POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR SITE ALLOCATIONS
Introduction
It is striking how confusing the National Planning Policy Framework and its supporting guidance is when you approach it from a site allocation perspective. We know that site allocations are used in local plans to identify housing sites for development and form part of the land supply trajectory. But what is in national policy and guidance to help authorities and practitioners with this process – from identifying sites to assessing sites to selecting sites for allocation.
This paper is a review of policy and guidance to understand more about the site allocation process, but with a focus on the assessment of sites. We start by summarising the considerations in national planning policy and guidance that are relevant for assessing sites, particularly in relation to their suitability. We then review the policy and guidance to understand how it forms a framework for assessing sites for allocation, and then we offer recommendations on how it could be improved in future policy and guidance.
Set out below are the NPPF policy considerations – by Chapter – currently designed to help assess and then select potential allocations to meet development needs:
Background
The 2021 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides the context for allocating land in local plans. Paragraph 11 says that plans are required to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development1 and provide for objectively assessed needs unless NPPF policies provide strong reason to restrict scale, type, or distribution in the plan area, or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
In other words, you have to meet needs (e.g. housing needs taken from housing need assessment-standard method) but policies in the NPPF may provide strong reason to restrict scale/type/distribution of development, or adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh benefits. These policies include natural environmental constraints (e.g. habitats sites, SSSIs, areas of flood risk), built environmental constraints (heritage assets) and policy constraints (e.g. Green Belt, Local Green Space). The latter can be changed through the plan-making process, but environmental constraints are also protected through other policy and legislation.
Housing
Paragraph 68 refers to the preparation of land availability assessments and the expectation that these assessments (involving suitability, availability and economic viability) should help to identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites from year 1 to 10 and 11 to 15 (where possible) of the plan period. Paragraph 73 adds that authorities should identify suitable locations for new settlements or significant extensions where it can meet needs in a sustainable way. These should be of a size and location to support a sustainable community (without expecting an unrealistic level of self-containment) or have good access to a larger town where the community and employment are available.
Transport
There are two relevant parts in the transport chapter. The first is paragraph 105 which states: ‘Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes’. However, there is no definition of ‘significant’. The paragraph goes on to say that: ‘opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making’.
The second part is paragraph 110, which focusses on development proposals and the criteria that should be covered when assessing sites for allocation in plans or applications for development:
- appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location;
- safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users;
- the design of streets, parking areas, other transport elements and the content off associated standards reflects current national guidance, including the National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code; and
- any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.
Open Space
Paragraph 99 says that open space should not be developed for housing unless it is surplus to requirements, or it can be replaced elsewhere at a similar standard or better.
Green Belt
There are five purposes of the Green Belt in national policy but there is no policy to direct how these should be considered when identifying and selecting potential sites for allocation.
- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
- to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
- to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
- to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
- to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
Paragraph 142, however, does provide guidance once it has been concluded that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. This calls for authorities to consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards:
- urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary;
- towns and villages inset within the Green Belt; or
- locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.
Paragraph 142 then advises that plans should give first consideration to previously developed land and/or land that is well-served by public transport.
Flood risk
The NPPF requires a sequential, risk-based approach to locating development, as explained in paragraph 161. The sequential test should be applied first and, if necessary, the exception test. Paragraph 162 says that the aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. It also says that development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding.
Landscape
There is no policy relating specifically to landscape for identifying and selecting site allocations. However, paragraph 130 says that planning policies should ensure that developments are ‘sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities)’. Paragraph 174 adds that valued landscapes should be protected and enhanced through planning policies.
Agricultural land
There is no section in the NPPF relating to agricultural land, only paragraph 175 which states that plans should ‘allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework’. This is backed with a footnote that adds: ‘Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality’. The glossary says that Grades 1, 2 and 3a are recognised as Best and Most Versatile land.
Ecology
Paragraph 179 requires plans to safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them; and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation. Paragraph 175, referred above, also applies here as it says that plans should allocate land with the least environmental value.
Environmental
health
For air/noise pollution and ground conditions, paragraph 185 applies, which says that policies should ‘ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development’.
Heritage
Heritage guidance is detailed in the NPPF in chapter 16 for dealing with planning applications but not site allocations. However, paragraph 195 requires authorities to assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise.
National guidance
There is no bespoke guidance relating to assessing sites for allocation in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) although there is guidance on housing and economic land availability assessment2 (HELAA), which has some similarities. The purpose of the housing land availability assessment is to help identify a future supply of land which is suitable, available and achievable for housing over the plan period. It lists factors that should be considered when assessing the suitability of sites:
- national policy;
- appropriateness and likely market attractiveness for the type of development proposed;
- contribution to regeneration priority areas;
- potential impacts including the effect upon landscapes including landscape features, nature and heritage conservation.
The guidance advises at paragraph 001 (Reference ID: 3-001-20190722) that ‘the assessment does not in itself determine whether a site should be allocated for development’ and that ‘it is for the development plan itself to determine which of those sites are the most suitable for allocation’.
The flood risk and coastal change planning practice guidance3 elaborates on the national policy. It is notable that, in considering matters under all the Chapters we have set out above, this is the only guidance that is applicable to the site allocation process. In summary, it includes a diagram to illustrate how to apply the sequential test in the preparation of strategic policies; it defines what a ‘reasonably available site’ is – a site in a suitable location with a reasonable prospect that it can be developed at the point in time envisaged; and it explains what the exception test is and how it should be applied in preparing plan policies.
Analysis
When considering the suitability factors together there are two broad categories: ‘location’ and ‘development’. The location criteria are those that are applicable on an authority-wide area with a sequential focus (such as flood risk and the aim to allocate sites with least flood risk first). The development criteria focus on site specific development issues like addressing heritage impact or environmental health impacts, or achieving vehicular access to a site.
