New 2024 version of NPPF published, with focus on housing delivery & Green Belt planning

In time for Christmas, the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 12th December 2024, following consultation earlier this year. The new NPPF now forms part of national policy. In line with the consultation from earlier in the year, the revised NPPF sets out significant changes in the areas of housing delivery, Green Belt planning and Local Plan collaboration.  The revisions form part of the Government’s stated mission to deliver 1.5 million new homes by 2029, meaning that as a result Council’s will face mandatory housing targets of 370,000 homes per year, focussing on high-demand areas and Grey Belt land.

There are a number of key changes within the new NPPF which are summarised below.

Housing Provision

The requirement to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply (5YHLS) of specific, deliverable housing sites has been reinstated, irrespective of local planning authorities’ (LPA) progress in preparing a new Local Plan. The 5% and 20% ‘buffer’ that previously applied in calculating 5YHLS (which was removed in the 2023 iteration of the NPPF) has been reinstated with the 20% buffer on top of five-year housing supply will apply more widely for some authorities for decision-making purposes from 1 July 2026.

The Government has emphasised that their approach remains ‘brownfield-first’ but the NPPF requires local authorities to review their greenbelt boundaries to identify and prioritise grey belt land in order to meet the new targets.

Presumption in favour of sustainable development

The presumption in favour of sustainable development, which sets out circumstances where this balancing exercise should be weighted towards granting permission. This is the case where there are no relevant policies in the Development Plan or the relevant policies are ‘out of date’ has been retained, with minor amendments to clarify the circumstances in which it may apply when a local plan is out of date. This includes directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes.

Green Belt and ‘Grey Belt’

The most significant attention in the new NPPF has been a recasting of the of the government’s approach to development in the Green Belt. Whilst the NPPF continues to attach ‘great importance’ to Green Belts, and retains the five long-established purposes of the Green Belt (para 143), it provides greater clarity on the ‘exceptional circumstances’ by which the boundaries of the Green Belt may be altered. These include, but are not limited to, instances where an authority cannot meet its identified need for ‘homes, commercial or other development’ through other means. In these situations, the NPPF places the onus on authorities to review Green Belt boundaries in accordance with the policies in the Framework and propose alternations to meet these needs in full (unless the review confirms that any proposed alterations would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt).

The most significant change under the new iteration of the NPPF is the introduction of ‘Grey Belt’ land, which was heavily referenced in the consultation version, but now benefits from a clearer definition on its scope.

The wording in the glossary of the NPPF defines grey belt as ‘land in the green belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) (as set out in paragraph 143)’. These are the purposes which seek to check unrestricted sprawl, prevent merging of towns and preserve the setting of historic towns. ‘Grey belt’ would also exclude land covered by key constraints such as national landscapes and SSSIs.

Paragraph 148 explains that where it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give ‘priority to previously developed land, then consider grey belt which is not previously developed and then other Green Belt locations’.

 This is a fundamental change, as housing and other development is no longer regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt where under paragraph 155 of the NPPF it would be defined as:

• Grey Belt land, the development of which would not fundamentally undermine the  purposes taken together of the Green Belt across the area of the plan’

• there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed;

• the development would be in a sustainable location

•  the development would meet the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements (see below).

The term ‘demonstrable need’ for the type of development is defined in footnote 56 of the NPPF. In applications involving housing proposals it will be met where the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply, or the housing delivery test results were below 75%.

As part of this a greater proportion of affordable housing is expected from Green Belt and Grey Belt land release for housing. This includes a 15 percentage point uplift above the existing affordable housing provision which would be capped at 50%. Significantly, the NPPF does not allow for viability considerations to justify a reduced provision.

 The NPPF also defines the ‘Golden Rules’  set out in paragraph 156 for developing Green Belt land which would be applied to major housing developments on land released from the Green Belt. These rules or contributions relate to meeting affordable housing need, necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure and the provision of new or improvements to existing green spaces. A development which complies with the Golden Rules should be given ‘significant weight’ in favour of the grant of permission.

Building a Strong, Competitive Economy

The NPPF recognises the need to support development for a modern economy by identifying suitable locations for uses such as laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics.

Paragraph 87 of the NPPF explains that planning policy and decision making should now have regard to specific locational requirements of different sectors including high technology industries, storage and distribution operations (in accessible locations) and the modernisation of other industries of ‘local, regional or national importance to support economic growth and resilience’.

Flooding and The Sequential Test

The NPPF has amended the requirement for a flood risk sequential test, and paragraph 175 now states that a sequential test should be used in areas known to be at risk from flooding now or in the future except where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary (including access or escape routes) would be at risk from flooding.

Other Changes

The NPPF includes a number of other changes such as the removal of the reference’s ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’, with the word removed from the title of chapter 12.

The new NPPF is now applicable for decision-making, and has potentially far-reaching implications particularly in respect of its revisions to Green Belt policy, the nuances of which are likely to be tested through planning appeals in the coming months. Firstplan would be happy to advise on any of the topics discussed or on any other implications of the new Framework.

Article prepared by Josh Hindle & Raveen Bhamra