Local green spaces can be designated through local and neighbourhood plans, the effect of which will be to rule out development except in very special circumstances. Such a designation will not be appropriate for most green spaces.

Plan making. The NPPF confirms that planning decisions must be taken in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is a material consideration. Plans should be based on adequate up to date and relevant evidence, and should reflect the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The tests of ‘soundness’ still apply – Plans need to be ‘positively prepared’ to meet objectively assessed development requirements, ‘justified’, ‘effective’ and ‘consistent with national policy’.

Neighbourhood plans should not promote less development than set out in the Local Plan, and, when it has demonstrated conformity with that Plan, its policies take precedence over the Local Plan for that neighbourhood.

Supporting information for planning applications should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposal. Planning Authorities should only request information that is relevant, necessary and material to the application in question.

Design. The importance of good design is given strong recognition. Architectural styles should not be imposed, nor innovation stifled, but it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. Permission should be refused for development of poor design. Great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area.

Applicants are expected to work closely with those directly affected by proposals to take account of community views. Such proposals should be looked on more favourably.

Green belt policy is essentially retained, with substantial weight given to any harm to the green belt. One change sees a new category recognised as an exception to inappropriate development – ‘limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the green belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development’.

Replacement of a building is not inappropriate providing the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces.

Open space, sports and playing fields should not be built on unless it is surplus to requirements, or replaced by equivalent or better facilities in a suitable location, or the development is for alternative sports and recreation provision the need for which clearly outweighs the loss.

Housing. Planning Authorities should provide a 5 year supply of housing, with an additional 5% buffer to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been persistent under delivery of housing, the buffer should be 20%.

Sites or broad locations for growth should also be identified for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15.

Any allowance for windfall sites must be based on compelling evidence, and cannot include residential gardens.

Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Housing policies will not be considered to be up to date in the absence of a 5 year supply.

Authorities should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate.

The supply of new homes can sometimes best be achieved through planning for larger scale developments, such as new settlements or Garden City style urban extensions.

Authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens.

In rural areas, housing development should reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites. Authorities should consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of additional affordable housing to meet local needs. Housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

Town centres should be recognised as the heart of their communities, with policies to support their viability and vitality. The sequential test still applies, and applications that fail to satisfy that test should be refused.

Impact assessments are required for retail, leisure and office developments above 2,500 sq m (or locally set thresholds) outside town centres.

Employment land. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for its allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses should be treated on their merits.

The Government’s long-awaited and much debated National Planning Policy Framework was finally published. The NPPF, as it is called, is a statement of national planning policy, and replaces ‘over a thousand pages’ of all the previous Planning Policy Guidelines and Statements that had been issued, amended and re-issued by previous

The new emphasis on Core planning principles are established to underpin plan-making and decision-taking. These include keeping Plans up to date, proactively driving and supporting sustainable economic development to meet housing, business and other development needs, promoting mixed use developments, and encouraging effective use of brownfield land.

They also include references to protecting green belts, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, supporting thriving rural communities, and conserving natural environmental and heritage assets.

Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, and significant development should be focussed in locations that are or can be made sustainable.