From consultation to publication: What has changed in the new NPPF?

Arguably, policies S4 and, in particular S5 are the biggest change in national planning policy in recent years. They represent a significant shift in how we will analyse development sites going forward, both from an applicant and Local Planning Authority perspective.

Policy S4 refers to development within settlements (Annex B defines a settlement and excludes hamlets and scattered groups of houses and includes towns / villages and other predominantly built-up areas) where generally speaking the wording has not changed much from the consultation version. A small change to the wording has been made, where previously it stated a development should be approved unless the proposal had an “unacceptable impact” in respect of defined issues. That has changed to a “substantial adverse impact” (Policy S4(2)(a)). While only a small change, a substantial adverse impact is a higher bar to meet for a refusal of a development proposal than an unacceptable impact. This shows how this new NPPF strongly supports development proposals within settlement boundaries.

Turning to policy S5, large parts of the wording remain the same as the consultation version of the NPPF.

Policy S5(1)(h) unlocks development opportunities around well-connected stations (including railway, underground, tram and light rail) providing your site is within reasonable walking distance of it.

The main change from the consultation version is that the policy now applies to development within the top 80 Travel to Work Areas (by Gross Value Added), rather than the top 60 identified in the consultation draft. Well-connected stations are defined in Annex B, as being served by at least four trains or trams per hour overall, or at least two train or trams per hour in any one direction.

Some of these areas are extensive. For example, the “Leeds” Travel to Work Area, will likely include multiple railway stations in relatively remote locations. On the face of Policy S5(1)(h), development around such stations may now be acceptable, provided the station is well-connected, your site is within reasonable walking distance of it, and the other policy requirements are satisfied.

Annex B defines “reasonable walking distance” as being within 800m, or around a 10-minute walk, of a well-connected station. However, the NPPF does not specify how that distance should be measured. For example, it is unclear whether the measurement should be taken from the edge of the development, the centre of a development site, or another point within the scheme. There is also uncertainty about the relevant point at the station itself, particularly for stations where one platform is within 800m, but the main entrance may be further away.

In practice we would anticipate some flexibility and no doubt it will be tested at appeal.

Policy S5(1)(j) also allows for development outside of settlements where a proposal responds to an “unmet need”. Importantly, that need is not limited to housing; it could also include, for example, industrial or commercial floorspace where there is an unmet employment need.

The policy has the potential to bring forward sites that may previously have been considered unacceptable.

We note alongside the NPPF the Housing Delivery Test results have also been published for the last two years and demonstrate authorities whose housing delivery has slipped below 75% in the last three years, thus potentially engaging the tilted balance under S5(1)(j).