National Planning Policy Framework, Chapter 3: Decision-making policies (DM1–10)
This is Chapter 3 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Applies to England
The objective of the policies in this chapter of the National Planning Policy Framework is to ensure that development proposals are informed by appropriate information and decided in a way which is proportionate, timely and effective. This chapter provides a set of general decision-making policies which should be read with the rest of the thematic policies in the other chapters.
Preparing planning proposals
DM1: Preparing development proposals
1. Proposals for major development should:
a. Be informed by early engagement with neighbours and the local community, as well as with the local planning authority, statutory consultees, infrastructure providers, registered providers of social housing and other relevant bodies where appropriate, to identify and seek to resolve key planning matters prior to the submission of a planning application. This pre-application engagement should be proportionate to the nature of the proposal and those likely to be affected by it; and
b. Be accompanied by a concise planning statement setting out:
i. How the development proposal is consistent with relevant development plan and national decision-making policies;
ii. The outcome of pre-application engagement and the extent to which the proposal has changed in response to this engagement; and
iii. The proposed use of any planning obligations to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms.
2. Proposals for other types of development should be supported by the minimum necessary information requirements to enable a decision. In certain circumstances, set out elsewhere in this Framework, this should include pre-application discussions (see policies CO2 and P4). Pre-application engagement may also be required where proposals raise complex planning matters, such as the potential effect on heritage assets.
DM2: Information requirements
1. To ensure a clear and consistent approach to the information required to determine development proposals, local validation lists setting out the information required in support of an application for development should include the information specified in the relevant national decision-making policies (summarised in Annex C).
2. Local validation lists should only include additional information requirements if there is a policy in the development plan requiring a specific further assessment. Any such additional information requirements should not be applied equally to all applications but should be proportionate to the scale of development and its potential impact. Where appropriate, the requirements should clearly distinguish between what is required for major, medium and other types of development proposal.
Determining development proposals
DM3: Determining development proposals
1. When considering development proposals, local planning authorities should:
a. Work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner, where necessary seeking solutions to problems arising from initial proposals, to enable a timely decision;
b. Take a proportionate approach to the consideration of the planning matters raised by the proposals, in a way that reflects their scale, complexity and potential impact;
c. Take account of planning matters raised during any pre-application engagement, including any positive responses to this engagement, as well as representations on the proposals;
d. Consult statutory or internal consultees only where it is necessary to do so. Decisions on development proposals should not be delayed in order to secure advice from a statutory or internal consultee beyond their statutory deadlines unless there is insufficient information to make the decision, there are public safety risks from proceeding without advice, or more detailed advice may enable an approval rather than a refusal;
e. Consider whether otherwise unacceptable development proposals could be made acceptable through the use of planning conditions or planning obligations; and
f. Not refuse applications for development which should clearly be approved, having regard to their accordance with the development plan, the policies in this Framework and any other material considerations.
DM4: Emerging development plan proposals
1. When preparing and considering development proposals, relevant policies in emerging development plans may be given weight according to:
a. The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);
b. The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and
c. The degree of compliance of the relevant policies in the emerging plan with the policies for plan-making in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework, the greater the weight that may be given to them).
2. Development proposals should not be refused on the grounds of being premature, other than in the limited circumstances where both:
a. The development proposal is so substantial, or its cumulative effect alongside other development proposals would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging plan; and
b. The emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area. An emerging plan is unlikely to be in an advanced stage if a draft spatial development strategy, local plan, minerals and waste plan or supplementary plan has yet to be submitted for examination; or, in the case of a neighbourhood plan, the local planning authority publicity period on the draft plan has not ended.
3. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the reason for the refusal should indicate clearly how granting permission for the development proposal would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process.
DM5: Development viability
1. Where development proposals accord with relevant up-to-date plan policies and national decision-making policies, they should be assumed to be viable. Relevant policies in this context are those that relate to the contributions expected from development.
2. There may be circumstances in which a viability assessment demonstrates that it would not be possible for development to proceed on a policy compliant basis. In such circumstances, the submission of a viability assessment as part of a development proposal may be justified to ensure that the proposed development makes the maximum possible contribution to affordable housing and other infrastructure. Such circumstances may include where:
a. The development proposed is materially different to any development type considered in the viability assessment that informed the development plan;
b. The site characteristics are materially different to those considered in the viability assessment that informed the development plan;
c. The development is demonstrably burdened by costs which were not taken into account in the viability assessment that informed the development plan; and/or
d. Site or economic circumstances have changed significantly[footnote 22] since the viability assessment that informed the development plan was prepared.
