Answer to (a)

The National Planning Policy Framework or NPPF is mainly a critical document for all those which are seen to be involved in any development form. It was first published in the year 2012 and then the amended version of it finally came out in the year 2018. It has been specially designed for trying as well as addressing all areas which are very much open to the interpretation as well as can reduce any sort of ambiguity. It even aims at having an impact which will be much more forceful on the main issues like housing which will be affordable.

Therefore some the main changes which are present in the amended version of NPPF are:

Making it local: The test of the delivery of housing which was known to be introduced in the year 2018, needs Councils for ensuring an increment in the delivery of full new homes considering the supply of housing in future as well (Flatman and Perring 2013). While all the plans which are local are still remaining the initial point in determining the application of planning, LPAs are seen to be needed nowadays in providing a proper as well as a clear evidence of the completions of housing over the earlier period of three years and also the supply which is projected over the upcoming years. This mostly involves commitments, principle permissions as well as the sites which are allocated or which are involved on the register of the land of brownfield.

Making it affordable: One of the main issues for the government in terms of the policy of housing, is ensuring for the delivery of sufficient housing which will be affordable both for purchasing as well as in giving rents (Hinton 2013). The NPPF which is revised currently mostly introduces some of the changes which are fundamental for the policy and mostly involves several issues which is seen to be included previously in statements of written ministry of starter home’s provisions. It has also been noticed that there is a full new need which a minimum of about ten percent of all the dwellings are built as a major development part must be given as a housing which will be affordable. This mostly says that the government is seen to have been sustaining the commitment of it in providing affordable housing as a strategy in encouraging the ownership of home.

Effective utilisation of land: All the planning authorities which are local are recently been needed for maintaining a register of the sites of brownfield with the boundaries of the administration which is perfectly suitable for the development of residents (Sullivan and Hannis 2015). All those sites which are included into the second part of the registers of brownfield will be granted for the permission in the principle, whereby a particular site is mostly granted consent for a specific amount of the development which is mostly led by the residents within the principle. The part which is based upon the effective use of land, is seen to have been emphasizing the main importance upon the utilization of the land of brownfield for development as well as in ensuring the fact that every developments are at a proper density.

Impact on the ability of the developer in managing the residential scheme’s delivery:

All the policies which are needed to be reflected in the plans as well (Turney 2013). Therefore, all the LPAs are recently involved are needed to be provide a careful thought for proceeding if the emerging polices of plan are inconsistent with framework which has been revised. The LPA must balance the basic fact that revised plan’s part can be out of date immediately, triggering the strength for penalties. All the changes which are proposed currently will incorporate a shift which will be very much significant in the viability assessment’s role from the stage of decision making to the stage of making plans. It means that as the LPA’s are opposed to all the developers will become responsible for this specific work (Mulliner and Maliene 2013). This is going to place a huge burden on all the LPAs, who will be needed for setting the policies of the strategic allocation of site which are not only dealing with all the needs of the infrastructure but also the lower level of housing which is affordable they mostly consider viable. All the developers who are wanting for the promotion of their sites for allocation may want to challenge the viability evidence of LPA at the stage of examination of the local plan for lowering the levels of affordable housing set of provision in all the allocations which are strategic. In case of delivering a sufficient home’s supply, all the LPAs are needed to cooperate with each other for meeting all the requirements of housing which are not met (Warwick 2015). From the perspective of a developer, the calculation of the need of housing in the strategic plan of LPA will be needed for including all the shortfall in providing supply in an authority belonging to the neighbourhood. While promoting a sustainable transport, all the developers which are working on schemes including the infrastructure of new transport will be under tough scrutiny from all the planners who assess several plans which are against several requirements of NPPF for maximising all the opportunities of developments around the infrastructure of transport (Helm 2013). While making effective utilisation of land, all the developers will be welcomed because of the reduction of the level of daylight which is almost unavoidable for achieving the requirement of policy for the development of high density in an urban setting which is confined. It has been noticed that there is a re-emphasis which the applications can show that the engagement with the local community which will be genuine is to be considered much more favourably. This is going to be a welcoming news for all the developers who are seen to be already engaged with all the communities in the locality (Hilson 2015). Most importantly, the draft which contains a need that all the policies of planning are setting out a clear design as well as expectations of vision in the documents of supplementary planning as well as codes of design, which gives both the developers as well as the LPAs a great certainty.

