scenarios would be very beneficial for the upcoming transition period.
The RTPI also notes concerns from local authority planning policy teams of the intended removal of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs), particularly relating to strategic sites. This could cause unintended consequences as SPDs provide a pragmatic solution to developing policy in lieu of up-to-date and adopted plans coming through the system. There is also concern that bringing through the appropriate details would prove excessive for the purposes of local plan preparation and may take time to come through in supplementary plans creating uncertainty through a policy vacuum. Either extending the transition arrangements for SPDs or creating greater weight to local guidance in the decision-making process, could address this issue.
This transition period will have added complexity with the reintroduction of strategic planning and local government reform. As set out in response to Q(6)(a) the RTPI wishes to see a comprehensive and mapped framework setting out how the new LP and SDS system will operate. Included within this should be the consideration of how LPs flow from adopted SDSs, be prepared in tandem, or if adopted in advance, feed into SDS preparation. A similar approach needs to be taken relating to the review, monitoring, and alteration cycles of respective plans drawing key interrelationships at different parts of the process. Such an approach can hopefully avoid the duplication or undertaking of abortive work in plan preparation, ensuring the protection of the finite resourcing available to the system. For example, the upwards or downwards transmission of evidence bases relating to SDS or LPs needs to cognisant of the different time frames and consideration of how evidence bases can be transitioned at the commissioning stage. This could be usefully set out in guidance. Detailed transitional arrangements to encourage LPs to come forward before or during SDS preparation, will ameliorate circumstances where there is a delay in the initiation or preparation of SDS preparation.
As set out in our legislative ask of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, the RTPI believes that the statutory status of chief planning officers will support this transition. The impending programme of devolution and local government reform will likely create larger teams covering larger geographies and necessitate cooperation with newly emerging strategic authorities. Local planning authorities now need to have an organised and meaningful input into the production of SDSs, and the chief planner officer role will be critical in ensuring this happens. They would also serve a key brokering function across internal and external stakeholder relationships, bringing the development industry, elected members, local government and communities together in the strategic planning journey.
In addition to proposals above on potential clarification relating to transition arrangements, it is clear to the RTPI that a significant financial stimulus will need to be provided by Government to ensure a smooth transition to support local and strategic authorities and other key stakeholders in plan-making. Beyond increased funding across the system, there may be a more targeted need for areas which are progressing more slowly through the devolution agenda, potentially as a result of ongoing local government reform. To manage this transition in an even manner across the country, the RTPI proposes a central resource be held which can administer targeted support to areas experiencing issues and delays relating to transition which could include for example, local government reforms or high growth ambitions. This could take the form of a service similar to the recently revived Advisory Team for Large Applications Service (ATLAS) but instead targeted at plan-making. Such a resource could hold specialist teams to support plan making and delivery in areas such as education planning or relating to strategic Green Belt reviews. Such a resource could be deployed to support both strategic and local planning.
In terms of supporting more immediate considerations around the Government’s ambitious growth agenda, it will be vital that the Government provides a comprehensive skills development and training programme for planning service across the country in the short term, this will be predominantly aimed at development management teams as they immediately have to consider the new rules based approach to decision-making as applications are submitted. Such package needs to consider the range of new assessments, tests and policy requirements, guidance and national standards as set out in the proposed framework, this can include for example, new approaches to viability assessment or life-time carbon assessments, as well as potentially novel areas of consideration such as wildfires or military affordable housing.
Written Ministerial Statements and other documents
194) Do you agree with the list of Written Ministerial Statements set out in Annex A to the draft Framework whose planning content would be superseded by the policies proposed in this consultation? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Strongly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
No further comment.
Annex A - Data Centres and onsite energy generation
195) Do you consider the planning regime, including reforms being delivered through the Planning and Infrastructure Act, provide sufficient flexibility for energy generation projects co-located with data centres to be consented under either the NSIP or TCPA regime? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Partly agree.
a) Please give reasons.