Development factors can sometimes also be locational, although this is not explicit when reading some of the policy. For example, there may be noise issues that affect several roads across an authority that would be a constraint on the location of new development . But there is no sequential point made in the policy, therefore they are considered site related issues.
Ultimately, there are several aspects of national planning policy covering a range of disciplines, and in terms of the site allocation process, these all compete with each other with no clear policy steer at the national level on which ones to prioritise or whether they should all be considered with equal weight.
Starting with transport (such as site access and street design), paragraph 110 is the most useful as it includes criteria that should be considered for assessing sites for allocation and planning applications. However these are more relevant to the detailed stage of the site allocation process such as site access and street design. Paragraph 105 is more useful on an authority-wide basis as it directs significant development to locations that are or can be made sustainable. However, the word ‘significant’ does not have a definition. That said, the ‘are or can be’ point is useful as it gives direction to assessing the existing status of a site and how development can include improvements to aid sustainability such as new transport links or facilities that help to reduce road usage.
Green Belt policy for allocations is not clear but is quite detailed in comparison to other parts of national policy. National policy starts with the purposes of the Green Belt, but there is no policy to say that those areas that do not perform should be preferred first or released in a sequential way like other criteria such as flood risk. Instead, at paragraph 142 the focus is on promoting sustainable patterns of development when revising Green Belt boundaries, and once it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt then plans should give first consideration to previously developed land (PDL) and/or land that is well-served by public transport. So you have a choice: you could ignore land that is well-served by public transport and focus on PDL, and vice versa, or do both. There are practical problems with this approach in that PDL sites could be in unsustainable locations and land well served by public transport may not necessarily be well connected to facilities.
In comparison with Green Belt and transport, the sequential test for flood risk makes sense and has clear logic to it. It is also backed by supporting practice guidance.
Agricultural land has a similar sequential focus with the aim of allocating land with the least environmental or amenity value at paragraph 175, and backed up by a footnote. Despite its sub-status, the footnote does give a sequential steer about how to allocate but it is framed for only ‘significant development’, which again appears without a definition as it does in the transport chapter. It also says that poorer quality should be preferred to higher quality. There are grades of agricultural land but they are not referenced in relation to poorer and higher quality agricultural land, so there is a disconnect here.
Landscape has no policy direction in relation to allocating land - only the generic policy referring to planning policies. Paragraph 174 however does add that valued landscapes should be protected. In the absence of defining a valued landscape in the NPPF or planning guidance, the Landscape Institute4 have stepped into answering this.
For environmental health (air/noise pollution and ground conditions), there is no reference relating to allocating sites, but it does say that new development should be appropriate for its location whilst considering the likely effects on health, living conditions and natural environment.
And for heritage, although paragraph 194 provides guidance for assessing planning applications there is no specific policy relating to heritage for allocations, albeit paragraph 195 requires authorities to assess significance of heritage assets, which could be applied to site assessment.
Finally, there is the HELAA guidance which is useful to help assess sites for their suitability, availability, and achievability, but not in the sense of assessing sites for allocation. For example, it includes a generic list of criteria for assessing site suitability but does not go further than this. The guidance also acknowledges that the development plan is the place to determine those sites that are most suitable for allocation rather than the HELAA.
Conclusions
Allocating sites is a complex process involving the consideration of a number of different and competing elements governed by a wide variety of disciplines. The lack of guidance has led to statutory bodies and institutes stepping in and filling the gaps: in our view this should be brought together by government through the NPPF. Our review of the current national policy position highlights the importance of having a national policy framework which provides clear direction to aid the site allocation process so that development can be located in the right places as part of a development plan.
The first aim should be to get national policy consistent. As shown above, the policy is useful in some places but not in others. Some include phrases like ‘allocating sites’ so there is direction, but some do not and are more generic and use phrases like ‘plans and programmes should consider’. If one topic has a line about what to do with allocating sites (see transport) then all disciplines that have a role in development should do so.
Some of the NPPF chapters also need restructuring, such as Green Belt, and the site allocation process needs to be kept in mind when doing so. This could partly reflect the transition from planning policy statements to the NPPF and updates to the NPPF since its introduction in 2012.
And lastly, there is a lack of policy direction for site allocations regarding employment land and the location of residential development near to it, as well as climate change considerations.
In respect of supporting guidance, the first aim should be to provide consistent supporting guidance geared towards the assessment part of the site allocation process. If there is a national policy that provides policy direction then it will likely need some guidance to aid in implementation. There is some available guidance that helps such as housing and employment availability, and flood risk, but it is not focussed on the process of identifying, assessing and allocating sites. Supporting guidance for all topics should provide an equivalent level of guidance on:
- The process of applying national policy to site assessment, such as location and development factors, and the relevance of these at different stages in the site allocation process.
- The amount of detail and information needed as you go from the high-level to the detail usually associated at planning application stage.
- The difference in application of assessment when considering size of sites (small, medium, large scale), groups of sites, typologies of development (new settlement, urban extension), broad locations, as well as at the local authority scale and sub-regional/regional scale.
More fundamentally, as currently written, the NPPF merely refers to policies as a whole that may have ‘strong reason’ to restrict scale/type/distribution of development, or where adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh benefits. Somewhere in the NPPF and its guidance, advice about the relative weight to be applied to each criteria for site assessment purposes should be provided – should flood risk outweigh transport considerations? Agricultural land outweigh landscape value? And further, whether this should be determined at a national or local level?
It would be heartening to see better clarity and consistency in relation to the site assessment process – a fundamental part of the planning process – addressed through the government’s review of the NPPF currently underway as part of the reforms to planning policy5.
1 National Planning Policy Framework. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2021
2 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-land-availability-assessment
