2024 Planning Reforms
Within a month of coming into power, the new Government set out proposals to reform some key aspects of the planning system with the aim to increase house building under the wider agenda to driving economic growth.
We have now had a chance to consider the planning announcements made by the Government. We have also consulted with other groups sharing similar views and concerns over the loss of the Green Belt, specifically, the Community Planning Alliance, the London Green Belt Council and the Campaign For Rural England.
This is long article, and we’ve only scratched the surface in a few key areas. Inevitably we may have got a few things wrong, and matters could change in the future as the Government refines its plans. All of the proposed changes are subject to consultation and changes to legislation in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). They are not in place yet.
Where appropriate we have commented on the possible impact on planning applications and the new Basildon Local Plan
We have now had a chance to consider the planning announcements made by the Government. We have also consulted with other groups sharing similar views and concerns over the loss of the Green Belt, specifically, the Community Planning Alliance, the London Green Belt Council and the Campaign For Rural England.
This is long article, and we’ve only scratched the surface in a few key areas. Inevitably we may have got a few things wrong, and matters could change in the future as the Government refines its plans. All of the proposed changes are subject to consultation and changes to legislation in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). They are not in place yet.
Where appropriate we have commented on the possible impact on planning applications and the new Basildon Local Plan
1. Housing Targets
Housing targets are at the root of everything we see. They not only steer the Local Plan but also the outcome of planning applications, very specifically when related to the Green Belt.
The new Government initial picked up the target from the previous Government of 300,000 new houses per annum, or 1.5m over the 5-year parliamentary term. Those figures have absolutely no solid basis, nor is there any breakdown of the types of houses that are most needed, whether council housing or more 5-bedroom houses on the open market. They are just aspirational numbers with no qualification.
As we know, the previous Government failed to deliver housing to those numbers, however, the new Government seems set on doing so by tweaking the planning system to ‘make it easier’ to build.
However, to make matters even harder, the new Government has increased the number to around 370,000 per annum, with any proposed new towns being on top of that figure. We have yet to see the details of those new towns, but north Essex could be a potential location.
The have also stated that targets imposed on local authorities (councils) will be mandatory. Whilst it may remain possible to develop a plan below the expected target, any shortfall (unmet need) will need to have been explored with neighbouring councils to see if they can take the numbers. This ‘duty to cooperate’ hasn’t worked in the past and it’s not likely to work with even higher housing numbers. All councils will be challenged by the numbers and finding appropriate places to build.
Housing targets are set by something called the Standard Method which is an algorithm historically based on data inputs, such as expected population growth, and uplifts to address affordability. That is, increase the numbers in some areas in the hope that supply and demand will reduce prices. But that never happens regardless of how many houses are built. Basildon is deemed to have an affordability issue, so our figures are inflated.
As far as we can determine, the Standard Method will be significant changed to be now based on housing stock in an area, not population predictions, plus higher affordability uplifts as mentioned before. It previously gave a figure of 1,039 houses per annum for Basildon borough. The preliminary new figure is a minimum of 1,271 houses per annum: an increase of 24%. In simple terms it means that more land will be needed to make the target.
Basildon isn’t the only local council that has seen an increase in the numbers but is towards the lower end of the increase scale. Castle Point, Rochford and Maldon have seen increases of near to 100%. See table below.
This higher target has a clear implication on the new Local Plan. Assuming that the plan is for 20 years Basildon council will now need to consider provision for over 27,000 houses, when before it was under 21,000. But both are excessively high!
However, potentially the most worrying aspect of this is that a bigger overall housing target means a bigger 5-year housing land supply target and failure to meet that tends to result in planning application being approved, even on Green Belt land and regardless of any up-to-date Local Plan.
We have covered the 5-year housing land supply in posts before. It’s the number of houses the council predicts will actually be built over the coming 5 years. It’s not the same as the number awarded planning permission. As it stands, Basildon council can only demonstrate a 1.85-year supply based on the previous 1,039 per annum target. With the target going up to 1,271 per annum that falls to 1.5 years assuming no increase in the rate of housing completions. That leaves the council very exposed and they, or the planning Inspectorate on appeal, will be of a mind to approve planning applications in the Green Belt in an attempt to address that significant shortfall in housing delivery.
Basildon council has little power over this. They are expected to make the targets, but they are totally dependent on developers actually building the houses. The matter clearly gets worse with a new higher housing target.
The new Government initial picked up the target from the previous Government of 300,000 new houses per annum, or 1.5m over the 5-year parliamentary term. Those figures have absolutely no solid basis, nor is there any breakdown of the types of houses that are most needed, whether council housing or more 5-bedroom houses on the open market. They are just aspirational numbers with no qualification.
As we know, the previous Government failed to deliver housing to those numbers, however, the new Government seems set on doing so by tweaking the planning system to ‘make it easier’ to build.
However, to make matters even harder, the new Government has increased the number to around 370,000 per annum, with any proposed new towns being on top of that figure. We have yet to see the details of those new towns, but north Essex could be a potential location.
The have also stated that targets imposed on local authorities (councils) will be mandatory. Whilst it may remain possible to develop a plan below the expected target, any shortfall (unmet need) will need to have been explored with neighbouring councils to see if they can take the numbers. This ‘duty to cooperate’ hasn’t worked in the past and it’s not likely to work with even higher housing numbers. All councils will be challenged by the numbers and finding appropriate places to build.
Housing targets are set by something called the Standard Method which is an algorithm historically based on data inputs, such as expected population growth, and uplifts to address affordability. That is, increase the numbers in some areas in the hope that supply and demand will reduce prices. But that never happens regardless of how many houses are built. Basildon is deemed to have an affordability issue, so our figures are inflated.
