Angela Rayner shook up the planning system today with a speech setting out a clear vision for more homes to be built across the country, as well as providing more detail about pre-election announcements on 'grey belt' land. Getting Britain building and providing 50% affordable housing on all new sites will be a huge challenge for councils, notwithstanding the promise of 300 more planning officers. And the headline-grabbing announcement that councils which fail to meet their housing targets, or lack an up-to-date local plan will undoubtedly cause concern across the sector.
So, what did Angela say, and what does it mean for local government?
Housing Numbers
The government has committed to deliver 1.5 million homes over the course of this parliament to tackle Britain's housing crisis. Government's intent to deliver is clear from the content of a letter sent to council leaders in which the Deputy Prime Minister said there is "not just a professional responsibility but a moral obligation to see more homes built".
Currently, a third of councils have a local plan that is under five years old. The direction to those with older, or no up-to-date plan, is to set out how, not if, homes are built, with a clear warning that if homes aren't delivered the Secretary of State will exercise powers of intervention including taking over a council's plan-making directly.
As was trailed during the election campaign and in the days leading up to the King's Speech, mandatory housing numbers will be reintroduced.
The Government’s proposed approach is set out in its Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system :
"5. Our new approach is based on four principles for reform. The new method must:
a. support the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million new homes over the next five years;
b. provide greater certainty to the sector through more stable and predictable housing numbers;
c. achieve a more balanced distribution of homes across the country, by directing homes to where they are most needed and least affordable, and ensure that all areas contribute to meeting the country’s housing needs, rather than radically undershooting local ambition in some areas of the country; and
d. be straightforward to understand and apply – so that the method can be easily replicated, be updated in line with the most recent publicly available data, and speed up plan making.
6. That standard method will result in a local planning authority-wide number, on which basis the authority must then plan. The local area will then decide how and where in their authority that need is best met in accordance with national policy, engaging with local communities. The standard method provides the basis for plan making, not the final housing requirement – and we are absolutely clear that authorities may justify planning for a lower number only where they can evidence hard constraints to the Planning Inspectorate.
7. We therefore propose a new standard method that:
a. uses a baseline set at a percentage of existing housing stock levels, designed to provide a stable baseline that drives a level of delivery proportionate to the existing size of settlements, rebalancing the national distribution to better reflect the growth ambitions across the Midlands and the North;
b. tops up this baseline by focusing on those areas that are facing the greatest affordability pressures, using a stronger affordability multiplier to increase this baseline in proportion to price pressures; and
c. removes arbitrary caps and additions so that the approach is driven by an objective assessment of need."
The outcome of this proposed new method is an indicative local housing need across England of 371,541 homes a year. The average annual net additions achieved in 2020/21 - 2022/23 were 228,871. So the scale of the challenges facing us, when it comes to housebuilding, are clear.
The impact of this, and the expectation on councils, was neatly summed up by Angela during the debate in the Commons this afternoon:
"The new method will require councils to ensure homes are built in the right places and development is proportionate to the size of existing communities, while adding an extra level of ambition in the most unaffordable areas."
Brownfield
Councillors scarred by the last round of local plan creation and adoption know the challenge of finding enough, and suitable, sites to meet housing needs, however they are calculated. At a meeting recently I heard NIMBY redefined to stand for "Nature In My Back Yard". This demonstrates our communities' emotional connection with the existing landscapes and settlement patterns, and telegraphs the arguments the government will face should it implement what Conservative MP Wendy Morton criticised as a "top-down" approach.
So for those of us in rural communities, it was heartening to hear that building on brownfield sites in towns and cities wherever possible should be the default, with a presumption in favour of utilising these sites first. By prioritising brownfield, we help protect our environment and mitigate against urban sprawl.
Brownfield sites alone, however, will not be sufficient to meet housing needs and new targets. While a 'presumption in favour' to be achieved by rewording paragraph 124c of the NPPF to introduce 'brownfield passports' will be welcomed by many, brownfield sites can often be more expensive and challenging to develop, so it is essential that the government is also cognisant of this and considers financial support packages and incentives to encourage developers to look to brownfield first.
One possible solution to the challenge of brownfield has been mooted by the campaign group Don't Waste Buildings, which is to amend paragraph 157 of the NPPF to read:
“In both making plans and in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should strive to promote radical reductions in the upfront carbon impact of construction. Authorities should therefore adopt a presumption in favour of developments that:
a) substantially reuse and refurbish existing buildings and structures; and
b) demonstrate significant use of reclaimed materials and/or natural and other low-carbon materials.
Authorities should adopt a presumption against demolishing buildings and structures capable of refurbishment and/or adaptation including via changes of use. Authorities should also follow National Planning Guidance in relation to carbon offset funds.”
Sitting alongside this, we urgently need to reform the application of VAT on retrofitting. It should not be more cost-effective for developers to demolish and build new than to upgrade existing buildings. If we are serious about meeting our climate commitments we must seize the opportunity provided by the consultation on the NPPF and press for holistic solutions to the challenges and barriers to innovation under past regimes.
Greenbelt
Since its introduction, mythology and romanticism have developed around the Greenbelt. I'll be clear: I value our countryside enormously. I want to see the protection of 'Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty', greater rewilding, and net biodiversity gain. These are non-negotiables when we consider our duty as leaders of place and our responsibility to our natural environment. However, the greenbelt created by the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was simply a measure to contain towns and cities; a mitigation against urban sprawl and the loss of identity between places. Greenbelts across the country are comprised of land of varying quality; from some of the best and most versatile agricultural land, to previously developed pockets, like former petrol stations.
