Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

Does the new NPPF mean business? Definitely…maybe.
At the end of June just before the General Election we wrote here about the urgent economic and budgetary challenges facing the incoming government, and in particular what role planning reform could play in turbo-charging the economy. This included sharpening up the National Planning Policy Statement (NPPF) to provide a clearer mandate for economic considerations in plan-making and decision-taking.
The wait was short, as at the end of July we were presented with the consultation on proposed changes to the NPPF. Since then, new Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves has stated that the £22 billion ‘blackhole’ in the public finances that Labour has inherited is greater than was previously known, whilst figures from the Office for National Statistics released this month also showed that public borrowing in June exceeded expectations. If the case for growth wasn’t already clear enough, Keir Starmer pointedly reminded us this week that growth is the government’s number one priority in order to ‘fix the foundations’ whilst also trailing ‘painful’ choices to be made in the upcoming Budget on October 30th.
In that context, at face value, the changes to NPPF chapter 6 (Building a strong, competitive economy) may have seemed modest, but on closer examination there are some important changes to consider.
Paragraph 84(b) (previously para 86) now requires planning policies to both set criteria and identify strategic sites for local and inward investment, where previously they were only required to do one or the other. That one-word change has significant implications in mandating local plans to specifically provide sites that are capable of meeting a range of investment needs – that might imply larger sites in accessible locations and well serviced (or capable of being) by quality infrastructure, and with policies that are sufficiently flexible to accommodate a range of potential employment uses. The concept of doing this might not seem particularly novel, but many recent local plans seem to have regarded this exercise as somewhat optional which will now no longer be the case.
Perhaps most significantly though is the introduction of what might be termed the ‘modern economy test’ – i.e. an new express requirement for policies to provide for the needs of a modern economy, “including suitable locations for uses such as laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics.” Many of these uses are comparatively land hungry, each have their own specific locational requirements, and are urgently needed. The government is, rightly, concerned about the opportunity cost of not adequately planning for them, which is the UK lagging well behind other leading economies. The commercial real estate sector has also been calling for recognition of these uses for some time, but while these are singled out as key industries it is also clear that this list is not intended to be exhaustive.
The government believes this change will create a “positive expectation” that suitable sites for these uses will be identified in local plans. Local authorities will need to actively demonstrate how they have considered and meet this test based on an assessment of the potential scale of demand and the locational needs of such uses in their area, and associated planning practice guidance might need to be updated to reinforce this expectation. There will also be a role for these industries to put forward their own their need and locational case.
Paragraph 85 (previously para 87) has also had an overhaul to support growth industries within both plan-making and planning decisions, by setting more explicit expectations about the commercial requirements that the government believes require particular recognition:
 
  • 85 a) now provides support for proposals for new or upgraded facilities and infrastructure (including data centres and electricity network grid connections) that are key to the growth of knowledge, creative, high technology and data-driven sectors;
     
  • 85 b) broadens the range of factors relevant to planning for storage and distribution operations – previously this related only to provision “at a variety of scales in suitably accessible locations”, but such operations can now also be justified where they would support decarbonisation, adaptation to changing patterns of global trade and supply chains (for example linked to port-centric logistics or important manufacturing clusters), and the adoption of new technologies in the transport, distribution and storage sectors; and
     
