NPPF comment – Boyer
Following the publication of the revised NPPF earlier today, Lawrence Turner and Michelle Quan, Directors of Boyer have provided comment on:
- The 1.5 million new home dilemma
- Green Belt
- Modernising planning committees
- Need for government intervention
- Neighbourhood Planning
Lawrence Turner, Director, Boyer
In the wake of the Labour Government’s ambitious plan to build 1.5 million new homes by mid-2029, the NPPF has come under significant scrutiny from local authorities and locally elected politicians. With falling completion figures and challenges revolving around housing supply, the Government’s vision appears increasingly challenging to fulfil.
The 1.5 million new home dilemma
The Labour Government’s target of building 1.5 million new homes is hindered by a number of factors.
In Matthew Pennycook’s statement to the Commons this morning, he stressed the importance of addressing the UK’s housing crisis, not only to address the need for shelter and stability in people’s lives, but to unleash the economic potential of our towns and cities.
The Planning Minister made reference to the restrictive national planning policies of former Conservative governments, which have led to a steady decline in the delivery of new homes, failing to meet local housing needs.
As recently reported by the Home Builders Federation (HBF), new build completions saw a significant decline of 6.5% this year, illustrating a substantial gap between the Government’s ambitious targets and the current trajectory of housing supply.
Furthermore, financial constraints stemming from high inflation rates and diminishing affordability has put a strain on first-time buyers’ access to the housing market, with the HBF urgently calling for targeted Government interventions.
The published version of the NPPF retains the majority of the Government’s proposed reforms to national policy. The most important of these reforms, which are fundamental to increasing housebuilding, is the change to the Standard Methodology – which increases housing need figures and put a greater onus on local authorities in city regions to meet their housing need – effectively delivering the outcomes of the failed Duty to Cooperate. Furthermore, the NPPF strengthens the requirement for local authorities to use the Standard Method and then to “meet an area’s identified housing need”.
Further emphasis has been placed on putting brownfield development first, with reference to brownfield passports and the strengthening of NPPF paragraph 125, which states that brownfield proposals should be “approved unless substantial harm would be caused”. Closely following previously developed land, is the important role of grey belt sites in meeting the Government’s 1.5 million home target.
The NPPF continues to reverse the former Conservative’s Government’s 4-year housing land supply requirements. Evidently, these proposals were deemed to have reduced housebuilding and were counterproductive.
A significant addition to the NPPF is that found at paragraph 78c, which requires that from 1 July 2026 a 20% buffer be applied to an LPA’s housing land supply where its annual housing requirement (adopted under a previous version of the NPPF) is 80% or less of the most up to date local housing need figure calculated using the standard method. This in effect a requirement for 6-year housing land supply which will impact many LPAs who rushed to submit their Plan before the previous transitional arrangements came into effect – and will incentivise LPAs to restart plan-making at pace to avoid speculative planning applications for development in their authorities.
Green Belt
The Green Belt reforms are retained. Notably the requirement for an authority to undertake a Green Belt review, where it is unable to meet housing need without altering a Green Belt boundary. Leading on from this, the concept of ‘grey belt’ land will be fundamental to the meeting our housing needs. Here the published NPPF provides further clarity on what land would qualify as grey belt stating that
“For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, ‘grey belt’ is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.”
The Government’s proposed “golden rules” for releasing Green Belt land remain: however the NPPF has been updated at paragraph 67 to require LPAs to set specific affordable housing requirement for major housing development on land which is proposed to be released from the Green Belt, or which may be permitted on Green Belt land. This percentage requirement should be higher than land outside the Green Belt and require at least 50% affordable subject to viability. Until these local plan policies are adopted, paragraph 157 requires a 15% top up on the Plan’s currently adopted affordable policy, capped at 50%.
These modifications appear to address concerns raised during the consultation period among the development industry, principally around the working of the Government’s previous benchmark land value (BLV) and the potential it had to disincentivise the release of land for development.
Lastly, further weight is attributed to the “golden rules” in determining planning application at Paragraph 158, which states: “a development which complies with the Golden Rules should be given significant weight in favour of the grant of permission.”
Modernising planning committees
In an effort to streamline the planning process, the Government has recently announced proposals to modernise planning committees, including the consideration of limiting the number of councillors involved in decision-making. In providing further detail, the Planning Minister, Matthew Pennycook, has suggested a two-tier system of planning committees. The first would take a strategic approach for determining major planning applications – to ensure that such decisions align with council priorities. The second would be for minor proposals, which would be dealt with by local committees. In both cases, ward councillors would not be permitted to vote on proposals within their own wards. This potential reconfiguration, however, ignites ongoing debates around the loss of local representation in planning decisions, prompting concerns about democratic accountability and community engagement.
Limiting councillors from voting on proposals within their own wards aims to mitigate conflicts of interest but risks detaching elected representatives from their electoral base. Critics argue that while enhancing committee efficiency is crucial, any moves that undermine local accountability could disincentivise public engagement and lead to a disconnect between councils and their constituents.
Need for government intervention
The Government’s recent admission that delivering its 1.5 million homes target represents a significant challenge demonstrates the pressing need for effective Government intervention in plan-making and decision-taking. As various local authorities have expressed scepticism about the achievability of new housing need targets, proactive measures will be required for the Government to even get close to its target.
One of the challenges for the Government will be to decipher which local authorities are deliberately stalling in their plan-making and which are failing because of a chronic lack of resource and funding.
In response to these challenges, the published NPPF’s transitional arrangements have been updated at paragraph 234. For plan-making, the NPPF will now come into force from 12 March 2025 – giving LPAs an extra two months to be ready to implement its policies.
This means that LPAs will now have until 12 March 2025 to progress their Local Plans to the Reg. 19 stage, so long as the Plan’s draft housing requirement meets at least 80% of local housing needs (previously, the benchmark was for a Plan to be within 200 dpa of the local need figure); or have submitted their Plan to the Secretary of State. Many LPAs will now be reassessing their housing land supply underpinning their draft plans to ensure they still meet the transitional criteria.
The stick for LPAs comes at paragraph 236 which requires LPAs that have recently submitted their Plans under the transitional arrangements to begin work on a new Local Plan, if the Plan adopted meets less than 80% of housing need. For those LPAs which reach Reg. 19 stage before 12 March 2025, with a draft housing requirement that is also less than 80%, they should proceed to examination within 18 months of 12 Dec 2024 – or face intervention from the Secretary of State.
Michelle Quan, Director, Boyer
It is both a surprise and a disappointment that paragraph 14, relating to Neighbourhood Plans, remains unchanged. Perhaps one of the few December 2023 changes which has survived the revisions.
Many had thought this was an oversight in the consultation and expected to see the December 2023 changes which extended the protection of Neighbourhood Plans to a five year period to be at least reduced back to two years or indeed deleted entirely to support the Government’s housebuilding aspirations.
It is surprising and seemingly inconsistent that the ‘localism’ agenda seems to remain (in paragraph 14) alongside the introduction of top-down housing targets and a wider shift towards strategic planning, which will ultimately see strategic decision making shift towards a new tier of Regional governance.
A seemingly missed opportunity to support the delivery of the 1.5 million new homes the Government is targeting.
You May Also Enjoy
Glenigan Construction Index: Pockets of regional resilience, do little to offset faltering confidence
How to Create a Stylish and Comfortable Home Office
Zoopla Rental Market Report: Rents rising at lowest level for 3.5 years
Commonhold White Paper – Thoughts from the Industry
Greenpeace Ruling Exposes UK Government Policy
