"In the short term at least, an inevitable consequence of changes to national housing policy will be an increase in speculative planning applications"
- Lawrence Turner - Boyer
Two new NPPFs
2025 will see significant changes in planning policy: specifically, we are looking forward to the publication of not one, but two NPPFs.
The first is the much-awaited publication of the revised current NPPF which will be released in late December. This is set to reverse much of the previous Government’s stance on greenfield development and Green Belt release.
It will include the removal of the reduced 4-year housing requirement; significantly increased housing targets, and a requirement to conduct Green Belt reviews to meet an authority’s housing needs.
These changes will also set out the much-needed ‘golden rules’ surrounding Green Belt release and provide more clarity over what is meant by Grey Belt, enabling the planning and development sector to better understand where opportunities lie to bring forward the most sustainably located land for development.
The second change in planning policy is expected to be a new ‘slimmed down’ Labour NPPF: one which focuses solely on plan-making. Separately, a new suite of National Development Management Policies (NDMPs) would, as the name suggests, set out national policy on development management. The planning minister has suggested that this would streamline and accelerate the determination of planning applications, by avoiding the need for local plans to duplicate NDMPs.
Substantial change is much needed to deliver on Labour’s promise of 1.5 million homes this Parliament. It was evident in Matthew Pennycook’s recent comment that there is no such thing as an annual housebuilding target that the government holds out little hope of delivering 300,000 homes by July, and this was backed up by the Office for Budget Responsibility’s prediction that the net supply of new homes will drop below 200,000 this year. A week may be a long time in politics, but for ministers, clearly, a year is too short.
A rise in the number of speculative planning applications
In the short term at least, an inevitable consequence of changes to national housing policy will be an increase in speculative planning applications. Developers will put forward speculative planning applications with greater certainty of success because many local authorities are now in a position whereby they either have an adopted Plan that is more than 5 years old, requiring them to use a substantially increased housing need figure set out in the Government’s new standard methodology; or are preparing a new Local Plan to meet this increased housing need.
Invariably planning committees will resist such development – particularly if it is at odds with their adopted Local Plan; or if it runs against some councillors’ long-held views that no Green Belt land should be released. In such circumstances, we expect it very likely that the government will call in such applications and decide in their favour.
Expect high-profile schemes to receive a positive determination from the Secretary of State - demonstrating to planning committees that NIMBYism must not trump housing needs as it did under the previous administration.
Expect also a rise in the number of planning permissions granted at appeal. Some local authorities, nervous of the political impact of increased development, will likely resist granting planning permission; and developers, more confident of success, will appeal in larger numbers. This will put increased pressure on the Planning Inspectorate and the government may need to consider increasing resourcing and funding for the Planning Inspectorate to mitigate delay.
Interestingly, as NPPF policy needs a degree of flexibility, it will likely be through the appeals system setting a precedent, rather than through government policy, that results in the long-awaited clarification of what exactly is or isn’t Grey Belt.
Will an increase in planning permissions result in an increase in homes built?
Once the revised NPPF is published late this year, developers will likely rush to submit planning applications. Greater clarity, specifically on the Green / Grey Belt (and specifically on whether the Grey Belt’s definition and the ‘golden rules’ governing its release) will give developers and investors greater confidence in success.
But then what? Supply lines have adapted to the number of homes currently being built, which is significantly below target. We don’t have enough construction workers, bricklayers and roofers – let alone manufacturers and installers of air source heat pumps – to deliver a 50% increase in volume.
Stage Two of the housebuilding revolution must address the capacity to deliver the consented homes.
Increased devolution – will it have the intended impact?
In July the King's Speech made it clear that increased devolution would be delivered through future legislation - the English Devolution Bill and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
Those local authorities not currently part of a mayoral authority will be encouraged to enter into a regional structure and existing combined authorities will be given greater planning powers.
But is this devolution? Reallocating planning powers from a local level to a regional level can hardly be described as devolution.
And is it effective? There is a strong argument in favour of depoliticising planning by removing it from local control. But this assumes the universal introduction of regional bodies across the country: far from the patchwork implementation which currently exists and is set to proliferate as some local authorities opt to enter into regional structures but others do not.
The two-tier system will become a three-tier system, with a random distribution of tiers across the country, resulting in considerable confusion for everyone from policy-makers to developers.
I have seen this administrative confusion first-hand in the West of England due to North Somerset opting not to join the West of England Combined Authority (WECA). This resulted in a regional body with a large hole and limited working relationships between authorities.
I do not know of anyone in planning and development who does not wish to see a return to the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) of the early 2000s. But the crucial difference is that RSSs were universal, covering every area of England.
The proposed patchwork approach is a compromise but is destined to be problematic. Some form of structured sub-regional planning is necessary to deliver much-needed new homes in step with new infrastructure.
A change to the planning committee system as we know it?
Little is known about the future Planning and Infrastructure Bill. But a likely and potentially very significant aspect of the future legislation is that only limited planning applications will be determined by the planning committee.
Currently, and compared to other planning systems, a disproportionately large number of planning applications are heard by the planning committee. This is needlessly political: the years spent getting a site allocated within a local plan provide the democratic engagement that is necessary for the scheme to go ahead.
The potential that the scheme could then be rejected by a planning committee (often for political reasons) adds further political interference which is unnecessary and extremely disruptive.
Planners and developers will unanimously welcome changes which delegate such decisions to their local planning authority officers, to be determined in line with national planning policy and in accordance with the local plan.
Planning is the most politicised of any local authority function, presenting members with a rare opportunity to flout officers’ recommendations. Planning committees should be brought into line with the more logical decision-making processes which determine all other local authority decisions as this would allow for much-needed objectivity.