  • 85 c) is a new clause which supports the expansion or modernisation of other key growth industries – i.e. outside of those already identified in paragraphs 85 a) and 85 b) above – by setting an expectation that additional commercial sites should be identified in plans and positively considered in planning decisions, when they are of local, regional or national importance, and to further support economic growth and resilience. In isolation this requirement may seem very broadly defined, but will start to come into focus when eventually read alongside the new national industrial strategy that Labour have promised and as Local Growth Plans (or indeed other refreshed local economic strategies) come forward. This provides renewed opportunity for economic strategy and planning policy to be working closely in tandem, and local areas can use this to their advantage to support future investment and to meet evolving business needs.
Collectively these are important changes, and of course, sit within the context of the wider NPPF measures proposed to accelerate growth, notably in relation to strategic planning and the intention to move to a model of universal strategic planning covering functional economic areas within the next five years, implementing a new mandatory standard method for assessing housing needs, and identifying grey belt land within the Green Belt to meet development (including commercial) needs. In parallel, the government is also consulting on the potential for data centres, gigafactories and laboratories to be prescribed as a type of business and commercial Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) and be directed into the NSIP consenting regime (potentially defined by scale).
Given the urgency of the growth challenge in the years ahead, could the proposed NPPF changes on economic planning have gone further? Maybe.
For example, more definitively signalling for greater weight to be placed on economic growth considerations, or introducing a requirement for a 5-year rolling supply of ‘market-ready’ commercial land would be helpful (sometimes it is not just how much land is allocated, but whether there is consistent availability over the life of a local plan to respond to market needs that matters).
These could be considered as part of future updates to guidance, and ultimately, planning is only one of a number of policy levers that the government will need to engage to support the economy. It will need to be matched with timely measures and incentives on infrastructure, innovation and skills just to name a few, and we can expect the Budget in October to give us further pointers in this regard.
The NPPF consultation closes on 24 September 2024.

Image credit: Brett Sayles via Pexels 

 

CONTINUE READING

NPF4 and the impact on major planning application decisions
My summer intern project for Lichfields’ Edinburgh office looked at the application of NPF4 policies to Major Planning Applications in Edinburgh and the Lothians.
 
The introduction of Scotland’s fourth National Planning Framework on the 13th of February 2023 has had significant impact on many local authorities’ planning decisions. From contradictory local development plans to court cases and confusion, the implementation of NPF4 hasn’t been all smooth sailing. Through researching the major planning applications validated by the four Edinburgh and Lothian local authorities since the publication of NPF4, we have sought to understand which NPF4 policies are influencing planning decisions most and how different local authorities are interpreting and using NPF4 to discuss and decide major planning applications.
From the research, it is clear to see that the policies referenced most belonged on the whole to the ‘Sustainable Places’ section of the framework (Policies 1-13). Policy 14 Design, quality and place is the exception to this. The policy most readily utilised was Policy 3 Biodiversity, used more often than even Policy 1 that looks to “encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency[1]. Policy 3 has more tangible outcomes than some of the other policies and specifically seeks to enhance and protect the biodiversity of development sites and surrounding areas.  Through this policy developments are required to deliver positive effects and strengthen the nature of the site. Likely due to its more objective approach and the priority given in NPF4 to the climate and nature crises, Policy 3 has been both the most used policy when granting planning permission, and the most used policy in refusal decisions as well.
  
Two policies that also garnered attention in many committee reports were Policy 13 and Policy 14. Focused on ‘Sustainable Transport’ and ‘Design, Quality and Place’, respectively, Policy 13 and 14 reinforced a large number of proposals and were influential in many of the development decisions. Policy 14 and its particular emphasis on the six qualities of successful places informed how many of the Councils approached different proposals. Throughout the proposal evaluations, reference was made to the six qualities, which seek to create healthy, pleasant, connected, distinctive, sustainable, and adaptable places, and the impact of these on sites was considered heavily. ‘Sustainable Transport’ was also at the forefront of many considerations with great concern given to the accessibility and proximity of public transport links, reductions in private car reliance, and the promotion of sustainable travel practices, such as cycling.
 
As might be expected, the four local authorities all utilised and prioritised policies differently depending on the application. For example, Policy 14 Design, Quality and Place was referenced in 95% of Edinburgh’s reports compared to 11% of Midlothian’s. Instead, Midlothian was more focussed on proposals that impacted Policy 6 Forestry, Woodland, and Trees with 67% of committee reports citing Policy 6 in their decision making. Policy 7 Historic Assets and Places was, unsurprisingly, used the most in proposals and reports pertaining to sites in Edinburgh with 90% of committee reports placing significant weight on the impacts of the site on Edinburgh’s skyline, historic buildings, and UNESCO World Heritage status. Comparatively, the three Lothian local authorities referenced Policy 7 once each across all their major applications.
 
