This page will gather together links and resources on the National Planning Policy Framework
FINAL
This link leads to the DCLG main page on the NPPF and accompanying guidance
DRAFT
Firstly the Draft Framework itself and accompanying documents may be found here
We have prepared evidence for the House of Commons Select Committee inquiry into it here
Our formal response to the consultation can be found here
Our alternative draft can be found here and the justification for it here. We continue to keep it up to date dealing with issues raised during consultation. The changes log is here
Responses from many key bodies can be found here
The DCLG select committee report can be found here
Decisions, Decisions, Decisions 
Pingback: NPPF: A field day for the planning lawyers | Miles King's Blog
We are totally opposed to the draft NPPF as published believing that it will open
the door to indiscriminate developement which will blight our English countryside.
Please add our names to any submissions you may make to the relevant authorities
Joan and Dennis Lyon
Utter nonsense !!!
Nothing to add to the above
Have you actually read the DNPPF???
How will ” indiscriminate developement ” be allowed in the green belt, national parks or AONB ? Please explain, as I would be interested as a landowner
Read our response to the NPPF listed above -significant chnages to policy on green belt, AONB and Nat parks
Doesn’t para 162 of the DNPPF :
“give great weight to protecting landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads. Planning permission should be refused for major developments in designated areas except in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest”
rule out new housing developments in these areas?
What is a “major development” ?
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9085
Housing has never been ruled out in these areas, major developments are those above 10 units
Andrew, how effective do you think The Localism Bill will be in preventing development outside planning boundaries, AONB, national Parks and green field sites?
http://www.quodplanning.com/2011/12/john-rhodes-on-the-nppf/
Thanks Tom – a good insight in to the reasons behind the NPPF
Andrew Baily,
It seems to me that as a specialist in property investment, you have a very vested interest in a planning system which favours development against the well established safe-guards employed with great success until the likes of you, your clients and other developers, clearly a minority lobby, decided to bleat to a sympathetic goverment.
Today’s responses from numerous organisations praising the findings of the select committee’s rather damning criticisms of the NPPF surely highlights its emphasis away from environmental concerns in favour of the economic without much balance, bar the poorly defined and loaded phrase ‘ sustainable development’.
As a professional, are you really sure this was a good effort?
Mark…. by “safeguards” I assume you mean the procrastination and prevarication of local government and by “vested interests” as being those of un elected self interest organisations that want to protect their power basis and self importance.
The NPPF will be the policy of an elected democratic Coalition Government and you should respect the will of the majority.
You and many others are deluded if you think that the Select Committee has any power or influence to change the policy of Government.
But Andrew it may be true that the Coalition Government does have a mandate of sorts by holding the largest number of seats in parliament but it is also true that nobody who voted in the election voted on the coalition agreement and the resulting policy document that was hammered out post the election…indeed it is true to say that there are a number of policies within that document that did not appear in either manifesto and therefore could not claim to have been voted on at the election.
On the specifics of what we are discussing here, go back and look at the Mori polling that has been done since the coalition was put in place. We only seem to get reporting the upfront figures about voting preferences for each leader or party, but each Mori poll that is issued has a wealth of data concerning the key policy issues raised during that period. Public opinion is not with the Govt on the changes and there is great fear and scepticism around the NPPF and the provision in the Localism Bill.
And anybody who is actually involved in the implementation of those provisions once the bill becomes an act has serious concerns just because of the absence of detail both in the Bill, the NPPF and those parts that address the idea that we are creating a sustainable planning system reads like ‘warm words’ without any substance to back them up. We are afraid that a vacuum will occur and inevitably as many bad things as good usually come forward to fill such a space.
Mark- You are very much mistaken and may want to read Who Owns Britain by Kevin Cahill….wise you up a bit.
Will village infilling outside village planning boundaries but within the fabric of the village be allowed under the NPPF, for villages in National Parks/AONB ?
How does the NPPF protect ares such as National PArks and AONB ?
