It has been just over two months since Labour’s landslide victory in the UK’s 2024 general election. Merely 72 hours after the result of the election, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves promised a planning policy and system upheaval, commenting that the planning status quo was a “graveyard of economic ambition”.
The Chancellor flagged a number of planning policy changes, however ultimately the resounding message was that the new government wants to build homes. Labour pledged to build 1.5 million homes within 5 years by streamlining planning and fast-tracking major infrastructure projects. Whilst this is a promising target, the question lies as to how the government will put these measures into place.
Earlier this year, the Labour government published a consultation on the proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) alongside a draft of the proposed NPPF. This article summarises the key proposed changes in this regard:
A new standard method for assessing housing needs:
The current standard method was introduced in 2018 with the intention of identifying the minimum number of housing that a local planning authority (LPA) should plan for its area. This method involved comprising a baseline of household projections (produced by the Office for National Statistics), which would then be adjusted to take account of the affordability of the relevant area. This projected figure could be capped to limit any increase, and this cap was applied where appropriate. However, it is important to note a 35% uplift was to be added to the 20 largest cities and urban areas. This change was added so as to ensure a level of consistency of the previous government’s manifesto commitment to see 300,000 homes per year delivered by the mid-2020s. Housing projections naturally can shift year to year, therefore to combat this, the previous government opted to lock in targets in line with the 2014 housing projections. Many questions have been raised as to whether this data is now up to date and fit for purpose.
Labour’s new proposals seek to ensure that the new method supports the new Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes In the next 5 years, whilst also achieving a more balanced distribution of homes across the country. Three key changes are proposed to enact this:
- Using a baseline 0.8% of existing housing stock in each local planning authority (so as to better reflect the growth ambitions across the UK, but more specifically in the Midlands and the North).
- Increasing the significance of affordability by revising the affordability adjustment.
- Removing the cap applied to the level of increase for housing and further any uplift to cities and urban areas.
Green Belt, Grey Belt and Brownfield
(Maybe put this paragraph at the end so that they match the order of the heading) Brownfield land is land that has previously been developed for industrial or commercial purposes, and therefore requires further development prior to reuse. In the NPPF proposals, Labour have stipulated that brownfield land should firstly be prioritised when considering development of previously used land, and therefore any development proposals on suitable brownfield land should be regarded as “acceptable in principle”. Labour have however acknowledged that brownfield development alone will not be enough to meet the housing need.
Green belt land is typically protected areas of the open land which act as a buffer between towns and the countryside. The five principles of Green Belt land are:
- To prevent urban sprawl;
- To prevent towns from merging into neighbouring towns;
- To protect the countryside from encroachment;
- To preserve historic towns; and
- To regenerate urban areas.
Instead of targeting Green Belt land to meet the demand for housing, Labour have introduced a new concept of Grey Belt land in the new proposals to the NPPF. In essence, Grey Belt land is land in the Green Belt which has previously been developed and any other land which makes a limited contribution to the five Green Belt purposes (as stated above), excluding areas or assets of particular importance. These include national parks, national landscapes, or sites of special scientific interest.
The NPPF proposals have also suggested that whilst Green Belt locations should be the last resort, in exceptional circumstances where there is a pressing housing and development need, the boundaries of Green Belt land can be reviewed. However local planning authorities should prioritise brownfield land, previously developed land in sustainable locations and grey belt land in sustainable locations first. Labour has expressly stated that the release of Green Belt land will not be supported where this would fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole.
Further to this, the government proposes new guidance that, where a local planning authority cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply or is delivering less than 75% against the Housing Delivery Test, or where there is unmet commercial or other need, development on sustainable “grey belt” land will be supported in certain circumstances.
Finally, within the NPPF consultation, the Government has committed to introducing ‘golden rules’ to ensure that major development on land released from the Green Belt benefits both communities and nature. All schemes must include contributions for improvements to local or national infrastructure and the provision of new or improvements to existing green spaces that are accessible to the public. Where the scheme delivers housing, at least 50% must be affordable housing including social rent. Developers will need to seriously consider these requirements before putting in any planning applications on released Green Belt land.
Starmer’s focal message throughout Labour’s campaign was to “kickstart economic growth”, and it seems the proposals above are very much in line with its pledge to Get Britain Building. Only time will tell whether this approach is feasible and functional.
(Please note that this article was produced at the start of September 2024 and so there may have been further updates after this article was published).