Sunday 1 April 2012

The NPPF and Rural Development – 10 Key Highlights

I have considered the broad principles of the NPPF in my BLOG at:

I now consider the document in a more specific manner related to various subject areas. I look first at development in rural areas.

The full NPPF document can be found at the link below. The numbers in brackets refer to the relevant paragraph in the NPPF.

The Draft NPPF contained one short paragraph regarding development in rural areas and this was rather bland and inconclusive. The final Document is a little more helpful.

1.         One of the Core Principles is to take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it. (17)

Another Core Principle is to: promote mixed use developments, and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production)

This is a largely unchanged position from that previously established in Planning Policy Statement 7. The countryside is generally protected, with emphasis on ensuring viable communities; a requirement which may involve development.

2.         A sequential test is required for ‘Town Centre’ uses (which include office and hotel uses) but there are exceptions for small scale rural development.

The sequential approach requires applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.

3.       The NPPF states: This sequential approach should not be applied to applications for small scale rural offices or other small scale rural development. (25)

This is a helpful statement that addresses the problems encountered over many years under PPS7 where otherwise beneficial conversion of rural buildings to workspace has been declined on the grounds of the sustainability of the location. Whilst this may remain an issue in the most remote of locations the NPPF does not maintain the rather blanket limitation. Having been involved in securing planning approval for many workspace schemes over the years ( see www.ruralworkspace.co.uk ) this wording will prove very helpful when combined with the more positive approach to economic development required by the Framework.

4.         Section 3 of the NPPF supports a prosperous rural economy. The document states:

28. Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:

● support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings;

● promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses;

● support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres; and

● promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship. (28)

5.         The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. However, the Government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas. (29)

This position is reinforced further in the document. Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. However this needs to take account of policies set out elsewhere in this Framework, particularly in rural areas. (34)

The vast majority of rural areas have a poor public transport system available at best and certainly nothing comparable to urban areas. Therefore planners will have to have regard to the problems of achieving the sustainable transport aims of the Framework when considering proposals that satisfy other aspirations, particularly the creation of jobs and prosperity in the countryside.

6.         To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances…(55)

The NPPF retains the general presumption against isolated residential development except in defined circumstances that include agricultural need and perhaps where exceptional design is involved.

7.         In rural areas, exercising the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities, local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. Local planning authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs. (54)

There has been a real problem in delivering rural housing and exception sites have rarely achieved success because of economic limitations. The opportunity to cross-subsidise the delivery of affordable housing with some market housing will be a welcome boost to otherwise undeliverable schemes.

8.         Green Belt policies remain in place and these include assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment (80)

As noted in my previous Blog the Green Belt remains sacrosanct in development terms. Equally, there is continuing protection for SSSI’s AONB’s and other important wildlife and environmental areas.

9.         The Framework encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value; (17)

Previously developed land means: Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures; land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time.

Previously developed land DOES NOT therefore include redundant farmyards.

10.      Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. (112)

Whilst not specifically related to land quality grading the implication remains that the highest grading of agricultural land is likely to be protected to a greater degree (i.e. grade 1, 2 and 3a) than other areas. However, note from 9 above that even brownfield land that has returned to a natural state is now protected by exclusion from that designation.

I've been here before; appearing at over 40 Local Plan Inquiries and making written representations for many more, most recently in relation to the Isle of Wight Core Strategy, where the Inspector accepted my submissions and made significant beneficial alterations to the finally adopted Plan. 

If you require further information in relation to the NPPF and its implications for your business then please contact me at:


The full NPPF document can be found at:

No comments:

Post a Comment