Anwer to (b)

CPRE is seen to have campaigned long for acquiring a better use of brownfield, for delivering new homes in areas where people mostly wants to stay. There is an introduction of the land registers of brownfield in the year 2016. With the process of plan making, there is a need for the LPAs for accommodating at least 10% of the need for housing on the sites which are less than one hectare. This is actually a part of the strategy for increasing the opportunities for the house builders which are small or medium sized in providing surety for a wider variety in the market of housing (Sibley-Esposito 2014). There is even a renewed need for all the LPAs for ensuring a quality which will remain consistent throughout the process of planning as well as delivery by starting from the approval till the completion. This commitment which is renewed for a good design has been properly highlighted as the basic fundamental to what both planning as well as development must achieve. This helps in making development acceptable to all the communities. All the developers as well as the builders are very much encouraged for liaising with the LPAs as fast as possible in the procedure and even for entering into the performance agreements of planning for larger or rather complex developments. In the earlier NPPF, the redevelopment of brownfield is seen to have mentioned in passing. There is a great pleasure in seeing the reusability of the brownfield and is recently featuring very prominently. The weight which is substantial are now been given the value for reusing the land of brownfield. But, these warm words of encouragement for the developers do not go so far in providing all the essential imperative for ensuring the land of brownfield which is suitable and some other opportunities of regeneration are much more prioritised for the development before the land of Greenfield is utilised (Carmichael, Connolly and Egan 2016). The new target which involves the need for the LPAs in accommodating at least 10% of the need for housing on the sites which are less than one hectare are thought to be encouraging all the local authorities for being much more proactive while allocating smaller scale of the opportunities of development. But, there are certain chances of consequences which are unintended (Nixon 2013). It can be that one particular huge site may offer more sustainable solution rather than several other small sites. Where a number of huge issues may remain unanswered, there are also certain policies which can be used for improving the use of the land of Brownfield. There is a requirement for strategic policies which is set out for meeting the needs of housing in a manner that can make as much use of Brownfield land which has been used earlier. The importance of the authorities which are local are taking a role which is a proactive one in the identification of land, involving several sites for the registers of brownfield, is also seen to be revised in NPPF, as per the recommendation of CPRE (Need 2018).

All the sites of brownfield which are not serviced well by infrastructure like public transport are not considered to be suitable for the development of residents. There has also been a slight change in reference about the suitability of the sites of brownfield within NPPF for redevelopment. Increase in the weight is given to the reusability of the applies of the land of brownfield. Then finally the previously developed land can be defined in the glossary are needed to be revisited for addressing several issues with its relevance as well as clarity. It can even be argued that all the residential parks, grounds of recreation, gardens and all other allotments which are outside the areas which are built up are brownfield. There is a closer connection in between NPPF and some other initiatives of government which can be called for. In the case of brownfield, it is basically an industrial strategy which seeks for rebalancing the economy by helping in promoting growth in several regions like Midlands where the capacity of brownfield can be used for relieving pressures elsewhere on the country side. But the NPPF is not encouraging as it should. The redistribution of the housing demand and some other development away from several areas where several demands are putting a lot of pressure which is totally unnecessary upon the resources of open land and towards several areas where there are a several opportunities of brownfield. The NPPF must not only respond to the strategy of industry as well as the aspirations of the powerhouse of north, but it must also provide help in delivering the aims of all these initiatives. An ongoing programme of work is seen to have being developed by CPRE on brownfield. This mostly aims at monitoring the utilisation of brownfield, considering the identification of more brownfield and then finally deliver full new homes on all the sites of brownfield which will be perfectly suitable (BELL 2018). A network of a number of interested individuals as well as organizations across several sectors for promoting the utilisation of the brownfield. Therefore, the key change will be helping in moving from a position of demonstrating ‘no harm’ to ‘no substantial harm’ while redeveloping the sites of brownfield in the Green Belt, where several schemes are contributing to housing which will be affordable. This full new test is considered to be very much difficult in quantifying and can be interpreted on a broader basis. It will definitely be very much fascinating to watch how it is going to play out under several applications of planning as well as appeals and finally through the law of case over the upcoming months (Everard 2016). Where several schemes are not providing a housing which will be affordable the older test with respect of openness is seen to be still applied. The need for addressing the impact on several purposes of the Green Belt are removed, but in reality it has been observed that it will be able to make a small difference for most of the sites.