3. Neither the price paid for land, nor the price intended to be paid through an option agreement, should be a justification for failing to accord with relevant policies in the plan.
4. Where a viability assessment is submitted with a development proposal, this should be based upon and refer back to the viability assessment(s) that informed the relevant development plan policies. It should fully evidence all inputs and assumptions used in the assessment, and explain any differences from those used for viability assessment that informed the relevant plan policies. All viability assessments should reflect the recommended approach in planning practice guidance, including the standardised inputs, and should be made publicly available.
5. It is a matter for the decision-maker, having regard to the circumstances under which the viability assessment is submitted, to assess the weight to be given to a viability assessment.
DM6: Use of planning conditions and obligations
1. Planning conditions should only be attached to planning permissions and other associated consents for development where they are:
a. Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b. Relevant to the development and to planning considerations generally;
c. Sufficiently precise to make them capable of being complied with and enforced; and
d. Reasonable in all other respects.
2. Conditions should not be used to:
a. Require payments of money; or
b. Require that land is formally given up to another party (such as highways to the local highway authority); or
c. Restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so.
3. Where national model conditions are relevant to the development, they should be used unless there are strong reasons for using a different condition. Conditions that are required to be discharged before development commences should be avoided, unless there is a clear justification. Applications to discharge conditions should be dealt with in a timely manner to avoid unnecessary delays to development.
4. Planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address potential unacceptable impacts through a planning condition. Where national model planning obligations are relevant to the development, they should be used unless there are strong reasons for using a different planning obligation.
DM7: Relationship with other regulatory regimes
1. Development proposals should be assessed on the basis of whether they would be an acceptable use of land. Matters which are controlled by separate regulatory regimes may, in the context of a particular development proposal, be a material consideration where they have land-use implications. Decision-makers should assume, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, that those separate regimes will operate effectively.
2. Planning decisions should not seek to duplicate or extend controls imposed by separate regulatory regimes other than where there is a development plan policy in place applying optional technical standards for the development proposed (see policy PM13).
3. The parallel processing of planning and other regulatory consents is encouraged where this can help to align and expedite the consenting of development.
4. Where compliance under a separate regulatory regime requires subsequent changes to an approved development proposal, such changes should be approved unless they would mean the development is no longer acceptable when assessed against development plan and national decision-making policies.
DM8: Unauthorised development and enforcement
1. Where there has been unauthorised development and local planning authorities are considering whether enforcement action is expedient, they should take account of their local enforcement plan, the impact of the breach of planning control, and the extent to which the breach would otherwise be acceptable.
2. In cases of unauthorised development where consideration is being given to an application for retrospective planning permission (or through an enforcement appeal, whether to grant planning permission in respect of a breach of planning control), if it is concluded based on evidence that the unauthorised development was intentional, that fact should be given substantial weight in considering whether to grant planning permission.
Other routes to consent
DM9: Use of development orders
1. To provide certainty about the prospects of securing planning permission for specified forms of development, local planning authorities and Mayors are strongly encouraged to use Local Development Orders and Mayoral Development Orders, especially where this would support housing, regeneration, economic growth or environmental improvement. These orders should take account of the development plan and national decision-making policies, and set out precisely what development is permitted and how planning obligations will be secured.
2. Local planning authorities should also respond positively to any proposals from communities for Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build Orders, working collaboratively with community organisations to resolve any issues before draft orders are submitted for examination.
DM10: Removal of national permitted development rights
1. The use of Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights should:
a. Be limited to situations where it is necessary to protect local amenity or the wellbeing of the area (for example safeguarding against the demolition of local facilities, preventing an over-concentration of uses which could affect the quality of life such as small Houses in Multiple Occupation, or supporting the vitality and viability of parts of town centres);
b. Be based on robust evidence; and
c. Apply to the smallest area required to mitigate the evidenced harm.
This Chapter 3 of the National Planning Policy Framework
Continue to Chapter 4: Achieving sustainable development (S1–6).
Return to the National Planning Policy Framework homepage.
Footnotes
22. In the context of economic circumstances, ‘changed significantly’ would be a recession or similar significant economic change. ↩