New NPPF: How does it seek to ensure we tackle climate change and deliver good design?

So, this week we have seen the latest update of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The new document updates the version from 2019 and is based on consultation earlier this year. There are, I am afraid to say, no bombshells to report – just a small shift in the direction of travel. 

Overall, the NPPF continues to work well as our planners’ “go to, cover all” document, and I don’t think it needed an overhaul. However, a greater shift towards Carbon Zero is required over the next decade and whilst this document nudges us along a little further, it is not with enough momentum. There is a greater emphasis on flood risk and mitigation and a new Annex 3 sets out a flood risk vulnerability classification. There is more emphasis on biodiversity, planting trees and green infrastructure, but I don’t really see a step change in the approach for planners to meet the challenges of climate change. 

On design, as has been widely reported, there is renewed emphasis on the benefits of good design and providing masterplans and design codes, with reference to ‘Building Beautiful Places’. Obviously, this is a good intention, but a few tweaked words in the NPPF is not going to change the approach taken by developers. Local Planning Authorities can already refuse applications on design grounds (and frequently do), so I don’t see this change as anything significant. I think it intends to nudge us in the direction of traditional rather than modern design, but this is not a stated aim. Alongside the issuing of the NPPF has been the creation of ‘The Office for Place’ which will be chaired by Nicholas Boys Smith, of Create Streets, who will be driving forward the new National Design Code. He is a confirmed traditionalist, so my thoughts are probably prompted more by the Government’s appointment than by the words in the NPPF. Perhaps CABE was just considered too supportive of modern design?

The new NPPF also includes policy to prevent councils from introducing widely sweeping Article 4 Directions, which remove permitted development rights, to allow for changes from class E to residential uses. The use of Article 4s should involve only the smallest geographical area. Since the publication however, both Westminster Council and RBKC have set out their intention to have a borough-wide Article 4, so it will be interesting to see how that develops….