Counties warn NPPF reforms risk ‘developer free-for-all’ and loss of local control

In a report on the Government's proposed changes to the NPPF, the County Councils' Network (CCN) has raised a number of concerns and called for an end to the requirement that councils maintain a five-year supply where an authority has an up-to-date local plan.

The Government launched a consultation on reforms to the framework in December last year, which will see the reintroduction of mandatory strategic planning through 'Spatial Development Strategies' (SDSs), changes to the approach to sustainable development and the tilted balance, and the strengthening of a focus on delivering economic growth, among others.

However, in its response to the consultation, the CCN has said it is "concerned that the document will remove significant local control from councils, centralising decision-making policies with authorities having very little opportunity to set their own distinct policies for decision-making".

It described the NPPF changes as "highly permissive" that would make it difficult for councils to refuse development.

It raised concern about the introduction of SDSs and the "lack of distinction" between the content of SDSs versus Local Plans. It urged a "much stronger direction" in national policy to give clarity to plan-makers, adding: "We also have concerns over the sequencing of plan-making as it currently stands.

"We understand the need for local plans to be up to date, but given the requirement that local plans are in general conformity with SDS, we would urge these to come forward first."

It continued: "Bringing SDSs forward first will help to provide evidence for local plans which will ultimately save money. It will also save a significant amount of time bringing local plans forward once an SDS has been adopted, rather than local plans being updated now, only to require updating once an SDS is adopted."

Elsewhere, the response criticised proposed changes that would encourage development around train stations. It said new policy that says councils should approve development near any train station with four or more trains an hour, opens rural stations to "speculative and damaging development".

The CCN also said that, under the changes, councils will be told to approve development on the outskirts of towns and villages where there is ‘unmet need’, which could lead to increased piecemeal and speculative development, regardless of infrastructure capacity.

In addition, it reiterated its opposition to the standard method for assessing housing need and housing targets imposed on CCN member areas under previous amendments to the NPPF.

On this point, it said the standard method does not "truly reflect" the housing need of a local area and has resulted in "excessively" high housing targets, adding: "Combined with policies such as the five-year housing land supply and the housing delivery test, these policies are setting authorities up to fail.

"While we recognise that housing need remains high, we would urge the government to revisit the standard method and give more powers to authorities to enforce the build out of housing with planning permission."

Calling for the scrapping of the five-year housing land supply, the CCN said developers undermined the policy "to gain permission at appeal on sites that are often not allocated in the local plan, and in unsustainable locations".

It said: "The Government should scrap the requirement to maintain a five-year supply where an authority has an up-to-date local plan or publish stronger guidance to ensure that it is not gamed."

Cllr Andrew Husband, Housing and Planning Spokesperson for the County Councils Network, said: “If the government implements these ‘one size fits all’ policies that supersede local decision-making in tandem with its housing targets and its re-introduction of the five-year land supply, then rural and county areas could face a developer free-for-all at a time when their infrastructure is already buckling under the strain. Councils will have extremely limited powers to prevent unsuitable and unpopular development, which could lead to public distrust in the planning system.

“Some of these measures may be appropriate in large urban areas, but in rural communities even a few dozen homes can dramatically change the character of a village. Government should rethink its approach and ensure that housing growth is matched by investment in roads, public services and local infrastructure.”

Adam Carey