The new NPPF – why planning is becoming harder and less predictable

As Odysseus recounted his too-long journey home, telling tales of lotus-eaters and the cyclops, the no-good-choice between Charybdis and Scylla, the magic of Circe and the wrath of Helios, he may at least have been relieved he hadn’t been trying to secure planning permission for new homes.

Applicants are continually presented with new obstacles to overcome, from ever rising planning application fees, systemic inefficiencies, a wave of AI-generated objections, local planning authorities deciding not to bother with a local plan or refusing to accept amendments to planning applications. The planning journey is becoming harder, less predictable and less financially rewarding.

The latest challenge is the new National Planning Policy Framework.

The changes might intend to deliver both a “clear, rules-based” system and more new homes, but they will inevitably result in short-term turbulence. There’s a good chance, too, that the longer-term will reveal the new policies don’t mean what we think they do.

Despite their apparently pro-development intent, not all of the new policies are helpful. Development will now only be allowed outside settlements in “exceptional circumstances,” unless proposals meet a shortlist of exceptions. This is a tightening of policy and a very high bar indeed - a reverse titled balance that will make it harder for local authorities to pro-actively manage supply. The need must arise before it can be addressed. Combined with the slow pace of our system, it risks leaving us in a state of permanent shortage.

The government’s new Connectivity Tool also looks likely to have unintended consequences. The first piece of software to be embedded in planning policy, it is designed to help direct development to the least car dependent places by numerically scoring their accessibility relative to the most accessible place in the country (presumably somewhere in London). The Tool should, in theory, be just one factor in determining accessibility and be used in a context specific way – rural areas are much different to urban ones, for example. But there is a grim inevitability that some local authorities will set an arbitrary numerical score below which they won’t support development.

Elsewhere, there is already confusion as to what policies intended to provide more certainty actually mean. A recent appeal decision in Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor – a name as fantastical as anything Homer came up with – appears to suggest that failing to meet the need for affordable homes could be sufficient to trigger the tilted balance. When almost no local authority can boast an adequate affordable housing supply, that interpretation would make it far easier to secure permission for new homes outside of settlements. A debate is already raging on LinkedIn as to whether that interpretation is correct.

Another recent appeal decision apparently suggests you can be “within” a settlement whilebeing outside the defined settlement boundary.

Other uncertainties already highlighted include the way “unmet need” is apparently defined differently for grey belt sites than it is for all other locations - surely an accident - and that “well-connected stations” are identified by reference to their service frequency across an undefined “daytime” period.

These issues, and no doubt others we haven’t noticed yet, will need testing at appeal and in the courts. It will be years before we know what they mean, creating huge uncertainty for applicants. 

The ever-increasing time it takes for applications to be determined calls into question one of the central planks of the planning system – that applications are decided based on policy (and other material considerations) at the time of the decision 

Compounding that uncertainty is the frequency with which national policy is changed. Over the last five years, the Framework has been updated every 414 days on average. The median outline application for new homes takes 439 days to determine. At the same time as the cost of a planning application inexorably rises, it is becoming harder to know what policies will actually be used to decide whether the application should be approved.

Whenever the plan-making process is changed, the government includes generous transitional arrangements. There is a recognition that preparing a local plan is expensive and time consuming, and that local authorities shouldn’t be penalised by a rule change. That’s why some local plans are still being assessed against the 2024 version of national policy.

Planning applications are expensive and time consuming too, so why aren’t applicants afforded the same courtesy? Why not state that the new framework only applies to applications submitted after it is published? Every single planning application is made because the applicant believes it is consistent with policy at that point; no-one is penalised by still applying the policies in place at that point.

Indeed, the ever-increasing time it takes for applications to be determined calls into question one of the central planks of the planning system – that applications are decided based on policy (and other material considerations) at the time of the decision. That was entirely sensible, and defensible, when applications took thirteen weeks to process. Things didn’t change all that much. But that hasn’t been the case for a very long time – and the complexity of our system means it is unlikely to ever be so again. 

The value of more permissive policies is limited when they are constantly in flux 

A system that requires six figure sums to be spent on applications but can’t promise what criteria will be used to reach a decision is one tailor-made to disincentivise investment. With the growing viability crisis seeing the rewards for success diminishing, it’s no wonder we’re starting to see even big companies, like Kier and Harworth, withdraw from the housing sector.

The value of more permissive policies is limited when they are constantly in flux. We need a system where the rules are clear, the process is predictable, and the destination stays still long enough to get there. Odysseus’s confidence he would make it home and the reward waiting for him when he arrived made persevering with the tribulations of his journey worthwhile. For now, at least, the same can’t be said for residential developers.

Paul Smith is managing director of the Strategic Land Group