The relatively underused policies in the latter half of NPF4 may be reflective of the types of proposals submitted but it is interesting that combined, Policies 16-33 were referred to in committee reports a total of 87 times, compared to 229 mentions of Policies 1-15. Interestingly, technical policies such as Policy 19 Heat and Cooling, and Policy 24 Digital Infrastructure gained one mention between them. This could be strictly due to relevancy; however, it will be interesting to see if these policies receive more use over time.
 
In Edinburgh and the Lothians since NPF4 was adopted there have been 88 Major Planning Applications validated. Of these:

  • 31 have been granted planning permission

  • 6 have been refused

  • 3 have been withdrawn, and

  • 48 are undecided
Mindful that Scottish Government’s latest figures reported a decline in major development applications and increasing decision times for Q2 of 2023/24 [2],we looked at whether or not Major applications were being decided within target timescales (4 months) since NPF4 was adopted. East Lothian came closest with an average of 4.5 months for decisions on 4 decided Major applications. Midlothian averaged 5.4 months for 10 decided Major applications, West Lothian 6.3 months for 6 decided Major applications and Edinburgh 7.6 months for 20 decided Major applications. 


In terms of NPF4’s challenges, housing development, in particular, has taken a knock with several factors contributing to delays in the approval of developments. One such factor is NPF4’s new land allocation policy outlined in Policy 16 Quality Homes. Policy 16f) states that “development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP will only be supported in limited circumstances,”[2] making it “very difficult for housing sites not allocated in an LDP to be consented”.[3] Our research found that out of 28 major housing applications across Edinburgh and the Lothians since the introduction of NPF4, only 28.6% have been decided. In comparison, out of all major applications validated across the four local authorities since NPF4’s introduction 45.5% have been decided.
 


In conclusion, the policies of NPF4 that have been most universally used in Edinburgh and the Lothians in determining major applications since the adoption of NPF4 have been:
 
  • Policy 1. Tackling the climate and nature crises (59% of applications);

  • Policy 2. Climate mitigation and adaptation (57% of applications);

  • Policy 3. Biodiversity (76% of applications);

  • Policy 7. Historic assets and places, this was specific to Edinburgh though (57% of applications);

  • Policy 13. Sustainable transport (62% of applications); and

  • Policy 14. Design, quality and place (62% of applications).
 
In terms of decision making:
 
  • In total 88 applications have been made since the adoption of NPF4, 31 have been approved, 6 have been refused, 3 have been withdrawn and 48 remain undecided

  • 45% (39) have been for ‘other’ developments of which 51% have been approved and only 2 have been refused, 16 remain undecided

  • 32% (28) have been for ‘housing’ development of which only 4 have been approved and 3 have been refused, 20 reman undecided

  • Only 13% of approved applications are ‘housing’ applications, 43% of undecided applications are ‘housing’ applications and 50% of refused applications are ‘housing’ applications.
 
My internship is at an end now, but if you wish to discuss any of the above please contact Nicola Woodward  in our Edinburgh office.

 

Image credit: Benjamin Elliott via Unsplash

[1] Scottish Government (2023) National Planning Framework 4. Page 36.
[2] Scottish Government (2023) National Planning Framework 4. Page 63.
[3] Scottish Construction Now (2023) NPF4 adding to Scotland’s planning woes. (LINK).
[4] Scottish Government (2024) Planning Applications Statistics 2023/24: Quarterly (April 2023 to September 2023). (LINK).

