This is a blog from OnePlanet’s collaborator Mahsa Ige
The new NPPF and England’s first Land Use Framework (LUF) both arrived this year with a shared challenge around how we make better decisions for housing, infrastructure, nature, food, energy and climate within the limitations of finite land.
The LUF was published in March with a clear message about the importance of taking a Planning Systems Connector approach and realising co-benefits, asserting that “these are not competing demands. With the right data, the right tools, and the strategic direction this Framework provides, they are complementary ones. To date, many of these challenges have been addressed in isolation, leading to a confused picture and missed opportunities for land to deliver multiple benefits. However, we can bring an end to this fragmented approach. We can plant trees to reduce flood risk to homes and farmland, locate energy infrastructure alongside nature-rich food production and ensure nature recovery is at the heart of resilient growth and development.”
Fast forward to this summer, a new NPPF has now been published. It separates plan-making from national decision-making policies for clarity and simplicity, also placing greater emphasis on how development should be located and delivered. This was one of the goals outlined within the LUF, seeking specifically to address the complexity of plans and speed of decisions, recognised as barriers to long-term planning and investment.
The Government clarified that the LUF did not itself form part of planning policy but was designed to be influential by providing evidence and four key principles to be taken into account when preparing documents like the National Planning Policy Framework. These four principles are set out to inform decisions relating to, or having an impact on, land in England:
- Multifunctionality.
- Right use, right place.
- Future-ready decisions.
- Adaptive by design.
The new NPPF increasingly reflects the LUF principle of multifunctionality, with policies seeking to deliver several outcomes at once rather than treating issues in isolation. Policy CC2, for example, connects sustainable transport, energy efficiency, the reuse of buildings and materials, habitat protection and renewable energy for climate mitigation.
The principle of “future-ready decisions” is reflected in Policy CC1: Planning for climate change, which requires development plans to consider future climate risks over the lifetime of development, while identifying opportunities for green infrastructure and nature-based solutions. Policy TR1: Vision-led approach to planning for transport puts greater emphasis on connectivity when considering where development should go, recognising that location shapes travel patterns, infrastructure requirements and wider environmental and social outcomes.
Policy PM6 may underline the requirement for other plans to be consistent with the NPPF but we must remember that the LUF defines the “adaptive by design” principle by stating “land use policy and delivery should be flexible enough to incorporate new evidence, respond to emerging needs and challenges, and evolve with changing local and national priorities. For example, regularly updated climate adaptation plans and consistent assumptions help ensure resilience of infrastructure.” This means the challenge is not to simply consider the NPPF line by line.
It’s about understanding how the polices are influenced by each other and connecting them to wider strategies, organisations, data and decisions that shape places.
That’s why Urbanist on a Mission and OnePlanet have partnered to create the role of the Planning Systems Connector. Planners are uniquely positioned to balance competing priorities, identify co-benefits, and shape holistic outcomes. Our Planning Systems Connector training combines practical exercises with the South Downs National Park Authority to reveal how shared outcomes, actions and indicators across a range of plans and strategies at different scales can be linked for a more joined-up, accessible and adaptive system.