In September 2011, the Prime Minister had to intervene in a row over the new draft National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), first published on 25 July, writes Tom Newcombe, a senior associate with law firm Birketts.

Whilst certain organisations (such as the British Property Federation) have welcomed the draft, many have raised strong concerns that it will have a detrimental effect on open spaces, the countryside and the Green Belt. The Government, they say, has not succeeded in selling the document to the general public.

Complaints regarding the existing planning system centre around its complexity and over centralisation in terms of policy decision making, meaning local people felt divorced from planning decisions. Developers say they are not able to build what is needed, including new homes.

The aim of the NPPF is to bring together the Planning Policy Statements, Planning Policy Guidance notes and a few of the current planning Circulars - meaning a 53 page document replacing more than 1000 pages of current guidance. Inevitably, there are gaps and areas of concern, but there are also many misconceptions as to how the NPPF will operate.

Arguably the key element of the draft NPPF is the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” designed to allow development where there are policy gaps at a local level. This is at the centre of the hostility to the document, with many believing that it will result in development in open spaces, green spaces and the Green Belt.

However, this presumption is rebuttable. It only applies (if brought into force without amendment) where the local plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date. It will not apply where the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the NPPF as a whole.

In some areas of the country, local plan policies are out of date or still being formulated and there may well be circumstances where the presumption will come to a developer’s aid, but much of the concern about ‘concreting-over’ green space is misguided.

Nowhere in the NPPF is this clearer then in the section on Green Belt. This is a very effective condensation of the existing policy (PPG2) on Green Belts and is almost 90 per cent shorter.

Whilst there are some concessions regarding development of existing ‘major developed sites’ and other relatively minor changes, arguably the key change is that extension, alteration or replacement of a ‘building’ is now proposed to be allowed, whereas previously this was only available for a ‘dwelling’.   

It is, therefore, proposed to allow the extension or alteration a building providing that these changes do not result in a disproportionate addition ‘over and above’ the original size. It is also possible to replace the building completely, provided the new building is not materially larger than the one it replaces.   

This will be of considerable use for commercial landowners within the Green Belt and for householders with outbuildings which do not fall within the curtilage of their dwelling and therefore couldn’t previously take advantage of Permitted Development rights.

Cambridge is, of course, surrounded by a very wide Green Belt zone and this part of the NPPF will be of much interest locally. However, the changes proposed are unlikely to have a significant detrimental effect on the Green Belt zone surrounding Cambridge.

Much of the NPPF follows a similar trend, slimming down the existing policy without significantly weakening the protection offered, for example with heritage assets and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The issue with the NPPF has really been one of timing and communication. The draft NPPF is jargonistic, and in places comes across as a more aspirational rather than instructive document. This has been a theme of the Government planning reforms to date, with Ministers such as Eric Pickles and Greg Clark insisting it is a deliberate desire not to too prescriptive. However, certainty of the planning system and its ability to be precisely interpreted and enforceable is as important as its ability to be read and digested quickly.

Reform of the Planning system is a good thing, and the draft NPPF (whilst not perfect) is a good start. It arguably is more interesting and informative than the Localism Bill which is currently nearing the end of its journey through Parliament.

However, in order to avoid the backlash the Government has experienced to date, communication needs to be clearer. The drafting must be more precise and the aims must not be confused. As an example, the very phrase ‘sustainable development’ is still not clearly defined, despite being the key principle. Hardly a surprise then that many have viewed the draft NPPF with suspicion and hostility.

The consultation on the draft NPPF runs until October 17 so if you do have an interest in the planning system, be sure to have your say.

• This article has been written by Tom Newcombe, a senior associate with law firm Birketts LLP (offices in Ipswich, Cambridge, Chelmsford and Norwich) - email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
It provides only a general summary and is not intended to be comprehensive. Specific legal advice should be taken in any individual application. Law covered as at 27 September 2011. © Birketts LLP 2011.