CONTINUE READING

Within a few days of the General Election being called, Lord Patrick Vallance, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, declared that another pandemic was “absolutely inevitable” warning that “we are not ready yet” [1]. Interestingly, Vallance has now been appointed Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation in the new Government and within a week of his appointment announced that the UK science and technology sectors were “open for business” at the G7 Science and Technology Ministerial in Italy [2].
Lord Vallance’s seer-like skills have quickly been borne out with the first case of a contagious new form of the mpox virus being reported in Sweden. The World Health Organisation (WHO) subsequently have declared a global public health emergency, with the clade 1b form of the disease already killing more than 500 people in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) [3].
So how can planning contribute to this evident need to step-up Life Sciences research? Helpfully, a policy shift in favour of Life Sciences can at last be seen in the new Government’s policy and planning agenda. Labour has identified these changes to facilitate a wider ‘kick-start’ of the economy and to boost the UK’s economic growth in the long-term.

Image credit: Bioscience Catalyst © Alamy

This has been reflected in the Government’s recent proposed reforms to national planning policy which recognises that access to laboratory space is crucial for the sector’s research and development and would allow the UK to stay at the “cutting edge of research-intensive sectors such as the life sciences” [4]. The draft NPPF consultation suggests changes to policy including Local Plan development which would make it easier to build labs alongside other developments which would support the modern economy, as noted:
 
“Appropriate sites for commercial development which meet the needs of a modern economy should be identified, including suitable locations for uses such as laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics” (our emphasis) [5].
 
In addition to the above, the Government are consulting on expanding the National Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) consenting regime to categorise data centres, gigafactories and laboratories as business and commercial NSIPs. This could essentially enable Life Science proposals to benefit from the advantages of the DCO consenting process, with greater weight likely to be applied to the value of the sector in any decision.
 
It remains to be seen what type and scale of life science development would qualify for consenting under the NSIP regime, and whether this alternative approach proves attractive to the sector.
 
Whilst there has been support from key stakeholders within the wider science industry for these proposed changes, it is evident that there remains an urgent need for an increased supply in new life science spaces to keep up with demand for laboratory space. Recent significant approvals and updates to life sciences developments across the UK, include:
 
  • Stevenage Bioscience Campus including Bioscience Catalyst and Cell Therapy Building [6]
  • Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies’ facility, Billingham [7]
  • Newcastle Helix/Science Central, Newcastle [8]
  • British Land’s 1 Triton Square [9]
  • Elevate Quarter Life Science Campus, Stevenage [10]
  • Paddington Life Sciences Innovation Cluster within the Imperial WestTech Corridor [11]
  • Delancey’s Life Sciences and technology-focused building at Kings Cross [12]
  • hVIVO Clinical Trial Facility and Canary Wharf Group & Kadans Science Partner’s Life Sciences buildings in Canary Wharf [13]
  • Crown Estate’s Former Debenhams Store, Oxford [14]
  • AstraZeneca’s £650 million investment at Speke and Cambridge sites[15]
     

Image credit: Science Central © FaulknerBrowns Architects


Looking forward, with support for life sciences as a sector at the forefront of the new Government’s agenda to stimulate growth, it will be interesting to see if more R&D and Life Science schemes come through the planning process unscathed.
Time will also tell if the Government will be able to continue to support this fast-moving sector beyond its positive amendments to policy, given other funding priorities. The Chancellor Rachel Reeves is believed to be considering reducing the government support by over £20 million in the AstraZeneca Speke vaccine manufacturing proposal as part of a wider review of public finances, with some suggesting that AstraZeneca may relocate the project to France [16].
Nonetheless, the question remains: will the introduction of clearer policy support for the sector help to make us more resilient in terms of preparing for the next pandemic. Despite a promising start and key funding announcements [17] the Conservatives were unable to make substantive progress. Through a greater coordination of policy and national strategies, will Labour ensure that these type of developments can be supported and fast-tracked to allow for development to work towards strengthening our resilience against Covid and other infectious diseases? We, alongside our clients in the sector, will be watching closely…
 
Lichfields are well placed to advise on Life Sciences developments through our various experience and significant contacts in the industry. We would be happy to discuss future projects within this emerging sector for anyone that is interested and please contact us for more information.

