A route for the willing? The pathway for climate action in the new NPPF 

In the second of the TCPA’s blogs on the new NPPF, we review the policy framework’s approach to addressing climate change and the implications for local authorities and decision makers.  

The TCPA has already stated that new NPPF falls short of the holistic policy approach which would deliver socially just and climate resilient places. But it is now our collective responsibility to use national policy to deliver the best possible outcomes for both people and the planet.

The question we explore in this blog is whether the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides a framework in which it is possible to radically reduce carbon emissions from development and deliver long term climate resilience for communities.

Optionality in the language… may leave it all too easy to side step climate obligations.

There is, however, no straightforward answer to this question. Firstly, this is because, as the government highlight in their response to the NPPF consultation, ‘the Framework should be read as a whole, with climate considerations also being reflected across other relevant policies, including design, transport, health and the natural environment.’

This makes it challenging to understand how different policies interact and the relevant weight and status given to different policy issues. Secondly, the new structure of the framework separates plan-making and decision-making policies so the task is to consider whether policy drivers for climate mitigation and adaptation apply meaningfully to both plan-making and development management.

We explore both of these in more detail below, but the overall picture is a framework that provides useful hooks on some important policy issues such as sustainable transport, renewable energy deployment and aspects of adaptation such as wildfires.

This is tempered by tangible regression on some policy areas including flood risk, and an overall optionality in the language which, whilst leaving a pathway for climate action to be prioritised by the willing, may leave it all too easy to side step climate obligations when these are weighed in the planning balance.

Climate policies for plan-making

A strong hook for climate action

First, the positive. Policy CC1 provides a strong overarching hook for development plans to address climate change. Reference to the Climate Change Act has been promoted from a footnote, and the range of climate implications that should be considered in plan-making is more comprehensive than before and includes, no doubt sparked by this year’s record-breaking summer temperatures, mention of wildfires.

The policy goes on to explain how planning authorities should do this, notably including reference to carbon assessment of development options. The policy makes this process optional rather than mandatory, but it should be read with other policy which makes reference to the obligations of the 2008 Climate Act.

That legislation sets out the statutory carbon reductions budgets for the UK. The NPPF also makes clear that planning decisions must contribute to radically reducing carbon emissions. Logically, it would not be possible to demonstrate compliance with these policies without a robust assessment of the carbon impacts of a range of development options.

In addition, assessing the carbon impacts of the spatial distribution of development requires an understanding of the design of that development in order to be able to provide a robust assessment of carbon. Such assessments should be used to inform policy choices which can demonstrate maximum effectiveness in reducing emissions in line with the provisions of the Climate Act. Only then can local planning authorities be confident that they have fulfilled their legal duty in planning law to ensure that plan policy must address climate mitigation and adaptation.

Setting local standards

Another plan-making policy with significant implications for climate action is PM13 on setting standards. Here the picture is again mixed, but the main outcome is that following strong opposition to the policy, including from the TCPA and a coalition of NGOs and local authorities, the policy is significantly less restrictive than the consultation version. It is significant that the policy maintains the principle that local authorities setting higher standards than building regulations is acceptable practice, and that the government will maintain legislation through the Planning and Energy Act to enable this.

Although the policy seeks to limit policies to the use of Target Emissions Rates (TER), this is worded less stridently than in the Written Ministerial Statement of 2023 that it replaces. Despite that statement, some local authorities, such as Winchester and West Oxfordshire, have managed to adopt operational energy policies using alternative metrics, where these have been well evidenced and justified.

Reference to ‘construction’, which consultees feared could be read as a wide limitation on the scope of local plan policy on important issues such as embodied carbon and property level resilience to risks such as flooding, has also been removed. The treatment of overheating is perhaps more ambiguous, as overheating is dealt with in Part O of building regulations and therefore would in one reading appear out of scope from local plans.

However, the government has admitted that Part O requires review in light of climate impacts, and other parts of the NPPF such as the design policy appear to make it clear that plan makers have provision to address overheating through building design.

