Politics of housing in the UK: successfully planning for housing delivery?

Getting the right Framework

The most significant change to date is the revisions made in December 2024 to the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out the policies to which local planning authorities are to have regard, both when formulating their own local policies, and when determining planning applications. Key changes include:

• Reintroducing mandatory housing targets – in the final throes of the Conservative government, housing “targets” found themselves being an “advisory starting point”, thus removing the onus on LPAs to plan to meet their local need.  One of the clear messages from the December 2024 revisions is that these targets have been given back their greater weight, and LPAs must now make more concerted efforts to meet their own need, taking into account relevant buffers. 
• Bolstering the duty to cooperate – the NPPF now sets out clearer detail as to what this duty entails, including ensuring that unmet development needs from neighbouring areas are provided for, and that a consistent approach is taken to the delivery of major infrastructure. 
• Changes in approach to the green belt – development in the green belt is almost always controversial. The latest changes do, though, leave many of the fundamentals unchanged. For example, the test for granting permission for development in the green belt remains one of “very special circumstances.” Changes have, though, been made to the approach to green belt reviews, which must now be carried out with a view to meeting the LPA’s identified need in full where that can’t otherwise be met, unless to do so would undermine the purposes of the green belt. Where there is to be a review, the NPPF establishes a hierarchy of land to be released – previously developed land, grey belt which was not previously developed, and then other green belt locations. Where green belt land is released for development, the “golden rules” apply.
• Introducing the grey belt – one of the reasons that the green belt is often viewed as sacrosanct is the close association it has in the mind of many with rolling, green hills. The introduction of the grey belt classification aims to shift away from this, and reflect that there are many sites within the green belt which are compromised, doing little to serve the green belt’s purposes. Land is therefore now “grey belt” if it is previously developed land in the green belt, or other land, which in either case does not contribute to three of the specified green belt purposes of checking unrestricted sprawl, preventing towns merging, and preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

So, what’s the significance of the grey belt? As mentioned above, when considering release, or in the case of allocations, the grey belt should be considered before all other green belt.  Crucially, though, if land is in the grey belt and satisfies other requirements, such as not fundamentally undermining the purposes of the remaining green belt, being in a sustainable location, and there is a need for the relevant scheme, then the policy assumption’s against the grant of permission in the green belt effectively fall away, provided you satisfy the “golden rules”.

• Setting the golden rules – relevant only to major development including housing in the green belt, these rules require measures to secure necessary infrastructure and publicly accessible green spaces. They also increase the policy requirements for affordable housing in the green belt. In the consultation it had been proposed that any green belt sites would be required to deliver 50% affordable housing. That has instead been replaced with an expectation that LPAs will set higher affordable housing requirements for green belt areas, although this should be 50% unless local viability considerations indicate otherwise, and a transitional requirement for affordable housing of 15% above the general policy requirement, up to a cap of 50%.
• Focus on brownfield – for all of the noise about development on green and grey belt, the NPPF revisions also make important changes to strengthen the emphasis on developing brownfield land. In particular, it is now clear that proposals for the development of suitable brownfield land should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused, and the definition of what is brownfield or previously developed land, has been expanded. This helps tip the balance significantly in favour of consenting schemes on brownfield land.
• Replacing beauty with good design – Michael Gove, in his role as Secretary of State, was unapologetic in his pursuit of beauty as part of the planning regime. However, trite as it sounds, beauty really is in the eye of the beholder, and this emphasis made planning decisions unpredictable, with well-designed schemes often being rejected for subjective reasons. Consequently, many of the references to beauty have been stripped out of the NPPF, with the emphasis instead returning to good design, and respect for the local area. 

The right decisions, more quickly

Adjusting the policy framework only goes so far. To really deliver a step change in housing delivery we need to see the more speedy determination of applications, resulting in a grant of permission where appropriate. In order to assist with this, the government is consulting on a range of changes to the way planning decisions are made. In particular, it is seeking views on a standard approach to delegation – when a planning application needs to be considered by a committee or where a planning officer can decide the application. It is hoped that this will bring both predictability and speed in enabling officers to make more decisions, and freeing up committee time for those schemes which truly merit committee consideration.

The proposals suggest that these measures could also be supported by dedicated committees for strategic development, which could include expert committee members, and the government is further seeking views on mandatory training for all councils before they can form part of a planning committee. These measures are aimed to ensure that where decisions are being made, they are informed decisions, being made for the right reasons. Whilst this does not necessarily always mean granting permission, it is hoped that, by having a  greater understanding of the role of the local plan, members will only refuse applications which are genuinely inappropriate.

However, whilst all these aims seem laudable, there does remain a  very real risk that the measures proposed give rise to new issues. For example, could a national scheme of delegation, potentially mandating officer decisions where there is no departure from the development plan, lead to challenges to the decision that there is, indeed, no such departure? If local communities fear that they will have less of a voice if more decisions are being made by officers, it does not seem hard to imagine them trying to find ways to limit that.

Much more still to come

On top of this, the last few months have seen a raft of proposals, ranging from formal consultations, to press announcements, including details of some of the matters to be addressed in the eagerly anticipated Planning and Infrastructure Bill, due to be published in spring 2025. These proposals include:

• The launch of the nature restoration fund, to make it possible for certain environmental mitigation to be provided on a centralised, strategic basis, as opposed to a scheme basis.
• The Devolution White Paper, looking at establishing strategic authorities, and the adoption of high level strategic spatial plans.
• A raft of measures to make securing consents for infrastructure projects quicker, and more predictable. This is in recognition that in many cases, delivering homes alone is not enough, without the infrastructure necessary to support those homes. 
• Measures to bring forward the Environmental Outcomes Report regime, introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. 
• The publication of the long awaited National Development Management Policies, setting out key decision making polices at a national government level. 
• A consultation on the role of statutory consultees, looking to ensure that they do not form an inappropriate blockage to the planning system.

Delivering on the promise?

In many ways it is positive that the government has identified so many potential measures to improve the planning regime. There is certainly a lot of work to be done if the 1.5 million homes target is to be met. However, with so many moving parts to ongoing reforms, is there a risk of a lack of cohesion? And even if everything does slot into place, the nature of the beast means that there is a necessary time lag between the conception, and the delivery, of residential development. Even with a fair wind, there remains a very real risk that these reforms won’t make the difference needed before we find ourselves facing another general election.

It's also vital to remember that planning is just one (albeit large) cog in the machine of housing delivery. Without addressing other barriers to delivery, such as viability, no amount of planning reform will enable the government to meet its ambitions.

Having said all of that, for those of us in the planning sphere, it will certainly be fascinating to see how these matters unfold.

Authored by Hannah Quarterman.