Image credit: Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies’ Billingham facility © FujiFilm Diosynth

 

[1] Another pandemic is 'absolutely inevitable', says Patrick Vallance, The Guardian

[2] Science minister outlines open arms approach to international science at g7 ministerial with several new agreements, www.gov.uk

[3] Disease Outbreak News, Mpox - Democratic Republic of the Congo, World Health Organization

[4] Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system - GOV.UK, www.gov.uk

[5] National Planning Policy Framework: draft text for consultation, publishing.service.gov.uk

[6] Space, www.stevenagecatalyst.com

[7] FUJIFILM Diosynth Biotechnologies Breaks Ground on Large-Scale Microbial Manufacturing Facility Expansion in Billingham, UK, fujifilmdiosynth.com

[8] About, Newcastle Helix

[9] Inside The £385M Deal That’s A Platform For British Land’s London Life Sciences Charge, www.bisnow.com

[10] New £900m life science campus approved, BBC

[11] Imperial WestTech Corridor, www.imperial.ac.ukPaddington life sciences, www.imperial.nhs.uk

[12] Go-ahead for £170m King’s Cross life sciences office project, www.constructionenquirer.com

[13] New clinical trial hub to open in Canary Wharf as demand for life sciences space heats up, www.cityam.com & New life sciences tower signals Canary Wharf gamechanger, www.cityam.com

[14] The Crown Estate announces significant new partnership to provide vital workspace to support UK’s science, technology and innovation ambitions, www.thecrownetate.co.uk

[15] AstraZeneca plans £650 million investment in UK, www.gov.uk

[16] AstraZeneca vaccine project in doubt as UK Treasury seeks to cut state aid, Financial Times

[17] Chancellor reveals life sciences growth package to fire up economy, www.gov.uk

 

CONTINUE READING

Don’t stock till you get enough: what it means for the East Midlands Local Planning Authorities?
Following on from Myles’ Stock right there: What does the new Standard Method mean for the West Midlands? Myles and I explore what the Government’s proposed new standard method [SM] changes mean for the local planning authorities [LPAs] in the East Midlands. It provides a comparison between the current SM figures, and the new proposed SM figures, as well as the implications of the proposed changes on both plan-making and decision-taking.
The East Midlands' new standard method figures
The new local housing needs [LHN] figures, under the proposed SM, for all East Midlands LPAs are set out in the below map. This includes the percentage change between the current SM and the new proposed SM.

Under the new proposed SM, 89% of LPAs in the East Midlands will see an increase in their LHN figures. The chart below compares the regional LHNs under the proposed method with those under the current method. Notably, five authorities — East Lindsey, Bassetlaw, North East Derbyshire, Derbyshire Dales, and Chesterfield — will experience over a 150% increase in their LHN.
Conversely, Derby, Nottingham and Leicester will see a decrease due to the removal of 35% urban centre uplift. Interestingly, Charnwood’s proposed new LHN figure would decrease by c.9% as a result of the proposed changes. This is because Charnwood was projected to see one of the highest household population growths per annum in the region in the 2014-based projections.
Even with some decreases, the East Midlands is projected to deliver 27,382 dwellings per annum (dpa) under the new method, compared to 20,793 dpa under the current method — a c.32% increase. However, it is only a 20% increase when compared to the average delivery rates over the past three years.

Nottingham Housing Market Area 

Based on Lichfields’ analysis, the new proposed SM would bring an increase for most LPAs within the Nottingham Core Housing Market Area [HMA], which is made up of five authorities [1]. Broxtowe, in particular, will see the largest increase, with a 274 dpa boost—71% higher than the current method. This also represents a 45% increase over the currently adopted requirement.
Of the five authorities in the Nottingham Core HMA, only Nottingham will see a decrease in its LHN due to the removal of the 35% urban uplift, resulting in a reduction of approximately 394 dpa. As a result, the new SM still projects a figure that is 9 dpa higher than Nottingham’s average delivery over the past three years.
Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area

