Proposed National Planning Policy Framework Changes

With the Labour Government winning the 2024 election by a landslide, there are no short order of promises to keep good on from the new government. In the interest of the construction sector, none of these promises will mean more than Starmer’s pledge to ‘get Britain building again’, in conjunction with his promise to build 1.5 million new homes during his tenure. These commitments come at a pivotal point for the construction industry, which has been facing a difficult period over the last few years since the pandemic.

One of Starmer’s first opportunities to apply these changes and give the industry a much-needed boost is his governments newly revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Although consultations are ongoing until September 2024, there has already been a document released cataloguing the proposed changes from Michael Gove’s document, which only came into effect eight months ago. After the last NPPF only remaining in place since just before Christmas, professionals in the industry will be hoping that this updated document will be the beginning of a period of much needed stability, after such a turbulent period in government over the last few years.

The eye of the beholder

One of the most noticeable changes to terminology throughout the document might come as a surprising change to those unfamiliar with the previous iteration; the exclusion of the term “beautiful”. This is thought to be done in order to streamline planning permission applications, and remove aspects of ambiguity that many felt flawed the previous NPPF, with Angela Rayner and the rest of the department of Levelling Up Housing and Communities (LUHC) aiming to create a sense of clarity with the new document.

Rayner further elaborated on the decision during an interview on BBC radio two, where she defended the expulsion of the word: “Beautiful means nothing really, it means one thing to one person and another thing to another […] all that wording was doing was preventing and blocking development and that’s why we think it is too subjective.”

She also made sure to assure people that there are still protections in place to ensure that developments do not disrupt their local area, and that new buildings are in keep with their surrounding areas.

Grey Belt

One of the other additions into the updated document was the inclusion of a newly defined label of the grey belt, a historically murky area that the new labour government made clear they wanted to shed light on. ‘Grey Belt’ up until now has been loosely defined as the ‘ugly’ parts of green belt land, following the same vague language that has been expelled from the document as in the previous example.

The new Labour government will be looking to utilise the grey belt classification in order to free up more green belt land for building on. Green Belt land was originally coined as a term in 1947, and was intended to prevent urban sprawl and preserve natural land, although some voices have criticised the term for obstructing building on disused and ugly sites, prompting the creation of another term-grey belt.

Grey belt areas are now defined as follows:

“[…] land in the green belt comprising previously developed land and any other parcels and/or areas of green belt land that make a limited contribution to the five green belt purposes […], but excluding those areas or assets of particular importance […]”

For context, the five purposes of the green belt are:

• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
• to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
• to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
• to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
• and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

There are hopes that this more solid definition will allow for grey belt areas to be used to their full potential, rather than holding up possible spaces that are ready for re-use by coming under the green belt label, when really providing nothing for the area.

Mandatory Housing Targets

Perhaps the biggest- and most talked about change in the NPPF is the inclusion of mandatory housing targets, what many consider to be ambitious targets at that. However, Rayner was adamant that simply reinstating mandatory targets would not be enough to alleviate the current crisis, and there has been changes made to identifying local housing need.

The new algorithm is based on existing housing stock in local authorities, reflecting the average growth in stock over the last 10 years. This new algorithm also boasts a higher focus on affordability, with affordability adjustment increased to 0.6%. This generates a total need of 370,000 per year, an increase from the previous target of 306,000.

This proposed change to housing targets certainly seems to follow the mandate of “getting Britain building” and will be welcome news to both the construction and housing industry. Affordable housing has also long needed reassurance from the government, and it’s a welcome change to see the sector being highlighted for growth. However, the new government has already touched on the surrounding problems to do with increasing housing output, and it remains to be seen whether the additional work needed to meet these targets will follow suite.

Legislation remaining

There were a number of other proposed reforms, however the following will require additional legislation to take effect, including:

Planning fees: increase fees for householder applications, with possible increases for other applications and other planning services but still no proposal to ring-fence.

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: increasing the scope of commercial projects covered, but also raising the thresholds for some renewable energy projects to account for improved generation.

Climate-change: policy is likely to be strengthened but unclear how. There are hints that a more proportionate approach may be taken to flood-risk although the NPPF remains unchanged at present so it remains a consideration.

The government seem intent on their mission to bring about change, and are making promising first steps. However, these commitments need to be followed by suitable and consistent action in order to meet the tall ambitions set out, and whether these plans will come to fruition remains to be seen.