National Planning Policy Framework at a glance

The government published the final version of its National Planning Policy Framework yesterday, marking the occasion with a ministerial statement from housing minister Matthew Pennycook and a site tour Cambridgeshire for his boss, Angela Rayner, and hers, Keir Starmer.

For anyone paying attention in July, the vast majority of what was included in the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) will not be particularly surprising. But after more than 10,000 responses in a months-long consultation, the government has made a few changes of note.

Here’s Building’s National Planning Policy Framework at a glance:

No change in scope of government’s ambition, but a tweak to target distribution

The government still wants to build 1.5 million homes during the course of the parliament and it still wants to do it by boosting mandatory annual housing targets to add up to 370,000 homes nationwide. 

No change there. But it has been willing to amend its proposed new standard method, after uproar among some local authorities at the level of uplift that was being asked of them. There had also been some criticisms that areas like London and the south-east, where affordability was at its lowest, would have seen their targets either drop or increase to a more marginal degree.

“We fully intend to maintain the level of ambition outlined in July, but we heard through the consultation a clear view that we should do more to target housing growth on those places where affordability pressures are most acute,” Pennycook told the House of Commons on Thursday.

“We have therefore made the method more responsive to demand, redistributing housing targets towards those places where housing is least affordable, while maintaining the overall target envelope.”

London’s target under the summer proposals would have been around 80,000, down from the nearly 100,000 it had been expected to build under Michael Gove’s plans. Under Labour’s revised version of the new standard model, it will be expected to deliver roughly 88,000, although it’s worth noting that this is still far higher than the roughly 35,000 homes a year currently being delivered in the city. 

Targets will also rise slightly, compared to the summer proposals, in the south-east and east of England, falling elsewhere, with the biggest drops in Yorkshire and the Humber.

Nonetheless, almost everywhere except London will still have their targets increased massively compared with what had been expected of the under the Conservative government. According to The TImes newspaper, more than 100 councils will have to more than double housebuilding, with some having to increase it fivefold or more.

Stronger grey belt definition

While Pennycook said that the government’s proposed approach to developing on the green belt “received broad support through the consultation”, there had been fairly public criticisms of its so-called “grey belt” policy.

The House of Lords built environment committee was told by experts that the government’s plans to recategorise ‘poor quality’ green belt land as ‘grey belt’ was likely to result in confusion among planners and a surge in legal challenges.

Dr Hugh Ellis, policy director at the Town and Country Planning Association, who described them as a “political idea being retrofitted into public policy”.

“The grey-belt proposition is an entirely new planning concept and as a result its definition is extremely broad,” he said.

In its response to the consultation, the government acknowledged that there were issues raised about the language around “limited contribution” to green belt purposes not being “sufficiently clear as to whether this referred to all or some of the Green Belt purposes”.

>>See also: NPPF: Government drops 50% affordable housing requirement for grey belt sites

>>See also: The finalised National Planning Policy Framework: round-up of sector reaction

In its revised NPPF, it sets out a clearer definition, which explains that grey belt land is green belt land which does not strongly contribute to green belt purposes a (preventing sprawl), b (preventing neighbouring towns from merging) and c (assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land).

“Our revised grey belt definition will allow for development on land that is not already previously developed as we believe it is important that we also consider the development potential of land which, though it may be formally designated as Green Belt, no longer adequately serves the green belt purposes,” it said.

Pennycook said the government would be providing further guidance to local authorities in the new year.