The RTPI recognises that the s35 direction in and out provides the necessary flexibility as long as the relevant Secretaries of State and their supporting teams enable the flexibility intended in a consistent and supportive way, enabling true choice and consenting optionality. In order to make this process more effective, the RTPI would welcome a comprehensive update to advice and scope of Associated Development. This should reflect the increasingly complex, mixed, and integrated infrastructure projects we are increasingly see come forward. The RTPI believes that the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Data Centres will be very important in supporting the flexibility and optionality whilst providing a strong supportive government policy framework for any consenting route and this being clear and effective.
196) Would raising the Planning Act 2008 energy generation thresholds for renewable projects that are co-located with data centres in England (for the reason outlined above) be beneficial? Yes/No
No.
a) If so, what do you believe would be the appropriate threshold? Please provide your reasons.
The RTPI believes that we should take a consistent approach in terms of what is considered nationally significant, irrespective of its relationship or reliance of another Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project or Project of National Significance. Therefore, the RTPI believes there is no need to change the threshold if the s35 direction in and out is implemented effectively and supported in national policy.
197) Do you have any views on how we should define ‘co-located energy infrastructure’? Please provide your reasons.
Co-located would best be defined by a set of criteria where one or more should be demonstrated. For example:
- Integrated
- Geographic proximity at nearest point
- Directly functionally linked
In defining these, regard should be had to the required offsets for example for Nuclear safety zones and licensing to enable the definition or approach to co-location to enable Small Nuclear Reactors to be deployed alongside and part or the development of a Data Centre and also the distances that have already been considered within DCOs that have been granted for disaggregated land parcels.
198) Do you think the renewable energy generation thresholds under Section 15 of the Planning Act 2008 for other use types of projects should be increased, or should this be limited to projects co-located with data centres? Yes/No
No.
a) Please provide your reasons.
The RTPI raises concerns that the drafting of this question, as is currently set out, presupposes that the threshold will be different for data centres, without regard being had to the consultation responses to Q196. As set out in Q196, the RTPI believes that it is important to have consistency in what is nationally significant, irrespective of its relationship or reliance of another Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project or Project of National Significance and there is no need to change the threshold if the s35 direction in and out is implemented effectively and supported in National Policy.
199) What benefits or risks do you foresee from making this change? Please provide your reasons.
The RTPI would not recommend any change in these regards, for reasons previously stated. If there is a change it risks differential in the consideration of national significance and the weight to be secured through National Policy by virtue of the developments relationship to another project rather than the significance of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project or Project of National Significance itself.
Annex B - Viability: Standardised inputs in viability assessment
200) Would you support the use of growth testing for strategic, multi-phase schemes? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Partly agree.
(a) Please explain your answer
The RTPI notes the benefits of growth testing to inform assumptions on strategic multi-phase sites. However, whilst we welcome the inclusion of the Annex B and the integration of the viability PPG into the new Framework, we would welcome further detail and/or guidance on matters to comment more fully. This would include an understanding of the role of local plans in setting out the need for growth testing, or not. To ensure that growth testing is fair, proportionate, and robust, it may need to take cognisance of potential declines in value as well as gains.
201) Would you support the optional use of growth testing for regeneration schemes? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Partly disagree.
(a) Please explain your answer
Whilst the RTPI recognises the potential benefit of growth testing for large multi-phase strategic regeneration schemes, we would not agree to its use being optional. This would place a disproportionate burden on planners in having to identify who would and would not be eligible. We would instead propose that growth testing be applied to all large regeneration schemes or strategic sites, or be removed as an option.
202) Do you agree greater specificity, including single figures, which local planning authorities could choose to diverge from where there is evidence for doing so, would improve speed and certainty? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Partly agree.
a) Please explain your answer. If you agree, the government welcomes views on the appropriate figure – for example, whether 17.5% would be an appropriate reflection of the industry standard for most market-led development.
