By Ian Barnett, National Land Director, Leaders Romans Group (LRG)
What a difference a year makes!
From a planning perspective, the final years of the previous administration were characterised by uncertainty – housing targets abandoned, local authorities resisting Green Belt release and planning applications stalled at the final hurdle due to (hugely subjective) concerns about ‘beauty’.
We have been the reversal of much of this under the current government, with the restoration of housing targets and the removal of ‘beauty’ from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) being key changes to planning policy.
Not only do we have a new NPPF, but a Planning and Infrastructure Bill is due early in the New Year.
There have been many grand announcements in my time in planning and development. The priority has always been to build enough houses for the country’s population in the right places in a manner that protects the most valuable landscapes and environmentally sensitive areas.
So are the changes announced recently by the government any different to what we’ve all heard before? On paper – yes absolutely. The conviction and tone as well as the content (and indeed the fact it’s announced ahead of when most people expected!) does suggest that this time at least the Government is serious.
The new NPPF gives an opportunity for the whole narrative on development and housing delivery to change. The NPPF enables many sites that are suitable for development and which have been held up by inefficiencies and lack of resources, meddling local politics and NIMBYism, to come forward.
The change to the ultimate planning policy document cements what Keir Starmer has referred to as to as an ‘almighty challenge’ of a target, delivering 370,000 houses per year. That’s the equivalent of building 1.5 houses per square km per year nationwide. To bring forward the necessary homes, the government is requiring greater accountability from local authorities on Local Plans and anticipating significant Green Belt release.
The definition of the ‘grey belt’ provides a real opportunity to the development sector:
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 [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]. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 [habitats sites and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, a National Landscape, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 75); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change] (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.
Furthermore, the property industry heaved a collective sigh of relief when the blanket 50% affordable housing requirement on Grey Belt was removed and replace with the requirement that an addition 15% affordable housing should be calculated on Grey Belt land, up to a cap of 50%.
I have been calling for the removal of politics from planning decisions – specifically for those sites which already have a Local Plan allocation or an outline planning consent (and therefore already undergone public scrutiny)- for years. Although there was no specific reference to ‘deemed consent’ in the NPPF, it’s encouraging that this is one of the main issues being considered in the recently published Planning Working Paper on Planning Committee, and the English devolution white paper is preparing the ground for a return to regional spatial strategies (or similar).
Not all Labour planning policies will benefit land sales. Another policy, trailed by Kier Starmer as a bold method of boosting the supply of affordable housing, is that of land value capture. The government has said that it would pass a law to allow local planning authorities in England the power to buy up land, under compulsory purchase, at a fraction of its potential cost. The law would facilitate the acquisition of land at a reduced price by effectively stripping out ‘hope value’ – the price premium that landowners gain when selling land with the potential of planning permission.
Delivering 1.5m houses in the first term is ambitious and unrealistic. But it was utterly impossible under the previous planning system. The time for delivery is here and it’s the responsibility of everyone in the industry – developers, landowners, planners and local authorities to do what is needed.