Answer to (c)

According to me, achieving 3lakhs of new homes a year by the middle of 2020s forms the main ambition of the government. In a move which is clear away from the localism policy, this particular target is imposed upon the authorities of local planning as per the rigid criteria which is specified in the NPPF which has been revised (Edis and Stephen 2013). As a whole, most of the policies in NPPF are very much restrictive and are providing little flexibility to all the local authorities for accommodating new development of housing in their particular areas. There is a very little for incentivising the developers with controls which are much tighter over the standards of design, boundaries of green belt, contribution of developer and all the appraisals of viability. There is also a little for incentivising developers with much stronger security for the environment and the introduction of the change agent principle for the new development. The importance of the NPPF which has been revised has been exaggerated certainly by the government. It mostly represents an evaluation of the policies of national planning, few updates as well as reforms. But actually it is a huge dose for the continuity of the operation (Wrighton, Bee and Mankelow 2014). By itself, it is not going to streamline the process of planning nor will the gap be closed in between the permissions of planning and the delivery of house. It does not offer any kind of solutions which will be radical to the crisis of housing and is huge unlikely for representing a point of turning in the campaign for delivering the quantum of all the homes which are new which the country actually requires.

This new version of NPPF will be able to place an increment in the emphasis on the importance of the design which is very good and also upon the importance of an early engagement with the authority as well as community which are local (Baxter 2015). This is really a good thing as per my view (Childs and Wootton 2018). But, it can also be said that all the applications which can demonstrate properly about the early engagement with that of the local community must be seen much more favourably that those which cannot. It is not at all clear about the fact that that how that will actually be played out in practice. It is very much rare that all the locals can easily embrace the developed design of the development which is full new, even where there already has been engagement done earlier (Yoon 2016). Therefore, there rises a question that why will the application be treated much more favourably only because of the fact that all the locals are given the opportunity earlier for providing a comment upon it (Wong et al. 2015). It has also been noticed that there is also a risk associated with the development of being delayed by several negotiations as well as deliberations as to the design of the scheme, and also a much greater chance of the overturn of member on the grounds of design. In short, it can be said that it seems to be very un- likely that the full new NPPF which has been revised is going to herald a new place of design which will be better significantly and in fact it can also slow down things. If largely measured, the revised policies of NPPF is more of same, with an instant recognisable from the version which is older.

 It will be probably very much for hoping for a re-write which will be radical, but it is really regrettable that the government has not taken any kind of steps for addressing some other issues. The standardization or rather simplification of the utilisation of the mechanisms which are viability reviewed can be taken as an example. There is also another opportunity for revisiting some of the issues and also provide some guidance which will be very helpful for weighing such harms. The revised NPPF is considered mainly as a step towards a direction which is appropriate and it can been seen that there are a number of houses on the ground (Grimwood and Turner 2014). The new NPPF has a sudden effect for the decision making purpose on the applications of planning. However, the NPPF of 2012 will be continued to be applied for the main purpose being examining of the plans where all the plans are submitted to the State Secretary on or rather before 24^th January in the year 2019. The provisions which are transitional are very much important for all the local authorities associated with the procedure of the adoption of full new local plans and also to all the developers who are wanting for the promotion of development in their specific areas. It has also been noticed that the secretary of the state has been able to highlight the areas of policy in the draft of the plan of London which the secretary has mainly considered the national policy to be inconsistent and he even said that he will consider very carefully if all the statutory powers will be exercised for intervening before the plan of London will be published (Team, Council and Way 2018). This can be done by providing a direction for avoiding any kind of inconsistencies with the recent national policy or for avoiding detriment to the main interest of a particular area which is outside the Greater London. It can be said, that this may be an indication of moving away from localism and a return back to an even more centralised command as well as the approach of control to the planning which is typically seen under the last Government Labour.

