Planning matters

 

Technical standards – covering areas such as housing design, accessibility, and water and energy efficiency – have long been a point of tension. Key issues include:

 

• Unclear evidence requirements: Local planning authorities (LPAs) are able to deviate from national standards subject to demonstrating local need. However, there are no clear parameters for what level of evidence is appropriate to justify this, resulting in a lack of consistency. 
   
• Fragmentation between authorities: Where LPAs deviate from national standards, developers can be met with inconsistency and confusion between authority areas. This is especially relevant for energy efficiency, where “varying standards across local plans make it difficult for the construction sector to adapt and deploy energy efficiency technologies at scale”[4].
   
• Duplication of Building Regulations: Overlapping requirements across Local Plans and Building Regulations can blur responsibilities and interpretation between planners and building control officers, and can lead to policies being superseded by changes to other regulations. 

The above issues can trigger disputes that extend determination times, create backlogs, cause viability issues, and significantly slow housing delivery which – when considering the ever-increasing pressure to deliver 1.5 million homes by 2029 – demonstrates a clear need to reform technical standards.

 

 

 

The consultation draft NPPF introduces a fundamental reset in how technical standards will operate through development plans. This is primarily delivered through draft Policy PM13, which significantly narrows both the scope and purpose of locally set quantitative standards. 

 

Under PM13, quantitative standards in development plans are limited to four areas only: 

• infrastructure provision; 
• affordable housing (and tenure mix on sites of 150+ homes); 
• parking and design; and 
• placemaking. 

Quantitative standards should not cover matters relating to the construction or internal layout of buildings unless they are to implement the Nationally Described Space Standard. They should also not stipulate energy performance levels in excess of Building Regulations.

 

PM13 demonstrates a clear preference for Building Regulations to take precedence over local standards. It states that, LPAs should avoid duplication with Building Regulations, except for:

 

1. Accessibility, where local need justifies local authorities to set separate requirements for M4(2) and M4(3) dwellings (subject to draft Policy HO5 discussed below); and
    
2. Water efficiency, where tighter optional standards may be justified, and more stringent local standards be applied in areas of serious water stress. 

Whilst there is flexibility in the application of M4(2) and M4(3) standards, draft Policy HO5 does expect “at least 40% of new housing delivered over the course of the plan to be delivered to M4(2) or M4(3) standards”[5].

 

While PM13 continues to allow local variation, any deviation from national standards must be justified by evidence of local characteristics and need, in accordance with draft Policy PM8. PM8 requires evidence to be proportionate, relevant, and up-to-date. 

Taken as a whole, Policy PM13 represents a clear step in the right direction. For plan-making, the policy should reduce the volume and complexity of local standards which, in turn, will simplify plan preparation, speed up examinations, and reduce the risk of plans being found unsound due to unnecessary or duplicative standards.

 

For developers, the policy provides greater consistency between local authority areas and thus fewer unexpected requirements. 

Lack of clarity on the quantitative standard areas: While PM13 restricts quantitative standards to four areas, it does not define the boundaries of those categories with sufficient precision. This is especially relevant for concepts such as “design” and “placemaking” which are inherently broad and open to interpretation. Without clearer parameters, there is a risk that further technical requirements could be introduced under these headings, undermining the policy’s intention to narrow the scope of local standards.

 

No clear evidence methodology: There are still no clear thresholds or parameters for assessing local need specifically for technical standards. Without clearer parameters, there is a risk that limited or qualitative evidence could still be relied upon to justify deviation from national benchmarks, especially in cases where Inspectors rely on planning judgment rather than testing compliance against a defined ‘bar’. 

 

Overall, the introduction of Policy PM13 is a positive move towards reducing unnecessary complications in the plan-making system. It’s clear that the Government has listened and responded positively to calls for change on this matter from the development industry. However, there are clarifications which could improve the changes further.

 

Before final publication, the government should establish clear definitions for the quantitative standard areas and develop a robust methodology for justifying deviation from technical standards.

 

The consultation period runs until 10th March 2026. Please get in touch if you would like further information or assistance in preparing and submitting representations to the consultation.