Changes to National Planning Policy

The NPPF is very much at the heart of the planning system, and must be taken into account by local planning authorities in the production of local plans, and in the determination of planning applications. It is therefore an important part of the protection of National Landscapes such as the Chilterns.

In a statement accompanying the publication of the new NPPF, the Government identified ‘strengthening policy on Protected Landscapes’ as one of the ‘key changes’ made to the NPPF following an earlier consultation, and there are certainly positive changes, including:

• The addition of reference to section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: this is the first time that the Protected Landscapes Duty has been explicitly referred to in the planning system, and should help immensely in ensuring local planning authorities (and others) take due account of the Chilterns National Landscape in their activity.
• Protected Landscape Management Plans are now explicitly referred to as evidence for the preparation of development plans.
• New inclusion of chalk streams as examples of natural features that need special consideration, and new requirements for protecting or improving watercourses more generally.

There are some changes of concern, however, including the following:

• Removal of the reference to Protected Landscapes having ‘the highest status of protection’.
• Removal of reference to wildlife and cultural heritage as important considerations in National Landscapes.
• The relative weighting of planning policies has been altered, and Protected Landscapes now share ‘substantial weight’ with a large number of other policy areas, effectively reducing its status.
• ‘Exceptional circumstances’ considerations for major development proposals in Protected Landscapes continue to be weakly defined as meeting need, the cost of alternatives and the capacity for mitigation.
• Proposals for development within settlements must take account of Protected Landscapes policy, but consideration of Protected Landscapes for proposals outside settlements is ambiguous, especially in relation to an apparent presumption in favour of developing land within 800m of a railway station.

Most crucially, though, as it underpins the entirety of NPPF policy, there is a redefinition of sustainable development, which is now more strongly linked to the delivery of development, rather than balancing economic, environmental and social objectives. This is further reflected in sweeping policies requiring plans to seek to meet the development needs of their area ‘as a minimum’, and the policies referred to above regarding development within and outside settlements, which require that development proposals should generally be approved.

It will take some time for the implications of the new policy to be fully understood and applied, and we shall monitor the situation closely.