References

Flatman, J. and Perring, D., 2013. The national planning policy framework and archaeology: A discussion. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 22, pp.4-10.

Hinton, P., 2013. The national planning policy framework and archaeology: A response–how did the profession come to this?. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 22.

Sullivan, S. and Hannis, M., 2015. Nets and frames, losses and gains: Value struggles in engagements with biodiversity offsetting policy in England. Ecosystem Services, 15, pp.162-173.

Mulliner, E. and Maliene, V., 2013. Austerity and reform to affordable housing policy. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 28(2), pp.397-407.

Turney, R., 2013. Fracking and the National Planning Policy Framework. London: Landmark Chambers.

Warwick, E., 2015. Policy to reality: evaluating the evidence trajectory for English eco-towns. Building Research & Information, 43(4), pp.486-498.

Cowell, B., 2013. The national planning policy framework and archaeology: a discussion. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 22.

Warwick, F., 2017. Surface Water Strategy, Policy and Legislation. Sustainable Surface Water Management, pp.31-44.

Helm, D., 2013. British infrastructure policy and the gradual return of the state. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 29(2), pp.287-306.

Hilson, C., 2015. Framing fracking: which frames are heard in English planning and environmental policy and practice?. Journal of Environmental Law, 27(2), pp.177-202.

Edis, J. and Stephen, E., 2013. A Consultant’s view of the NPPF. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 22.

Baxter, I., 2015. Mainstreaming policy and pragmatism: Whither the historic environment?. Cultural Trends, 24(1), pp.34-38.

Wong, C., Webb, B., Schulze-Baing, A., Baker, M. and Hincks, S., 2015. Spatial synergies and conflicts: monitoring government policies and programmes in England. Place-based evaluation for integrated land use management, pp.179-200.

Wrighton, C.E., Bee, E.J. and Mankelow, J.M., 2014. The development and implementation of mineral safeguarding policies at national and local levels in the United Kingdom. Resources Policy, 41, pp.160-170.

BELL, C.L., 2018. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN ENGLISH PLANNING POLICY: A LAWYER’S PERSPECTIVE. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 217, pp.65-72.

Childs, J. and Wootton, P., 2018. The new National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Policy Guidance: An illustration of case law influencing government policy. Journal of Building Survey, Appraisal & Valuation, 7(3), pp.254-261.

Need, C.H., 2018. Policy Response. Policy.

Nixon, T., 2013. The National Planning Policy Framework and Archaeology. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 22.

Carmichael, L., Connolly, A.M. and Egan, M., 2016. House of Lords: Revised transcript of evidence taken before The Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment.

Sibley-Esposito, C., 2014. Not out of the woods yet: Spatial planning (de) regulation under the Coalition Government. Observatoire de la société britannique, (15), pp.189-214.

Grimwood, C. and Turner, S., 2014, October. The evolution of noise policy and noise management in England during the life of the UK’s Institute of Acoustics. In INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings (Vol. 249, No. 6, pp. 1949-1958). Institute of Noise Control Engineering.

Team, P.P., Council, H.D. and Way, H., 2018. Publication of the Hart Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2016-2032 Proposed Submission Version. Policy.

Yoon, S.J., 2016. The Consolidation and Implementation of Green Infrastructure Policy in Urban Spatial Planning-Focused on the London Plan & the All London Green Grid. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 44(2), pp.83-95.

Everard, M., 2016. Importance of Managing Wetland Supporting Services. The Wetland Book: I: Structure and Function, Management and Methods, pp.1-10.