Will the NPPF stand the test?

Plan-making policies addressing climate change therefore create a mixed picture. There are important policy hooks that provide a pathway for the willing, and the TCPA will continue to work with planning authorities to make the most of these to secure safe and resilient standards of development.

The true test of the effectiveness of the NPPF is whether a plan without a comprehensive strategy for achieving net zero carbon and supporting long term resilience would pass plan examination. Such an outcome would not be a reasonable reading of the NPPF policy or the need to meet the obligations of planning law.

Climate policies for decision making

There are two DM policies in the climate change chapter of the NPPF – one addressing mitigation and the other adaptation. The policies reference multiple levers for development to address climate change, but broadly cross reference to issues that are covered in more depth elsewhere in the framework, for example sustainable transport, flood risk and design.

Again, we see that the policy itself risks being de-prioritised because it is not given special status. The climate change decision making policies are not singled out as ‘reasons for refusal’ under the presumption in favour of development, for example, and the policy provisions are things that proposals ‘should’ do, although ‘substantial weight’ is afforded to retrofit of existing buildings both in terms of energy efficiency and improving climate resilience.

We therefore need to understand the scope and weight of other elements of the framework, and again we see a mixed picture. The approach to managing development in areas vulnerable to coastal change is more precautionary than in the last NPPF, and sustainable drainage (SuDS) must now be designed in accordance with the National Standards for SuDS to secure quality and management of these systems.

Policy T6 on assessing transport impacts has been amended since the consultation version to make clear that transport impacts are a ‘reason for refusal’. It shares that status with Policy DP3 which sets out the key design principles for new development, including climate mitigation and adaptation, and is perhaps the strongest lever for decision makers to ensure that development secures clear provisions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support long term climate resilience.

Changes to the sequential test

Despite concerns raised by the TCPA and other NGOs, the government moved ahead with changes to the sequential test so that it no longer applies to sites where surface water is the sole source of flood risk. This, combined with ongoing weakening of the weight of the sequential test through the courts, leaves us with a policy framework for managing flood risk which is not fit for purpose.

It will be for LPAs to ensure that allocated sites and housing proposals are safe over their whole lifetime, and they should also consider the insurability of development as part of the wider consideration of deliverability. The availability of affordable insurance is material to planning decisions and will become a critical issue for allocating sites in local plans.

Summary

When looking at the new NPPF’s climate policy we see a mix of widened scope and increased precaution on some climate considerations, married with areas of contradiction and some policy regression (for example, on the sequential test).

In the context of the broader intention of the NPPF to create a more permissive regime, and particularly the stronger presumption in favour of development, the test of the climate policies will rest on the weight they are given by decision makers. But while climate policy could obviously be more robust it is still the case that decision makers must apply NPPF policy holistically. That means decision makers need to demonstrate how they have fully considered climate mitigation and adaptation.

As this summer has painfully illustrated, they must weigh the potential loss of life that results from development which has failed to fully consider overheating, wildfires or flooding. In thinking about how these issues should be weighed in the planning balance it should be self-evident that it’s for the developer to show how these risks will be managed through securing the right location and design standards.

Long-term, the TCPA will continue to call for a more robust and mandatory approach to climate evidence to inform plan-making and development proposals, including a carbon assessment regime to ensure that development is aligned with net zero targets.

We will also continue to work with local authorities to support them to make the most of the opportunity of the new NPPF to use planning as a mechanism to set a course for a hopeful vision for climate resilient and net zero communities.

Planners have special responsibility to support communities through the climate crisis to find a resilient and socially just future. Using the NPPF to achieve this task will not always be easy but it must be our top priority for the planning system.

To find out more about how the new NPPF can be used to address climate change, join the TCPA’s training sessions on the NPPF:

• Climate Adaptation Policy and the NPPF: 4 November, 2-3pm. Register here.
• The new NPPF: opportunities and implications for climate mitigation: 2 December, 2-3pm. Register here.