With the pressure we face building in existing towns and cities, it's right that a review of land within greenbelts is undertaken and a mechanism to release land of lower quality to support housing need is undertaken. The intention to create a new "grey belt" land classification was trailed by Labour during the election, and we're now being consulted on the detail.
So what does grey belt mean? The consultation proposes the following wording:
"Grey belt: For the purposes of Plan-making and decision-making, grey belt is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising Previously Developed Land and any other parcels and/or areas of Green Belt land that make a limited contribution to the five Green Belt purposes (as defined in para 140 of this Framework) but excluding those areas or assets of particular importance listed in footnote 7 of this Framework (other than land designated as Green Belt)."
This new land classification will assist local planning authorities in overcoming objections and applications being called into planning committees purely for the principle of removal of the site from the greenbelt to be debated. This will help reduce committee workloads, freeing up time to focus on more complex strategic sites and reducing the burden on committee members and officers, not to mention saving costs for applicants.
Where concerns and conflicts are likely to arise for councils creating new local plans is on proposals to require local planning authorities to undertake a review where an authority cannot meet its identified housing, commercial, or other need without altering Green Belt boundaries. However, the government hopes to mitigate potential harms through the introduction of a sequential test setting out the order that different types of land should be considered in when looking to allocate sites for development:
Previously developed land within the Greenbelt
Other grey belt sites
higher performing greenbelt sites which can be made sustainable
Land that is safeguarded by existing environmental designations (for example National Parks, National Landscapes and Sites of Special Scientific Interest) will maintain its protections.
In reality, we will still face lengthy and often emotional consultation periods with our communities when creating new local plans, especially for places where there is limited scope to build on brownfield or previously developed land. The location of new towns and settlements will also need to be carefully managed as it's unlikely this will be possible without sacrificing higher-performing areas of greenbelt land.
Ongoing positive community engagement will be critical to delivering high-quality homes on time to meet the ambitious targets being set by Government. Councillors are well placed to do this, but we need to bring our communities on the journey, and be empowered to ensure developers deliver on s.106 and Community Infrastructure Levy commitments, as well as having critical infrastructure in place to support new homes.
Central Government would do well to listen to residents' feelings and views on the greenbelt and ensure that they have a voice and a say in the steps following the consultation leading to policy development - after all, it's our communities that have a stake in the land as it is, and who we want to have a stake in anything built on it. It would be foolish for Government of any colour to forget who its biggest stakeholder is.
Affordable Housing
My entire adult life I have been utterly bemused and dismayed at the definition of "affordable" as 80% of the market rate, especially in the south of England. The average annual rent in London is now around £26, 000 (the UK average excluding London is £14,676). With the average salary in London being about £44,000 (and just under £30,000 for the rest of the country) it's easy to see how unaffordable the current definition of affordable housing is.
Councils have been calling on Government for years to empower us to build more genuinely affordable and social housing. The impact of 'right to buy' on depleting council stocks and the threat it poses to housing associations needs to be redressed urgently. As our social housing waiting lists have increased, we've also faced spiralling temporary accommodation costs, with the District Councils' Network warning the last government that if change doesn't come councils are at risk of financial instability and some of our most vulnerable residents will be failed. It's not enough to merely unfreeze the housing benefit subsidy applicable to temporary accommodation, we need to build and retain genuinely affordable homes.
Proposed changes to give prominence to social rent as an affordable model will go some way towards reducing social housing waiting lists and alleviating the burden on temporary accommodation. To achieve this, the government proposes to remove the minimum requirement for 10% of homes on new sites to be affordable ownership properties, and the requirement that a minimum of 25% of homes secured by developer contributions should be first homes.
The consultation simply asks whether respondents agree to this change. A key question that's missing is whether respondents think this is viable (especially developers) and whether the proposed change is likely to deliver the hoped for benefit. Respondents would do well to provide robust answers to this section. Affordable housing policy and delivery is often a hot topic at planning committees and councillors and communities are rightly outraged when a developer of a large site raises a viability argument to reduce or avoid delivery of affordable homes.
So far we have heard many good intentions from the new front bench about affordable housing, but are yet to see the reality of how this will be delivered. The consultation gives councils the opportunity to raise concerns based on our experiences, propose solutions, and trigger conversations that go beyond planning policy and look to the heart of how we tackle the housing crisis.
Fees
It's well known that the fees councils charge for regulatory matters like planning and licensing do not cover the costs. This is acknowledged in the consultation and it is proposed that fees for householders are increased to £528 to cover costs in full. Clearly this will impact on residents - the fee for households is currently set at £258 so the proposal represents a substantial increase.
The argument advanced in favour of such a large jump in fees is that there are now multiple permitted development rights, so there are few matters which residents would need to pay a fee for. However, this argument ignores the fact that local planning authorities have the power to condition against permitted development rights when considering applications.
Consultation on fees on other applications is also being undertaken and respondents are asked to highlight any application types where the fee currently charged is not adequate. This represents an opportunity for councils to push for greater equity with respect to the costs recovered for the work undertaken on applications, and could help support better pay and terms for planning officers - it's no good simply recruiting an additional 300 officers if we can't retain them, and our existing staff.
What's next?
The consultation closes on 24 September 2024. Based on debate in the Commons this afternoon we expect to see outcomes feed into the Autumn Statement around October. While there's a hard focus on reforms to the NPPF, in answering some of the questions posed, we have the opportunity to push for reforms to local government and call for additional support to help deliver for our communities.
The proposed changes are some of the boldest reforms to planning policy we've seen for a generation. They will also be fundamental to supporting Rachel Reeve's growth and skills agenda. Looking at the papers, you can see the holistic approach to getting the country back on track being taken. It feels positive. This is a vital opportunity for councillors to shape government policy from day one and ensure the needs of our communities are met going forward.