Ep221: Your 40-minute guide to the rewritten National Planning Policy Framework

Welcome to Room 106. I'm John Gagan from Planning Magazine. Every week we descend into Room 106. The dungeon of despair were all the latest planning announcements and decisions are issued to extract the key information for you. In this episode, we'll unsurprisingly be discussing last week's publication of the final version of the new and heavily rewritten National Planning Policy Framework. The last week's episode involved a fairly quick first take overview of the new framework. This week, we're going to devote almost the entire show to it, including discussing the transitional arrangements for local authorities, new requirements for densification of developments, significant changes to the long-established presumption in favour of sustainable development and revisions to the Heritage Impact Test, plus policies on green belts decision-making, local planmaking and strategic planning. We'll also be around at the other key non-MPPF news from the past week to make sure you're fully informed on all the goings on in the sector. Time to join a couple of my colleagues inside the forbidding walls of Room 106 to find out more. This week, Room 106 is deluged with paperwork from the new NDPF and the government's consultation response. I'll speak firstly to our technical editor, David Jua, who has undertaken the Hurt Gillian feet of trying to summarise the new framework with some help from colleagues. And here he is. Dave, must you see? Hi Jua, nice to see you too. How was NPPF week for you last week? Well, it was long and it was intense, but it was also very interesting, so we'll mix three of emotions. So I've got used to now with successive NPPFs coming out in the last few years. Yes, particularly in the last few years. Every year, it seems there's an update, even you draft or final version. That's right. It's like an annual event, isn't it? It is, yeah, and it's always a roller coaster ride trying to cover it. Today's moving on to discussion of the new framework. Let's start by highlighting the general principles in the new NPPF and how it structured. What are the key changes here? Well, it is a very different document, Jua, I think that's fair to say. It's a radical change, and as trailed in the consultation draft in 2025, the new framework has a completely new structure, pretty much compared to all the previous versions of the NPPF since its first inception in 2012, and I think the main obvious change is that the new framework contains a mix of plan-making policies and decision-making policies. So rather than just being labeled a whole series of paragraphs in different topics, these are all represented as policies, whether they're related to plan-making or decision-making, and government's thinking on this in its consultation response document that said the proposed format and structure is actually integral to establishing a comprehensive set of natural policies on planning matters, and making policy more rules-based and certainty in the rules-based nature comes through very strongly in the document. That goes as far as actually for a lot of decision-making policies or the DM policies, actually indicating in some of them how much weight the government expects particular considerations to be given. Okay, so what examples are there of that? Well, these are cases where it says it's appropriate to give substantial weight to certain benefits, and also the limited circumstances in which it is expected that permission would be refused, that a few policies that explicitly say that, for example, certain cases for isolated homes, and the government says this standardized approach will provide greater clarity, while the weight to be given to specific considerations remains a matter for decision-makers to be determined on the facts of the cases and individual cases, so it'll caveat there, but again, that drive for certainty, clarity, rules-based nature is coming through strongly. Okay, structurally we've had a complete overhaul and this split into decision-making and plan-making, and it's fair to say it's more prescriptive than its predecessor, right? The nature of the way it's presented, yeah, and just the use of policies is really trying to explicitly set out what the government expects in some of these circumstances. Okay, and certainly a fair bit longer than the previous framework, isn't it? Yeah, we noticed that in the draft version last year, didn't we, John, where the document was indicating significantly greater length than the 2024 and previous version, so fair to say that certainly a feature about the increased length. Yeah, what about the all-important transitional arrangements for the document, which give local authorities a chance to some time to adapt to this radical rewrite? Well, in terms of implementation, for planning applications, so for development management officers, the new document is enforced well from, it's already enforced from last Monday, the 17th of August, 2026 when it was published, come to true effects immediately, and in fact, we've already seen at least one appeal decision issued in the last week quoting from its new policies and reflecting the fact that it's now enforced. I think that was a housing proposal in Essex, where a meaningful housing scheme has got through on the back of New MPPF. And what about plan-making? Yeah, well for assessing the way to be given to local plan policies, the transitional arrangements have been slightly softened from those outlined in the draft. The implementation section of the framework says policies or parts of policies that are materially inconsistent with the policies and the new documents should be given at very limited weight. So fairly strict, but the draft had actually proposed that as soon as the document was live, local plan policies that in any way inconsistent with national decision-making policies in the MPPF should be given very limited weight. So this materially inconsistent and also the option whereby, by parts of policies, rather than policies of the whole, that has softened it, and that change