Going Bold? Labour proposed changes to the NPPF

I like to think that it had nothing to do with the Mrs Doubtfire musical at the Shaftesbury Theatre opposite (a surprisingly great play, by the way…) and more about our great team's insightful briefing, which you can read a bite size version of over on LDN.

Before I digress even further, the NPPF has indeed landed. This has inspired much euphoria amongst us planning nerds, but also those outside our own circles, given the new Labour Government’s focus on housing and people’s general interest on how they'll tackle the decades old problem of chronic under supply. 

The Government has promised they will make tough decisions and be bold to turbocharge the economy and deliver growth across the country. The NPPF is clearly critical to that, so here are my key takeaways from Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary, Angela Rayner’s, announcement yesterday, using a boldness scale…

• Very bold – a brownfield first approach makes sense, but the ticket item is bringing forward land on so-called redundant ‘Grey Belt’ land within Green Belt. There will also be new ‘Golden Rules’ for land released from Green Belt. The ‘Grey Belt’ term will be fleshed out even further in the months ahead, but the premise is admirable and feels pretty ruthless. Unsurprisingly, this has already rocked the boat with the Conservative opposition, with Tory leadership hopefuls already throwing in their two cents, knowing that this will likely annoy their historic voter bases in Green Belt shires across the country. On a wider delivery point, the ‘Golden Rules’ means developers eyeing up these prized pieces assets will have to deliver 50% affordable homes to win planning permission – which is likely to prove really challenging. 
• Pretty bold – I’m really digging the prioritisation of railroading through critical infrastructure so it doesn’t get held up in the planning system, with laboratories, electricity grid connections, gigafactories, data centres, and onshore wind and solar farms leading the charge. This feels very forward thinking and has a clear link to the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer’s, growth agenda. The relaxing of restrictions on the Greater London Authority’s Affordable Housing Programme is also welcome, which will allow the Mayor of London’s team to react to changing economic conditions and deliver housing much quicker.
• A tinge of boldness – housing targets are back with a vengeance and should never have been canned in the first place. As part of this, Rayner has shaken up the standard method of calculating housing need for local authorities, which means yearly housing delivery targets have risen from 300,000 to 370,000 homes (aligning with Labour’s manifesto promise). It looks like those who don’t comply will face the wrath of the Government, which could include sanctions. My colleague Nick has been doing a deep dive into this already, and it appears that targets along London’s commuter belts are up, driving housing numbers in historic ‘non-Labour’ areas. This is already annoying the Conservatives and will likely be a key line of attack for years to come. The ditching of building ‘beautiful’ will be welcome to urban design colleagues and many local authorities looking for more flexibility. However, I do think it’s a shame as we need to aim for higher quality design standards across the country.
• A bit pale – housing targets have been dropped for London, from 100,000 to 80,000 homes per year. I understand the previous target was caked in too much ambition and not enough realism/viability. But I really like cake. Most local authorities will however breathe a sigh of relief.   

Overall, this feels like a really encouraging set of changes.

It’s quite staggering that it has also only taken Labour a mere month to get to grips with housing and planning, with lots of hard yards and planning done before election – showing a level of seriousness and determination the sector has been crying out for, for decades.

Rayner admits more needs to be done and this is just the start, with more expected to come in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

However, the general consensus from the industry seems positive so far, though of course the devil will be in detail – which we hope to see by the end of the year.

There will likely be a lot of resistance in a number of areas, particularly those outside of our major cities, which is where – excuse the plug – good stakeholder and community consultation becomes key. 

Let's see where it all ends up.

Jay Allan, Director, Politics, Engagement and Planning