One week after the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change announcement, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has published the Government’s ambitious plans to overhaul the planning system. With a sharp focus on accelerating growth, the new approach seeks to prioritise ‘builders not blockers’, to foster a pro-development environment to meet the housing needs with greater efficiency and innovation.
What’s in the proposed NPPF?
- 370,000 annual new homes target
- Focus on affordability and social rent housing provisions with councils being granted more powers to pass planning applications
- Prioritisation of brownfield sites, with new rules introduced for grey belt and greenbelt land development
- £100m for councils planning officer and additional planning officer
- 12-week deadline to provide new and updated Local Plans
- Re-enforcement of stricter planning conditions to speed up delivery
The new proposals align closely with the Ministry’s recent announcements, reinforcing a strategic shift towards development and growth across the nation, rather than just in core urban areas. Central to this vision is the pivotal role of local councils in achieving the 370,000 annual new homes target. To support this ambition, the Government is enforcing the introduction of new or revised local plans within the next 12-weeks, providing £100 million in support for councils, and funding an additional 300 planning officers. Any councils still operating under outdated targets by July 2026 will be required to provide for an extra year’s supply of homes in their pipeline.
The reforms also place significant emphasis on affordable housing delivery, particularly around the need for councils to increase social rent provision. Key measures have been introduced to support homeowners—through adjustments to affordability rates and mortgage adjustment increases—and councils, empowering them with greater authority to enforce affordable housing quotas and pass planning applications. Additionally, councils with annual housing requirements that are 80% or less of their local annual housing need will be required to add a 20% buffer to their 5-year housing land supply from 1st July 2026. Based on these methods, London will have to double its current building numbers to meet compulsory targets. Although this is a reduction compared with the target set under the previous Conservative Government, it was widely accepted that this previous figure was extremely ambitious if not unachievable altogether. The Northeast and Northwest will also experience significant growth in their targets.
The long-awaited shift in policy concerning greenbelt land has also been introduced, offering greater on the Government’s new approach. While the Government has maintained its commitment to a brownfield first approach, it has also emphasised that councils will need to explore grey belt development, in the first instance. To facilitate this, barriers that once hindered development on grey belt land have been removed, reducing the likelihood of it being classified as ‘inappropriate for development.’
However, even with brownfield prioritisation, the Government has stated there will need to be greenbelt development, but under strict rulings. Any development on greenbelt must meet strict requirements, via the new ‘golden rules’, which require developers to provide the necessary infrastructure for local communities, such as nurseries, GP surgeries and transport, as well as a premium level of social and affordable housing.
One of the most significant proposals aims to mitigate developers ‘land banking’ or the slow build out of sites, reflecting the deep-seated dissatisfaction amongst political circles regarding speed of delivery. The reforms have proposed stricter planning conditions on build out times with developers to provide a commitment on build out trajectory up front. This would then be assessed against the reality of delivery on the ground with poor performers potentially being denied permission on future sites.
Welcomed or worried: how did the industry react?
The response from both the industry and local authorities has been swift, with a wide range of perspectives being given on the proposed reforms. Many remain cautious about the feasibility of meeting the ambitious housing targets set by government, especially given the high rate at which new homes would need to be delivered to achieve these targets in the coming years.
Whilst the built environment sector has generally welcomed the Government’s pro-development stance, concerns have arisen around the new assessment on speed of delivery. These changes may lead developers to hesitate in investing in certain sites, especially if market conditions remain uncertain and there’s a risk of being pressured to develop unprofitable projects. Additionally, it could prove highly challenging to reject a subsequent application solely based on dissatisfaction with prior delivery performance.
There is however suspicion that this proviso may have been included to appease those concerned about the lack of accountability for developers, with the perception that the NPPF emphasises incentives without enforcement. There may however be a more nuanced message at play with the threat being less so about individual local authorities and more on the Government putting a marker down for possible large scale government land release for future development. Developers who fail to meet performance expectations could find themselves excluded from such opportunities if the Government moves in this direction.
Doubts also persist among SMEs, who continue to question the level of support they will receive. Although the Government has attempted to provide assurance that SMEs play a crucial role in meeting housebuilding goals and intends to offer further backing for small-site developments, these commitments broadly remain unanswered and are expected to be addressed in a new set of national policies due in early 2025.
Many within the planning industry have expressed concerns that the allocation of 300 additional planners will not be sufficient to manage the scale of growth outlined in the reforms. With 326 planning authorities in England, that is less than one new planning officer per authority.
Moreover, the planners have argued there has been little focus given to the broader workforce challenges and needs. While funding and recognition have been directed towards expanding the planning capacity, they argue a more comprehensive approach is needed within the workforce. There is a parallel need to address the training and development of builders and the wider construction sector to ensure they are equipped to meet the new building standards to ensure there is less struggle to realise the ambitious targets set out.
Intensifying pressures on local authorities
Local authorities have largely expressed support for the Government’s objectives, though they have raised concerns about the practicalities of implementation. Cllr Adam Hug, Leader of Westminster Council and Housing Lead at the Local Government Association, acknowledged the principle of planning reform but pointed out that “9 out of 10 applications” are granted permission, emphasising that “people cannot and do not live in planning permissions”. The tight 12-week deadline for local plans has also generated concerns, with many questioning whether this timeframe is sufficient for developing well-constructed, thoroughly scrutinised plans that incorporate local community input. Despite the new definitions, there is still a call for greater clarity on key aspects of the reform.
Specifically for rural counties, there have been concerns surrounding local plans and the greenbelt. Cllr Richard Clewer, Housing and Planning Spokesperson for the Country Councils Network (CNN), acknowledged that while the NPPF represents progress, there is growing concern that the newly announced housing targets are even higher for some rural councils than those initially set out earlier this year. On behalf of the CNN, he called for the removal of the five-year land supply requirement for authorities with an up-to-date local plan approved by the Planning Inspectorate, arguing that councils should not be penalised for prioritising thorough scrutiny and community involvement in their local plans. Similarly, CPRE have raised alarms over local authorities being ‘swamped’ with potential speculative applications targeting high-quality greenbelt land and farmland, warning that these may be approved to meet the heightened targets, further threatening rural landscapes.
What’s next?
As local councils continue to adopt a somewhat defensive stance, the Government will need to reassess how it collaborates with local authorities to prevent planning from becoming a contentious stand-off. On the other side, local authorities must be prepared to find common ground or risk facing challenges they may be ill-equipped to handle, both from the Planning Inspectorate and central Government.
In the coming months, local authorities will be working to refresh their local plans to avoid the possibility of Government intervention, whilst the Government continue to shape their planning reforms in more detail. Further guidance on key issues such as identifying grey belt land and land viability, as well as other matters, are expected in the New Year.