has made the response to concerns that the policy has drafted was bit too hard-edged and could apply too broadly according to the consultation response document. So a little bit of pragmatism coming through there, I think, in the way the framework is coming to force for plan-making policies. Okay, the government has made great play about how the new framework will provide more in-principle support for development, and what it's described as a more explicit presumption of favour of development in certain locations. Could you tell us a bit more about this and how the updated presumption favour sustainable development will work? Yeah, sure. Well, I think, first of all, it's probably, we've been hearing, one of the headlines, which is that this is another pro-growth framework. The government supports growth, what's their encourage, development, some more homes to be built. This framework reflects that in it sort of principles, and certainly the presumption in favour of development in itself remains. It's just that it's now taken forward in a slightly different way and across a few different policies. So there's like an introductory policy policy S3 that sort of introduces the notion of presumption favour of sustainable development and retains that existing principle proposals, which are called with various development plans should be approved without delay. But beyond this, this is where you start to get two strands, and so, first of all, policy S4 covers development proposals within settlements, and it says that these would be approved and that the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, and that includes in relation to other policies in the framework. And it could be, for example, where a proposal would have a substantial adverse impact in relation to allocation or safeguarding a plan for particular uses or to the application of certain policies. So standard wording, that's geared towards development within settlements. So we're getting into an approach on where the presumption applies depends on the exact location of the development. Right, which is obviously a big change from the previous framework. And what about development outside settlements? How does the new presumption work for that? Yeah, well, this is where it gets really more interesting. So secondly, policy S5 covers development proposed outside settlements. And this one sort of has the starting point coming from the opposite standpoint. So it says only certain forms of development should be approved in such locations. So when you first read it, you start to think, well, this is like a sort of green bow or countryside policy. It's saying, you know, starting point should be no only in these certain cases. But then you look down the list, and it is quite an extensive list. So it's got things like development for agriculture, redevelopment of brownfield land, development, rural businesses and services that need to be outside settlements, some of these very relatively non-controversial, some of classes of development that were already outlined as acceptable in previous versions of the framework. But then one of the big changes is in part H of this policy. The development within and me is a big deal. walk in distance of a well-connected station, the annex of the document that defines what the classes are read as a well-connected station and you know gives the distance from the station at 10 minutes walking time and well-connected means that it has to have at least four trains or trams in each direction per hour and so they're certainly quite area as we met into that policy but in principle that that's quite a big fundamental change in that policy being brought in and secondly very crucially in part J of this policy development that would address an evidence and met need including where the council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing plan supply and where development would be physically well related to an existing settlement that is now also under this guise of the exceptions so a reminder the policy says only certain forms of development should be approved at such locations so this addition in part J it includes that so obviously decision makers after them still go through the assessment of whether the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects but that development's class where it's oppressing an evidence and met need is within those exceptions it can't be approved in such locations also I should add that it comprises major development for freight and logistics purposes so underlining the importance of those industries that the government attaches in the document okay so there's a lot of definitions here for planners to get to grips with like particularly the definitions of a well-connected station and the reasonable walking distance criteria which includes 800 meters distance and 10 minutes of walking time so how exactly are decision makers meant to apply this so as I mentioned what the document says is that these developments were the exceptions are listed they they should be approved and that's the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects the development proposals which do not fall within one of the categories set out in the policy they should only be approved in exceptional circumstances and that's where the benefits for the proposal were substantially outweighed the adverse effects including to the character of the countryside and in relation to promoting sustainable patterns of development so you know that's quite a strict approach but you could argue that it does actually open up the possibility for development proposals to be approved in the exceptional circumstances it doesn't define it any more than that where benefits have actually outweighed this effects but it does introduce that potential for development to get through even where they don't meet one of these criteria what it does say this sort of suite of policies as policies F4 and F5 both say that benefits of development are likely to be outweighed by harm in situations where proposals fail to comply with one of the national DM policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances so it's linking it to other policies where they say explicitly that development should be refused so things like the isolated home or some certain situations it remains to be seen through further analysis how many of those policies there are it might be that there's relatively few but there is a link there but I would just highlight me talking the other day John in the case book podcast that the previous presumption in the 2024 NPPF explicitly listed a series of policies that should be considered in concluding on that balance and those included a whole range of things like sustainable location design quality making the most effective use of land some of those are still mentioned but they're talking about those developments that might not even necessarily fit into one of the categories like where there's none met needs so it's quite nuanced the way this presumption is going to apply the way the tilted balance might tilt in certain scenarios so a lot of interesting appeal decisions and committee decisions to come up in the next few months interpreting this I'd say John yes I'm sure going to hear a lot more in the next few months about how decision makers are applying this significantly revised presumption and we'll be keeping a close eye on it in our news coverage you mentioned earlier about the changes to the structure of the document and the division into decision making and plan making policies one big issue before the draft was published last December was whether these decision making policies would be statutory or not and before it published the draft the governments that they'd make these policies non-statutory which caused some probably some criticism in the sector what's the latest with that well as tried in the draft John there's policies non-statutory for now it's fair to say I know there's been a lot of debate about this and there are certainly pros and cons to start to tune on statutory approach the government says it's listened to the arguments foreign against instead of all these issues and that the matter will essentially be kept under review so basically the government is going to see how this goes and to see if this approach to introducing the policies provides the clarity that it's hoping for the explicit approach whether it provides a sufficient nudge to provide that certainty for all stakeholders and what it says is should a decision be taken to progress that to tree NDMPs the government will ensure that scope is clearly defined supported by guidance and transitional arrangements and that their role in relation to development plans is set out clearly to provide certainty for decision makers and communities so quite interesting that they're setting out exactly what they're going to do in the scenario that these policies to do get introduced implying potentially that they are still seriously considering it and sort of teeing up what actions they need to take to do that so not certain but perhaps that's an indication of where they're thinking yes but certainly for now they're seeing how this suite of policies and this approach goes this is virtually the NPTN. Yeah it certainly sounds that they're keeping the option open of going for statutory DN policies so that's another thing to look out for yeah another headline change in the new framework is are the policies on urban and suburban densification we discussed in last week's episode which was our first take on the new NPPF the minimum density requirements around busier train stations but the document is also seeking to boost density levels in other areas isn't it yeah that's right a lot of this was trialled in the draft john decision making policy L2 and making effective use of lands called for substantial weight to be given to various types of proposals that reuse existing sites including specifically for those that remediate land make better use of underutilised land by tempered uses make use of air space with existing development and also provide sensitive redevelopment or additional development within existing plots including but not limited to mansard reef extensions so the explicit reference to mansard reef extensions lives on john some years after it was introduced by the previous government but what this policy also does is while opening up the possibility of additional development in existing plots it also places limits on the scale of redevelopment within residential curtailages and says schemes should not occupy more than twice the footprint of all the existing buildings on the site and following development would retain at least 50% of the non-developed area within the building curtailage and I think very much linked to that approach in policy L2 L3 as well sort of to use which says whether natural or makes these developments within settlements should increase the density in the area where they are proposed new text added since the drafts clarifies that the only exception to this should be where there is a clear justification that this is either inappropriate or not possible and the policy says that while an area's character should be taken into account of decisions this should not preclude development which makes the most of an area's potential so I think that's a clear indication of another nudge approach john on encouraging density, mixed-use schemes, residential schemes, upping the density in existing urban areas like the most of existing brownfield land which is you know possible in some areas it can be challenging in other areas and then perhaps also taking this approach forward in SPD things like that sometimes it could be politically contentious in other situations it can be a very fruitful way of tomating or housing numbers certainly actually coming through from this is that the government's trying to nudge a council's and stake orders towards this sort of approach. Right well this is clear support for increased densification isn't it and that's a pretty big change for the previous framework and presumably this is going to be quite controversial I see that the Conservatives have already accused the Labour government