The RTPI recognises the critical importance of ensuring process around development viability is designed in a way that supports the planning system in terms of delivering high quality placemaking and economic growth in a timely manner. However, given the nature of the institute, it is felt that specific comment relating to assumptions of GDV and developer returns would be beyond the remit of the institute especially considering our broad range of members, working across public and private sectors. But we would wish to use this opportunity to set out some principles as to how developer contributions and viability is managed particularly in relation to large strategic sites. We would welcome in the revised NPPF, the clear and unequivocal importance of collaborative working when it comes to delivering large viable schemes, especially regarding strategic infrastructure provision. The institute believes that in the vast majority of cases delays in conflict can be overcome through a positive, collaborative, and pragmatic approach, not an adversarial one. Therefore, we have to design a system that encourages such ways of working. Please also see our response to Q16(a) and Q25(a).
203) Are there any site types, tenures, or development models to which alternative, lower figures to 15-20% of Gross Development Value might reasonably apply?
a) Please explain your answer. The government is particularly interested in views on whether clarifying an appropriate profit of 6% on Gross Development Value for affordable housing tenures would make viability assessments more transparent and speed up decision-making.
Please see response to Q202(a).
204) Are there further ways the government can bring greater specificity and certainty over profit expectations across landowners, site promoters and developers such that the system provides for the level of profit necessary for development to proceed, reducing the need for subjective expectations?
a) Please explain your answer.
Please see response to Q202(a).
205) Existing Viability Planning Practice Guidance refers to developer return in terms a percentage of gross development value. In what ways might the continued use of gross development value be usefully standardised?
Please see response to Q202(a).
206) Do you agree there circumstances in which metrics other than profit on gross development value would support more or faster housing delivery, or help to maximise compliance with plan policy? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Partly agree.
a) Please explain your answer.
The RTPI would not recommend the use of Internal Rate of Return (IRR) as a starting point when building assumptions for developer returns in viability assessments. We would instead promote the continued use of percentage of GDV. This is due to the variable and subjective nature of IRR when establishing historic and projected future costings. The institute does however note the usefulness of metrics like IRR for master planning when sensitivity testing on larger sites.
207) Are there types of development on which metrics other than profit on gross development value should be routinely accepted as a measure of return e.g. strategic sites large multi-phased schemes, or build to rent schemes?
a) Please explain your answer.
Please see response to Q202(a).
208) Do you agree that guidance should be updated to reflect the fact a premium may not be required in all circumstances? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Please see response to Q144.
a) In what circumstances might a premium, or the usual premium, not be required?
Please see response to Q144.
b) What impact (if any) would you foresee if this change were made?
No further comment.
209) Do you agree that extant consents should not be assumed to be sufficient proof of alternative use value, unless other provisions relating to set out in plans are met? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Partly agree.
a) Please explain your answer.
The RTPI agrees with this approach in principle, however if such an approach were to be taken forward, clarity would need to be provided as to what sufficient proof would be in such a scenario to help provide certainty for all stakeholders involved.
210) If extant consents were not to be assumed as sufficient proof of alternative use value, should this be at the discretion of the decision-maker, or should another metric (e.g. period of time since consent granted) be used? Decision maker discretion / Another metric / Neither
a) If another metric, please set out your preferred approach and rationale.
See response to Q209(a).
211) What further steps should the government take to ensure non-policy compliant schemes are not used to inform the determination of benchmark land values in the viability assessments that underpin plan-making?
As set out in response to Q16(a), the upstreaming of development viability matters in the plan-making approach is reliant on a robust, up to date, evidence base to inform decision-making and encourage plan-making that is grounded in real world expectations. It further needs to be strengthened with a comprehensive monitoring mechanism to address significant changing market and economic conditions as and when they arise.
212) Do you agree that the residual land value of the development proposal should be cross-checked with the residual land values of comparable schemes; to help set the viability assessment in context. Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
a) Please explain your answer.
See response to Q202.
Annex C - Reforming Site Thresholds
213) Do you agree that a 2.5 hectare threshold is appropriate? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Partly disagree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
As set out in response to Q61(a), there is difficulty in practice finding sites of 2.5 hectares in size to allocate in certain areas of the country, given that this size is smaller than the average size of a field in England. We appreciate the specific size proposal is to some degree arbitrary, the suitability of the initial size threshold will be reliant on a clear and defined set of proposals for exemptions and streamlining.
