By Chris Calvert: Pegasus Group planning director and energy sector lead

Today’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) update strengthens government support for renewables and highlights the important role that planning professionals will play in the transition to alternative energy and achieving the UK’s net zero targets.

Looking back before we look forward

I have a strong sense of de ja vu and a feeling of a return to the very start of my career some 25 years ago. A time of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPG) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS) before they were thrown onto the bonfire when a fresh-looking Greg Clarke MP, Minister for Planning, wrote in the 2012 NPPF that planning was not the ‘preserve of specialists’. The 2012 version of the NPPF replaced over a thousand pages of national policy with just over fifty.

Back to today and the NPPF has evolved into a behemothic 82 pages. As per my thoughts on the consultation draft of the NPPF back in July 2024 (Energy/Climate Change matters – Pegasus Group), the now confirmed changes are not necessarily of any great surprise on the whole. It is what is coming next that is of greater interest.

So, where are we now on the journey?

The Clean Power 2030 Action Plan will build on the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change, and target key areas to:

  • Free up the grid
  • Speed up decision making
  • Build the role of community benefits
  • Support the auction funding process –

All of the above are predicated on changes to legislation and National Policy Statements (NPS).

In terms of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)is the Government’s announcement that the new NSIP threshold for solar and wind projects will be 100MW. This will be part of legislation intended to be brought forward in Spring 2025, with some transitional arrangements (until 2025) in place for those caught between the current and revised thresholds.

Looking at the NPPF, all low carbon energy operators need to take notice of:

  • Paragraph 161 which states that the planning system should support the transition to ‘net zero by 2050 and take full account of all climate impacts including overheating, water scarcity, storm and flood risks and coastal change’.

This is beyond the consultation draft (which only outlined flood risk and coastal change). It is supported by a new passage of text in paragraph 163, which states ‘the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change should also be considered in preparing and assessing planning applications, taking into account the full range of potential climate change impacts.’

  • Paragraph 162 now refers to ‘drought’, in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008, before adding that policies should support the future ‘health and’ resilience of communities and infrastructure to climate change impacts.
  • At paragraph 165, there has been a subtle retention of the wording ‘consider identifying’ suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure their development. The consultation draft suggested that local plans ‘should identify’ such areas. Retaining agility in site selection terms is an intrinsic component for the energy sector and this retention of original wording will be welcomed by many in the industry.

The Government response sets out a more practical stance that ‘the government acknowledges the reservations that some respondents had in relation to setting a stronger expectation that authorities proactively identify sites for renewable and low carbon development when producing plans. It is noted that the change could adversely affect plan-making and could have a limited impact on securing development. As such, rather than require all local authorities to identify sites for renewable and low carbon energy development during plan-making, this is to be retained as a discretionary choice.’

  • In a significant reverse, paragraph 168 has removed the proposed wording of ‘local planning authorities should support planning applications for all forms of renewable and low carbon development’. This is a clear step back and a missed opportunity to foster a truly positive approach, but most certainly better than the December 2023 NPPF version which said that LPAs ‘should approve an application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.’

However, the NPPF retains the use of ‘significant weight’ and sets out that this weight should be given to the ‘benefits associated with renewable and low carbon energy generation and the proposals contribution to a net zero future’ (noting that all scales of contributions are valuable). Whilst this is an improvement, in my view the use of substantial weight would have been a further improvement and more aligned with the wording of National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

  • The proposed amendment to footnote 63 has now been confirmed, with the new NPPF removing ‘the availability of agricultural land used for food production should be considered, alongside the other policies in this Framework, when deciding what sites are most appropriate for development’.
But there are still gaps in policy

There is always a sense of what more can be done and where the next stage of the journey will take us. The Clean Power 2030 Action plan outlines changes to legislation and the NPS’s. But what about non-NSIP schemes and the NPPF? For example, there could have been a strengthening of Green Belt policy and better highlighting of the very special circumstances for low carbon energy schemes.

The change in the NSIP threshold has not been carried through via a consistency of weighting on Critical National Infrastructure and there is still a policy void in many Local Plans about how to deal with onshore wind proposals.

Indeed, the Governments response to the NPPF consultation acknowledges this and includes ‘after considering the comments received requesting further clarity on terminology and the application of policy for renewable and low carbon energy development, we will shortly be updating planning practice guidance to support these changes in practice’.

The resolution of this void rests on Government plans to consult on the new National Development Management Plans (NDMPs) next year.

As reported in ‘Planning’ (20/11/24), Matthew Pennycock MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) advised that the consultation will ‘lead to a situation where NDMPs deal with the development control aspects of the planning system and the NPPF is left as essentially a plan making document. It’ll be in a slightly slimmed down form from what it is now” before continuing to say “but I just want to be very clear with the committee that it is not the government’s intention to make very substantive changes to national planning policy in the way we’ve done through this consultation at the point we come to essentially tidy the system up on that basis but we are looking at what NDMPs can do in terms of streamlining some of the development management control aspects of the system.’

In conclusion

Compared to six months ago, through the NPPF, we have taken at least one step forward.  Looking ahead we can perhaps expect another trimmer version of the NPPF next year, a good few pages of NPS, more legislation and some NDMP’s to assess. If this helps close any policy voids and enables local communities and practitioners to better assess schemes, then great. I just hope it’s more succinct than what was set out in Annex 3 of NPPF 2012 ([archived content]).