of introducing what used to be termed garden grabbing. Yeah I think there's always so it's going to be the challenge in terms of striving to get that balance between optimising density and looking at the impact on an area's character, and assessing what that character is, how much it needs to be preserved or taken into account, and the government in this framework, I think is still recognising that. There's a role for the area's character to be taken into account, really trying to encourage all actors in the planning system to make sure that the potential of the area is making the most of that opportunity for development in urban areas. Okay, and sticking to controversial policies, what about Greenbelts? What does the new framework say about that, and in particular, the greybelts designation that was introduced in the previous framework? Yeah, while not surprisingly, the new MPPF takes forward the greybelts concept introduced in 2024, and this includes the policy that certain greybelts proposals should be not regarded as inappropriate development in the Greenbelt. This is on the provider that they meet and unmet need, that they're in a sustainable location, and for housing proposals that they meet the golden rules. So those are the rules we know about, that strive for affordable housing provision, of a certain level, and we infrastructure improvements, improvements to open space, etc. This approach was previously in paragraph 155 of the 2024 MPPF, and it's now enshrined in policy GB7 part G of the new MPPF. And additionally to this, the definition of greybelts in the glossary of the document now removes the exception of areas where our footnote designation has strict development, so that's designation such as national landscapes, heritage assets, biodiversity assets, and that sort of thing. What the government has said is that it satisfied that a separate policy protection for footnote seven area remains in place, and so it doesn't consider that substantial changes to the greybelts approach and necessary, it doesn't consider that this footnote is necessary to be retained within that particular policy. And obviously, the other thing that it's also done in connection to this policy is say that housing and mixed use development around stations are defined as well connected, so it's that well connected definition coming in again. Those proposals will not be considered inappropriate, provides it's an appropriate scale, does not prejudice long-term development proposals, and again complies with the MPPF's golden rules. So a couple of key changes and additions to that greenbelts greybelts approach, fundamental nature of it remains firmly in place. Okay, so the government's saying that these footnote seven, the protection for these footnote seven areas is specifically outlined as unnecessary because they already exist elsewhere. Yeah, I think it's a central argument that it's duplicating protection that's already in place for footnote seven areas in other parts of the framework and there are other policies that tackle the various designations elsewhere. Okay, the government say it's not a relaxation, but it's one of those things you can imagine, Michael's concerns. Of course, as with all the concept of the MPPF, what happens with it in practice in subsequent appeal decisions, committee decisions, office decisions remains to be seen and will be following that closely over the coming months. Yeah, absolutely. So we're just going to talk about greenbelt policy in relation to decision making. What about releasing greenbelt and fire planmaking? Well, John Policy, GV2 says preparation of the new SDS, that's a spatial development strategies that don't have a strategic scale, and they should be informed by an assessment of the strategic role of greenbelt land in the area. It retains the concept of exceptional circumstances, the exceptional circumstances are still required for altering greenbelt boundaries in local plans, and that's the policy GB3 of the document. So it's still for local plans to do that. So the SDS has a high level assessment of the strategic role, still for the local plans to do the release and to make an assessment of whether exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. What the MPPF does say is that exceptional circumstances would include local authority being unable to meet its identified need for development in full, having examined all of the reasonable options for doing so. One thing it adds is that, however, where a development plan spatial strategies identified suitable land around well-connected stations for development, exceptional circumstances do not need to be demonstrated to justify altering greenbelt boundaries. So that's quite a big change. So it's a big focus on development around well-connected stations from railway and tram stations, where those happen to be in the greenbelt suitable for development. Councils don't need to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, so they don't need to show that there's an unmet need for development. They can go ahead and put them in development plans, allocate them if they consider that suitable for development. So that's quite a big, interesting change in the greenbelt and plan making section. That's a pretty major relaxation of greenbelt rules there, isn't it? Yeah, for those locations, that's quite a big change. Yeah, absolutely. Well Dave, thank you very much for that. I'll be shortly speaking to another colleague about other key areas of the new MPPF. For a digestible roundup of the key changes in the MPPF, please check the article that Dave has written along with some help from other colleagues, which is called 72 Things You Need to Know about the final version of the new MPPF, which can be found on planning with us. Dave, I'm going to have to leave you now, but I hope you managed to get a well-earned break soon from your exertions getting to grips with the new MPPF. Yeah, well, it's fortunately the bank holiday weekend is coming out, so I'll have at least an extra day to have a breather from dodging the new MPPF. Yes, well, that break will be very well