We also note proposals relating to setting minimum densities in well-connected locations set out in L3(3) set at least 40 dwellings per hectare. Therefore, if developments were to come forward on 2.5 hectare sites in such locations, they would not be able to be considered as part of this medium site threshold.
214) Do you agree that a unit threshold of between 10 and 49 units is appropriate? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
The RTPI notes that current proposals for reforming site unit thresholds are only specific to certain housing development types. Such unit thresholds would not cover a range of specialist housing needs, including purpose-built student accommodation or housing for older people. Nor would it cover economic development or retail proposals. Further clarity on what other development types would come forward in this medium-site category would be welcomed.
If the intention of this policy is to support SME housebuilders, then the RTPI would wish to see an analysis conducted as to the average size of development brought forward by SMEs. Regardless of which threshold is eventually settled upon, the RTPI would welcome a review and monitoring process to ensure that proposals are delivering on their intended outcomes.
Please also see response to Q212(a).
215) Do you foresee risks or operability issues anticipated with the proposed definition of medium development? Yes/No.
Yes.
216) If so, please explain you answer and provide views on potential mitigations.
The operability of the proposed definition of medium development very much depends on what final proposals are. For example, proposals suggested in the consultation document under Q67 relating to cash payments in lieu of onsite delivery on medium sites, could have a significant impact on affordable housing delivery if they were to be taken forward. Elsewhere, as set out in response to Q61(a) the RTPI is concerned about the resourcing requirements of policy HO6 for planning policy teams, as now having to allocate 10% of small sites less than 1 hectare and 10% of sites between 1 and 2.5 hectares will vastly increase the number of allocations needing to be taken through local plan preparation. Without significant increase in resourcing for local plan teams, there could be unintended consequences of reducing plan coverage, especially in areas which are managing significant increases in housing need.
Such proposals may also have a varied impact across the country. In rural areas for example, far fewer planning applications could be determined at planning committee depending on the national scheme of delegation proposals and there could be a much higher proportion of exemptions to BNG requirements.
217) Do you have any views on whether the current small development exemption should be extended to cover a wider range of sites – indicatively to sites of fewer than 50 dwellings, or fewer than 120 bedspaces in purpose-built student accommodation?
a) Please provide your reasons.
The RTPI does not believe it should be extended to the higher level of 50 dwellings.
218) If the exemption were to be extended, do you have any views on whether the development of 120 purpose-built student accommodation bedspaces is an appropriate equivalent to a development of 50 dwellings for the purposes of the levy exemption?
a) Please provide your reasons.
The RTPI agrees that this is an equivalent in terms of development size, however consideration of other specialist housing needs, set out in policy HO9, would be appropriate.
219) If the exemption were to be extended, do you have any views on whether the exemption should be based solely on the existing metrics (dwellings/bedspaces) or whether there should also be an area threshold.
No further comment.
220) If you do have views on possible changes to the small developments levy exemption, please specify the potential impact of the possible change of the levy exemption on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
The reduction in levy contributions may slow down efforts to remediate unsafe buildings, which could have a greater impact on people with protected characteristics.
221) What do you consider to be the potential economic, competitive, and behavioural impacts of possible changes to the levy exemption? Please provide any evidence or examples to support your response.
Depending on what size site and/or unit threshold is set, this may change the nature of development proposals coming through, as they seek to meet such exemption.
222) Do you agree with the proposal to extend the Permission in Principle application route to medium development? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Strongly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
The RTPI would also welcome consideration of our rural exemptions Permission in Principle proposal, as set out in response to Q75(a).
223) Do you have views about whether there should be changes to the regulatory procedures for these applications, including whether there should be a requirement for a short planning statement?
No further comment.
Public Sector Equality Duty
224) Do you have any views on the impacts of the above proposals for you, or the group or business you represent and on anyone with a relevant protected characteristic?
No comment.
a) If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, or which businesses may be impacted and how.
No comment.
225) Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified?
No comment.