With respect to Leicester and Leicestershire HMA, which consists of 8 authorities [2], the most significant changes will be seen in Melton and Oadby and Wigston. With the new SM, these authorities will see an increase of 92-96% compared to their current SM figures. With respect to dwelling numbers, these authorities will be expected to deliver an additional c.178 dpa and c.191 dpa more than with the current method respectively.
Whilst Leicester will see a decrease of 31%, due to the removal of 35% urban centre uplift, compared to the LHN figure with the current SM, this figure is still c.676 dpa higher than what the authority has delivered on average over the past three years.
Overall, the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA will only see a marginal increase of 8% under the new SM – largely driven by the removal of the 35% urban uplift from Leicester. Whilst, on the face of it, the issues surrounding Leicester’s purported unmet housing need may be ameliorated, most of the constituent authorities' indigenous needs have increased such that they will likely still need to plan for higher housing needs than they currently area.
What are the impacts on planning and when will these needs come into effect in terms of plan-making?
As set out in detail here, in order to address the housing needs generated by the new proposed SM, the Government’s draft NPPF consultation proposes a transitional arrangement for plan-making, which will have significant and immediate implications for East Midlands authorities.
Lichfields’ analysis of East Midlands LPAs indicates that these changes will have an immediate impact on most authorities. Over half of the East Midlands LPAs (35 in total) currently at the Regulation 18 stage will need to use the new SM immediately after the new NPPF is adopted. Sixteen LPAs, either at the Examination stage or yet to start their local plan review, will need to incorporate the new SM in future new style Local Plans. However, Amber Valley will need to update its Emerging Plan within 18 months to meet the new SM requirements, addressing an additional 306 dpa, as it is currently at the Regulation 19 pre-submission stage and falls more than 200 dpa short of the new SM.
This is of course subject to LPAs following their Local Development Scheme timescales, as of Autumn 2024, when the changes are expected to come into effect. These changes will invariably place pressure on LPAs as they work to meet these targets within a tight timeframe – albeit, the Government has stated that will provide “direct funding support to help these authorities progress their plans to examination quickly” [3].

What does this mean for decision-taking?
The NPPF consultation proposes to reverse the changes made in the December 2o23 NPPF version, in respect of the requirement for LPAs to demonstrate a five year housing land supply (“5YHLS”), and return to the September 2023 approach. What this means for LPAs that do not have a Local Plan that is up to date, in terms of 5YHLS, is that the SM will be used to calculate the area’s housing need.
Lichfields’ analysis suggests that by Autumn 2024, 26 out of 35 LPAs in the region will see immediate impacts on their 5YHLS, with 22 authorities required to provide additional dpa and four seeing a reduction in needs. Nine authorities are not expected to experience an immediate impact on their 5YHLS.
In practical terms, this means that many East Midlands LPAs will likely not be able to demonstrate a 5YHLS. By way of example, Hinckley and Bosworth’s purported 5.6 year supply, would decrease to 3.34 years if the draft NPPF and new SM are adopted in Autumn 2024. As a result, many LPAs in the region will need to identify land to accommodate these additional requirements in due course.

Summary
The proposed new SM will necessitate significant changes to how many LPAs in the East Midlands are approaching plan-making and decision-taking once the NPPF consultation is completed and the proposed changes are adopted. Whilst authorities such as Derby, Nottingham and Leicester will see a decrease in their LHN figure, most authorities will need to find markedly more land to accommodate the proposed additional dwellings generated by the new SM. A failure to respond positively will inevitably lead to greater planning by appeal when the required 5YHLS cannot be satisfied.

 

 

[1] Comprising Broxtowe, Gedling, Nottingham, Erewash and Rushcliffe
[2] Comprising Blaby, Charnwood, Harborough, Hinckley & Bosworth, Leicester, Melton, North West Leicestershire, and Oadby and Wigston
[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system#chapter-12--the-future-of-planning-policy-and-plan-making

CONTINUE READING