earned, Dave, I hope you managed to have a good rest. Next, I'm speaking to our senior reporter, Natasha Norris, about some other major changes in the new framework. Natasha, great to see you. Good to see you too, John. Firstly, you're going to tell us about what the new framework says about plan-making. Can you start by telling us what it says about the new system of strategic planning and spatial development strategies? Yes, readers may remember that they're planning an infrastructure act introduced a duty for combined authorities, combined county authorities, upper tier county councils and unitary authorities to prepare a spatial development strategy or SDS for their area. And these SDSs are high-level strategies prepared across boundaries. The MPPF consultation draft proposed that these SDSs be expected to set out a strategy for a sustainable pattern of growth, covering a period of at least 20 years. But the minimum expected plan period for SDSs has been increased to at least 25 years in the final framework document. The government's consultation response said this would quote, "support long-term certainty for planning, infrastructure delivery and investment." And have any other changes been made to policies around SDSs in the final version of the framework compared to the draft? Yes, strategic planning authorities show commence preparation of a replacement or altered SDS, no later than seven years after the current version is adopted, or earlier where there have been significant changes. This is an adjusted period from the draft, which had instructed that a replacement should be adopted no later than 10 years after the current version was adopted, or earlier if there have been significant changes. The government said that this approach quote maintains up-to-date plans by ensuring that no SDS should be more than approximately 10 years old, while supporting stability and reducing unnecessary burden. Okay, so that's strategic level planning. What does a new framework say about local plan making? Perhaps the most significant shift from the consultation draft is the requirement for local plans to cover a minimum 10-year period. Under the previous MPPF, they needed to cover a minimum of 15 years, and this was also proposed in the draft document. The shorter plan period comes despite 69% of respondents supporting the retention of the 15-year minimum plan period. The government said that it had noted the overall support for longer plan periods, but it pointed out comments suggesting that shorter periods would have benefits of flexibility and adaptability, evidence being more relevant and up-to-date, and reduced resource burdens on local authorities. In the draft version, the government had proposed making changes to the soundness test when local plans were examined. Has it taken forward these proposals in the final MPPF? No, they haven't. Soundness tests are used at local plan examinations to assess where the local plans have been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements and a sound. They must be positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. The draft and MPPF had proposed replacing the effective test with a new realistic test, but the government has decided to withdraw this in favour of retaining the status quo. Okay, and have any other changes been made to the local plan policies that were in the draft MPPF? Yes, the draft text had said authority should identify the most appropriate sites for development, but the final version says local plans should identify just appropriate sites for development. The government says the tweak was made to respond to concerns that this would place significant burdens on plan makers and would be inconsistent with the tests of soundness. And as we discussed last week, the government has also opted not to bar local authorities from setting energy efficiency standards for new housing that exceed national building regulations, instead a new paragraph in policy PM 13 outlines the circumstances in which LPAs can set out local energy efficiency standards. The response document says the government has backed down on this issue following concerns that the drafts approach could hinder local authorities ability to address climate change in their areas. And continuing with the theme of planmaking, what have we learned about how housing need will be assessed under the new MPBF? This has remained largely unchanged from the draft document. The final document says that housing requirements for individual local authorities should be taken from strategic level SDSs, whether it exists, and should not be retested during local plan formation unless there has been a significant change in circumstances. But where SDS is not in place, the housing requirement figure should be higher than the identified local housing needs assessment where appropriate, including if more homes are required to meet the needs of neighboring authorities or where authorities have significant growth ambitions. In addition, the fact that an up-to-date calculation of local housing need is higher than the local housing requirement should not be considered evidence of unmet housing need for a period of five years from adoption of a plan, as long as certain conditions are met. These are that the planning authority can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites with the appropriate rougher and where the housing delivery test indicates that the delivery of housing is more than 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years. Okay, so if those conditions aren't met, then applicants and decision makers could consider the fact that the local housing needs are higher to be evidence of unmet housing need. Yes, that's right. Okay, and another big change in the new MPBF is the overhaul of the long-established test for assessing the impact of development proposals on nearby heritage buildings. Can you tell us about these changes? Yes, the test now includes consideration of the potential positive heritage effects of the scheme. The new MPPF introduces four tiers for assessing impact on heritage assets, having a