On December 12th, 2024, the Government released a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The main aim of the new NPPF is to help fulfil the government's manifesto promise to deliver 1.5 million homes over the government's elected term.

There is no escaping from the fact that the government’s pledge of 1.5 million homes is significant when looked at against the delivery over recent years. I think it goes without saying that 1.5 million is a lot of homes to deliver. 

The 2024 document has several key changes, which are weighted to ‘get Britain building’ so that the country can meet the target.

Housing supply

A new formula for calculating housing numbers designed to generate planning permission will allow the country to get permission for 370,000 new homes nationally a year, which is what is needed, to come close to the required 300,000 housing completions per year. Unsurprisingly, the numbers of houses required per authority area go up, some by a significant amount.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides a framework for local planning authorities and decision-makers to use when assessing planning applications. Included within the framework is paragraph 11D, commonly referred to as the ‘Tilted Balance’, or to use its professional term the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Planning applications should be determined in accordance with local plan policies, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, which is where the idea of a balance comes into play. Decision makers should consider planning applications, weighing their benefits and harm, to come to a decision. Paragraph 11D can engaged where the most relevant local plan policies for determining a planning application are out of date planning permission should be approved. It is important to state that 11D does not render the local plan policies completely mute, although it does ‘tilt’ the balance in favour of granting planning permission.

As expected nearly two months after its release, we are now seeing local authorities confirming that they are unable to satisfy the requirement to maintain a five-year housing supply of housing land. We have seen since the start of the year, that both Cherwell District Council and Bedford Borough Council demonstrate a significant shortfall in their housing requirements when using the new standard method of calculating housing supply. Bedford Borough accepted that they currently have a 3.46-year supply.  Further to this, we expect Huntingdonshire to release a statement imminently confirming that they also cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Some local authorities were already struggling to maintain a housing supply under the old standard method.

Greybelt

Another new concept, the government has devised is a new category of land, referred to as the grey belt. Initially, the idea and application of grey belt land may well be a grey area, as it was referred to by Angela Raynor as disused car parks and garages and ugly wasteland. However, this is not grey belt land, this type of land is already addressed within national policy on brownfield land. Grey belt land is land in the green belt, including brownfield land and previously developed land but also including greenfield land, which is not making a significant contribution to the purpose of the green belt.

It seems ironic that it is being defined as a belt, the definition when interpreted as being inside the green belt would render the use of the word belt misleading and perhaps undermining the green belt's original definition, you cannot have a belt inside a belt, can you?

Traditionally, development on green belt land has had to clear a very high barrier, the scheme must outweigh the harms of development within the greenbelt to receive planning permission and be considered as very special circumstances. Rightfully so, once it's gone it's gone, land is finite within England and therefore it is right to protect greenfield land from unjustified and harmful development.

However, importantly development on grey belt land will no longer need to meet these very special circumstances, provided the site is sustainable, it will not fundamentally undermine the purpose of the greenbelt, the local authority has a less than 5-year housing land supply and residential development meets the 5 golden rules set out in section 155 of the NPPF planning permission should be granted. The barrier to entry still exists, just not as high, think of it as the high jump against the pole vault.

A topic for another day is the 5 golden rules, but whilst they are important, they also present a wider issue regarding the delivery of development schemes.

Now more than ever, greenbelt authorities are failing to meet their housing land supply targets, so there is scope to take advantage of this barrier-lowering.  Whilst the idea might be to provide a way of unlocking land within the green belt, this definition is subjective which alongside other larger issues doesn’t help an already complex system. I think formal guidance in both the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance would go a long way to providing clear definitions. Otherwise, our already struggling appeal system will be brought down from its knees, facedown into the ground digging in with its eyelids.

Conclusions

So, we can clearly say that the new NPPF has presented opportunities for increasing development across the country in areas that may have not been considered previously. Different bodies and professionals have differing opinions on the new framework, which has and will continue to generate to a range of opinions within the planning space. It wouldn’t be the English planning system without the cocktail of policies, interpretations and opinions.

If you have land that you think might be suitable for development or want to discuss what the new NPPF may mean for you as a landowner, our experienced planning and development team would be happy to speak with you.

Will Simpkins

Planning and Development Team