Six and a half years ago, when the original National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published, I worked for the Government.

I was one of a small number of civil servants responsible for assisting Local Authorities in the interpretation of the new set of ‘rules’ – I could recite every paragraph and most pieces of case law of relevance.

Following last week’s publication of NPPF MKII, I have been busy familiarising myself with the new framework.

So what are the key points to consider when examining the new NPPF?

1. Understanding how policy can be used is very different to drafting policy

We see this every day with Planning Authorities offering inconsistent views on how Local Plan policies and the NPPF can be read. Court of Appeal decisions offer simplified answers to these questions when policy is challenged and sometimes this then leads to a redrafting of policy wording, which are then communicated via Written Ministerial Statements.

It is when a series of these case law judgements have been handed down, and number of Written Ministerial Statements have been produced, that policy documents require an overhaul. This is more or less what has happened with the newly published NPPF.

2. Whether people believe the NPPF is positive or negative will depend on their approach to certain types of development

The NPPF MKII is not so significantly different from the original framework of policy documents that were produced by Government during the last century, but what it does do is provide a logical, concise and literal set of clauses that allow decision makers to take a considered view on a number of key issues faced by the country. Namely, providing enough houses for people that need them; locations that are suitable for development to create jobs and help the economy; and erstwhile ensuring that the country remains intact for future generations of people, habitats and the natural environment.

3. The new NPPF is not a complete change of direction

Rather it makes clearer the obligations relating to the two parts of planning.

Firstly, it brings clarity to the Local Plan Making process. It guides, in greater detail, how Local Planning Authority Planners should take responsibility for the future planning of their authority area. As before, it details specific topics that need addressing and gives clarity on how to address those issues – the main difference is that is makes plan making even more systematic. It also gives decision makers – planning officers and planning inspectors – much clearer parameters on what needs assessing when a proposal is submitted via a planning application or appeal.

4. So where are the changes?

NPPF MKII introduces the Housing Delivery Test; a wider definition of Affordable Housing; affordable housing to be provided only if the site forms a major application (or is within a designated ‘rural’ area); a direction to consider higher densities of development in suitable locations; and a number of changes to Green Belt policy wording that will give Local Planning Authorities clarity over making changes to Green Belt Boundaries as well as freeing up small scale development within the Green Belt.

The Housing Delivery Test has been signposted throughout this year and last and the first real scrutiny of this standardised formula for addressing housing needs and delivery will be when the figures are published during November and any subsequent Local Plans go through an update or examination post 25th January 2019.

There is now a specific section within the NPPF that places much more emphasis on the process of identifying land for homes

There is now a specific section within the NPPF that places much more emphasis on the process of identifying land for homes. This is much clearer than the previous NPPF provisions, although is not adding anything materially different to what practitioners should have been doing already. What it does do is make this process more explicit and therefore less ambiguous.

The Affordable Housing definition is more reflective of other means of providing new affordable homes.

The reason for this is to decrease the gap in affordability. It will certainly give developers a chance to make a more meaningful contribution towards affordable housing and it will allow landowners to continue to achieve a fair price for their land. The introduction of Starter Homes, Self-build and Custom-build via national policy is also new to the NPPF, having previously been a Written Ministerial Statement.

NPPF MKII now puts pressure on Local Planning Authorities to use land more efficiently where it is sensible to do so. It normally translates into taller buildings within the city environment and a greater number of smaller houses – i.e. 1 / 2 / 3 bed dwellings rather than land hungry 4 / 5+ bed dwellings and bungalows. There are always competing pressures in this area of planning because good masterplanning allows for breathable and open spaces, wide roads and multi functional landscaped areas, achieving well-designed places.

The Green Belt Chapter has seen its first overhaul since the early planning policy guidance note 2 from the 1990s. This chapter rather usefully has been published separating out the local plan processes for adopting a green belt, making changes to the boundary and assessing whether land ought to be contained within the green belt. It also directs LPAs to explore all other options for delivering housing land before making changes to the green belt. This is a tougher test than before, because this requires the LPA to look at housing land in adjacent authority areas that might be suitable to address their needs prior to releasing any of their own green belt land. Albeit this is a test that has been inherent in plan making since the origins of green belt policy and only recently has it become confusing due to the duty to cooperate provision introduced in 2011.

Other nuances in the changed wording means that it is now a simpler justification for smaller housing schemes in villages and for affordable housing sites adjacent to smaller settlements. There was a test for the effect on openness within the previous NPPF and it appears that test has now been disregarded insofar as it relates to infill and small-scale affordable housing. There is now an explicit provision for neighbourhood and community groups to bring forward development of all types via an ‘Order’ within the green belt, providing that it can preserve openness and does not conflict with the five purposes of the green belt listed at the beginning of the chapter.

The NPPF MKII makes it much clearer how decision makers will make their decisions

There is a moderation of the meaning ‘rural worker’ that has increased its scope to include those who take ‘majority control of a farm business’. The implications here are that farm business owners will now be able to justify an additional dwelling within either the farm itself or in close proximity to the farm. For succession planning in the rural community this will certainly have far reaching benefits, such as to aid retiring farm workers to justify a new dwelling in locations that were previously seen to be unacceptable. It does make logical sense though, considering the provision for barn conversions within Permitted Development Rights exists.

In short, the NPPF MKII makes it much clearer how decision makers will make their decisions and what we can expect from our planning system in response to our submission of planning applications, appeals or engagement with Local Plan processes.