Issue - meetings

The Government launched a consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on the 16 December 2026. The proposals are a substantive update to the NPPF which includes comprehensive changes to the document structure and format with most chapters being split between ‘plan making policies’ and ‘decision making policies’ and the inclusion of a series of new annexes providing detail on the standard method for housing and grey belt assessment.

There are a significant number of changes proposed, these include:

·         Stating that where local plan policies are inconsistent with national decision-making policies they should be given limited weight.

·         Providing national policy to guide the content of spatial development strategies (SDSs); a new tier of strategic planning.

·         That housing and mixed-use development around train stations defined as ‘well- connected’ will not be considered inappropriate.

·         Proposing that plots around train stations should be built out at a density of at least 40 dwellings per hectare, rising to 50 where the station is “well-connected”.

·         Introducing a medium-size site category into the planningsystem, whichwill coverdevelopments ofbetween 10-49homes, withan area of up to 2.5ha in size.   

·         Proposing a revision of the weight given to the consideration of the potential effect of a development proposal on a designated heritage asset from “great” to “substantial”.

Following consideration, the Committee unanimously resolved to:

(1)      Note the contents of the consultation.

(2)      Approve the draft response (Appendix 1) or;

(3)      Agree amendments and authorise the Head of Planning Policy and Economic Development in consultation with the Chair of this Committee, to finalise and submit the response.

The Government launched a consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on the 16 December 2026. The proposals are a substantive update to the NPPF which includes comprehensive changes to the document structure and format with most chapters being split between ‘plan making policies’ and ‘decision making policies’ and the inclusion of a series of new annexes providing detail on the standard method for housing and grey belt assessment.

Councillor Persand gave a verbal statement to the Committee.

There are a significant number of changes proposed, these include:

·                     Stating that, where local plan policies are inconsistent with national decision-making policies, they should be given limited weight.

·                     Providing national policy to guide the content of spatial development strategies (SDSs); a new tier of strategic planning.

·                     That housing and mixed-use development around train stations defined as ‘well- connected’ will not be considered inappropriate.

·                     Proposing that plots around train stations should be built out at a density of at least 40 dwellings per hectare, rising to 50 where the station is “well-connected”.

·                    Introducing a medium-size site category into the planningsystem, whichwill coverdevelopments ofbetween 10-49homes, withan area of up to 2.5ha in size.   

·                     Proposing a revision of the weight given to the consideration of the potential effect of a development proposal on a designated heritage asset from “great” to “substantial”.

The following matters were considered:

a)            Amendments.  A Member requested the following amendments:-

o   Revisit the grammar of the response to question 2 as it reads that the council needs it to be flawed.

o   To consider adding ‘strongly’ disagree to the response to question 52.

o   Question 94 should be question 194.

o   It was a personal preference of one member that higher density was OK around train stations so did not necessarily agree with the ‘strongly disagree’ response to question 136. After further discussion the Committee did not agree to change the response to question 136.

b)            In response to a Member query about why Annex B viability standardised inputs in viability assessment had no suggested response, the Head of Planning Policy and Economic Development explained that they were very technical questions on viability methodologies that officers felt they did not have the knowledge or expertise to respond to. There were some more generic questions on viability within the response that have been dealt with, but these were very specific. He undertook to ensure a ‘no comment’ would be put as the response.

Following consideration, the Committee unanimously resolved to:

(1)      Note the contents of the consultation.

(2)      Approve the draft response (Appendix 1) or;

(3)      Agree amendments and authorise the Head of Planning Policy and Economic Development in consultation with the Chair of this Committee, to finalise and submit the response.