positive effect, no effect, harmed the asset and then causing the total loss. And policy HE5 on assessing effects on heritage assets states that it is the effect on an asset significant rather than the scale of the development that should be considered by decision makers. Meanwhile, the new framework revises the weight given to consideration of the potential effect to the development on a designated heritage asset from great to substantial. And does this mean the weight given to the effect on such assets has increased? Well, in the consultation, the MHCLG says the change is intended to improve consistency in how weighting is applied rather than to signal any change in weighting to be given to the conservation or designated heritage assets. However, a blog on the new MPPF by consultancy bid wells points out that even if intended as standardized language, substantial is presented as the highest tier of weight available. Okay. And have any changes been made to heritage policies since the consultation draft? A new paragraph three has been added to policy HE6 since the consultation draft pointing out that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable in importance and weight when considering proposals. The consultation response said the addition is to make the importance of designated heritage assets absolutely clear. Okay. So some big changes to the heritage impact test there. We're now going to look at some of the other big changes. We're now going to look at some of the other significant revisions in the new MPPF, which we'll have to cover very briefly. Firstly, the final framework is introduced to new category of very large strategic sites. Can you tell us a bit more about that? Yes, this is a change from the draft, which did not define these. The glossary of the new MPPF defines a strategic site as a site for residential, commercial or mixed use development, which would be implemented in multiple phases, have significant infrastructure requirements and require a master plan. It says that these sites would typically have capacity for at least 1,500 dwellings. And some notable tweaks have been made to national planning policy related to traveler sites. So what's changed here? Well, the new MPPF incorporates the government's planning policy for traveler sites or PPTS, which was formally a separate document that had needed to be considered alongside the framework. The new framework requires plan makers to consider the needs of travelers in the preparation of SDSs and local plans where SDSs are not in place. Okay. And finally, can you tell us about some of the other key changes in the new MPPF? Yes. In relation to design, the phrase in the draft framework and previous MPPF to refuse development proposals that are not well designed has been dropped. Policy DP3 of the final documents says instead that proposals should be refused if without clear justification they comfort with key elements of the design policy or with any explicit design standards that are set out in the development plan. Meanwhile, the revised framework for the first time states that development proposals should be designed to address the safety of women and girls. Elsewhere, the final MPPF confirms the drafts move to direct authorities to refuse hot food takeaways within walking distance of schools, but it admits the term fast food outlets. As we discussed last week, the government has backtracked on a more permissive approach it took in the draft to development in national parks and national landscapes. Another very significant policy in the new framework that we discussed in more detail last week is the introduction of so-called default yes for homes within reasonable walking distance of well-connected stations alongside new minimum expectations for how much housing should be built in these areas. And finally, a proposal in the draft MPPF to allow developers of medium-sized sites to provide cash contributions instead of on-site affordable housing provision is dropped. Thank you, Tash, for that run through of the some of the biggest changes in the new MPPF both compared to the previous framework and to the draft. And there's a lot more about the new MPPF that we haven't had time to cover in this week's episode, but there's lots of news coverage on planning resource and in particular there's a roundup article called 72 Things You Need to Know about the final version of the new MPPF. Natasha, now you're going to tell us about the other biggest planning news stories from the last week that aren't from new MPPF. Yes, first up, the government has announced that regional mayors will have calling powers for schemes of over 150 homes from early next year, with further powers over large-scale infrastructure to be handed down upon adoption of new spatial development strategies. In other news, the high court has clarified the application of the 56-day permitted development deemed consent rule in cases where a prior approval decision is subsequently quashed in what lawyers say is the first time the issue has been explored by the courts. And finally, Buckinghamshire Council and a campaign group have launched a challenge in the high court against the Planning Minister Matthew Pennycox decision to approve Charity the Eplepsey Society's plan for 975 homes and care facilities on Greenbeltland on the edge of the village of Charleston, Peter. Thank you, Natasha. More details on each of those stories can be found on planningresource.co.uk. Right, my time in room 106 is up. Natasha, nice to see you, and I hope to see you down here again soon. Thank you, John. See you soon. Okay, that's another visit to room 106 wraps up. We'll be back next week to look at more of the latest planning news stories and to discuss the biggest hot topics in the sector. In the meantime, don't forget to listen and follow us wherever you normally get your podcasts. And for a daily bulletin of planning news plus weekly analysis and specialist bulletins, subscribe at planningresource.co.uk. Our thanks to producers Chudoin and Ingermasden from Haymarket Media Group. And thanks to all for listening. See you next week.