OK, I think I understand. It gives protection against “major” developments (pat 167), but presumably not “minor” developments, i.e. not more than 10 units, where presumably the presumption in favour and the adverse benefits principle applies.
Pingback: Marching on « Richard Wilson Ecology
Pingback: 12.30pm Parliamentary Announcement on Final #NPPF – What to Look for on Concessions & Evidence of Treasury Red Pen « Decisions, Decisions, Decisions
Intrepretation . Does para 14 “specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted” apply to the green belt and national parks taken as a whole or to such areas not covered by the para 89, exceptions, or para 116, non major developments ?
As a whole – the Silkin test (para 116) is additional
It seems to me that this change to the document shuts down any sensible exception site development involving the facilitation of affordable housing through small scale market housing in National Parks. Re para 54: left to LPA’s to “consider” will mean NO market housing.
Pingback: In with the NPPF, out with a PPS? « Richard Wilson Ecology
Pingback: Plan et Earth (Part 2) « Richard Wilson Ecology
Hi Andrew, would you consider a group of rural buildings with consented use as “Stud/Livery/Stables/Riding School” to be a brown field site ? Or would they be captured under the heading of “agricultural use” ? Your comments would be gratefully appreciated
There is caselaw on this. Hosicultural uses on plots large enough not to require imported feed – are treated as agricultural uses, so ancillary buildings are by definition not brownfield uses but green field uses, which is why and only why the NPPF mentions them at all – a special exception.
Many thanks Andrew. So presumably small equestrian sites, with redundant rural brick barns and stables, requiring bought in winter horse feed could qualify as brown field. Do you take private instructions for consultancy work ? . I would require a technical report on my site as to whether brown field or not.
Yes and Yes, would operate on a daily rate if you wanted a 2 or 3 page reports on the policy and legal position.
Thanks Andrew. The problem I need addressing is that I have some barns that where used for agricultural purposes up to the late 1960’s, then vacant until 1981 when planning consent was obtained for change of use to equestrian use. I note the definition of previous developed land in the NPPF excludes land that “has been occupied by agricultural buildings…” I would like to get these barns classified as previously developed, but I cannot see away around the exclusion clause in the definition. Is this something you can advise on, in terms of getting around the exclusion clause ?
PS, the barns have been granted residential use as conversions under Para 55 NPPF, but I want to demolish and rebuild them.
If Scrub land that previously was agricultural classification over 25yrs ago , but now serves no purpose or use , but is enclosed by residential developments, but the whole area is a greenbelt wash.
Can this site still be classed as green belt land ?
what’s the chances of planning gain for a large development, Eco Homes of exceptional sustainable build, and address the affordable homes requirements which this area has none of at this time, more a location of NIBIs,
What i am looking for is a way forward in planning gain to develop the land and putting into place my project of a CIC [ Community Investment Fund ] from a large part of the profits so i can offer assistance help to the wider community’s.
Leaving a legacy for the future after all i cant take it with me can i.
Can Parish Councils apply Or do they have the right to apply pressure on the main council to refuse the applications on affordable housing , Based on fact at this time there is none in this area as the council vigorously try to resist any building of this nature citing “They don’t want this type of resident living in their area”.
They wont listen to the argument that a development of this nature will address the following Affordable Homes, Luxury Homes, SMEs, job Creation, Tourism, Bio sustainability,
Environmental technology.
ANDREW: What’s the rate for a 2 or 3 page reports on the policy and legal position.
To gaining planning gain & a an angle on the objections i will gain from application.
We had a planning consultants report that stated although planning will be hard its not impossible but as things stand on the greenbelt issue we may have to wait around 10-15 years, that’s on top of the 5-7 year phase build, and i can not wait that long as i am no longer a young man .
I can give you a second opinion and my daily rate is £500, however for a Green Belt site, especially if not a potential release site next to a settlement, the conclusion is likely to be the same or more negative.