As far as we can determine, the Standard Method will be significant changed to be now based on housing stock in an area, not population predictions, plus higher affordability uplifts as mentioned before. It previously gave a figure of 1,039 houses per annum for Basildon borough. The preliminary new figure is a minimum of 1,271 houses per annum: an increase of 24%. In simple terms it means that more land will be needed to make the target.
Basildon isn’t the only local council that has seen an increase in the numbers but is towards the lower end of the increase scale. Castle Point, Rochford and Maldon have seen increases of near to 100%. See table below.
This higher target has a clear implication on the new Local Plan. Assuming that the plan is for 20 years Basildon council will now need to consider provision for over 27,000 houses, when before it was under 21,000. But both are excessively high!
However, potentially the most worrying aspect of this is that a bigger overall housing target means a bigger 5-year housing land supply target and failure to meet that tends to result in planning application being approved, even on Green Belt land and regardless of any up-to-date Local Plan.
We have covered the 5-year housing land supply in posts before. It’s the number of houses the council predicts will actually be built over the coming 5 years. It’s not the same as the number awarded planning permission. As it stands, Basildon council can only demonstrate a 1.85-year supply based on the previous 1,039 per annum target. With the target going up to 1,271 per annum that falls to 1.5 years assuming no increase in the rate of housing completions. That leaves the council very exposed and they, or the planning Inspectorate on appeal, will be of a mind to approve planning applications in the Green Belt in an attempt to address that significant shortfall in housing delivery.
Basildon council has little power over this. They are expected to make the targets, but they are totally dependent on developers actually building the houses. The matter clearly gets worse with a new higher housing target.
The table shows the base (starting point) numbers per year. The proposed figures increase each year.
2. Grey Belt
Many (with a vested interest in development?), have argued that much of the Green Belt does not serve the purpose of such land and should be released for development. It is no doubt true for some parts of the Green Belt but as a group we stand by all of the current Green Belt with no compromise.
However, it is now proposed that some parts of the Green Belt will be characterised as grey belt such that it can be more easily released for development.
The proposed definition of grey belt, to be defined in the NPPF, is:
“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 might be a good thing but only if the recategorisation is done fairly and transparently so that residents are confident in the process. If we start to see undeveloped, healthy and productive farmland designated as grey belt, then questions will need to be asked. Likewise, any landowners allowing land to become conveniently ‘grey’.
The worry, from the definition above, are the words ‘make a limited contribution’. That’s very vague and potentiality subjective. In fact, much of what is being said about grey belt is very loose and open to wide interpretation.
It is too early to tell how this will play out locally. Basildon council recently commissioned a new Green Belt review which has yet to be published, however, that was before the concept of grey belt came up. They will have to revisit this.
The proposed pecking order of land to be made available for development is, brownfield first, then grey belt and Green Belt at last resort. But as we have seen before, Green Belt was being released despite there being undeveloped brownfield so do these new proposals provide any greater assurances that the true Green Belt is safe?
However, it is now proposed that some parts of the Green Belt will be characterised as grey belt such that it can be more easily released for development.
The proposed definition of grey belt, to be defined in the NPPF, is:
“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 might be a good thing but only if the recategorisation is done fairly and transparently so that residents are confident in the process. If we start to see undeveloped, healthy and productive farmland designated as grey belt, then questions will need to be asked. Likewise, any landowners allowing land to become conveniently ‘grey’.
The worry, from the definition above, are the words ‘make a limited contribution’. That’s very vague and potentiality subjective. In fact, much of what is being said about grey belt is very loose and open to wide interpretation.
It is too early to tell how this will play out locally. Basildon council recently commissioned a new Green Belt review which has yet to be published, however, that was before the concept of grey belt came up. They will have to revisit this.
The proposed pecking order of land to be made available for development is, brownfield first, then grey belt and Green Belt at last resort. But as we have seen before, Green Belt was being released despite there being undeveloped brownfield so do these new proposals provide any greater assurances that the true Green Belt is safe?
3. Golden Rules
The Government has stated that Golden Rules will apply to developments on land released from Green Belt. Note – that sentence alone suggests that the Green Belt is far from off limits.
There are three main Golden Rules.
A. 50% of the houses must be affordable homes. This is an emotive area but it’s important to understand that these are not lower cost houses to buy on the open market. They are houses that sit between privately owned and council owned. They are not council houses. They are typically owned by a registered housing provider and are made available at reduced rent or for shared purchase to those that qualify. A few might be available for discounted purchase but with strict limitations under the First Homes scheme. An addition is that a proportion of affordable homes should be for social rent.
B. Infrastructure provision must be a clear part the development, whether education, health or transport.
C. The accessibility of green spaces, whether on site or off site, must be a clear part of any development.
These files are going to put a lot of financial burden on the landowner and developer. They will be expected to build the affordable homes to the same standard as all other houses on the development but sell them below market price to the registered housing provider. With the cost of land and construction being equal, such housing means less profit, and in some cases, they might be loss making.
But there’s another side to this which is often overlooked, will the registered providers have enough money to buy and manage this scale of affordable housing, or do enough such companies actually exist? It’s important to note that affordable housing is effectively private owned and rented out, or part sold with rent on top. They are not bought by councils, and councils don’t fund their build. In some situations, Government grants are available to help with affordable housing construction but it’s very limited. This flows to the developer, not the council, as far as we are aware.
Developers will also be expected to fund and possibly deliver the infrastructure ‘up-front’, but we can’t see anything yet to make this a certainty. They fund infrastructure today via S106 payments but there are no guarantees on if and when infrastructure will be provided. With these new Golden Rules that lack of delivery could be addressed but history doesn’t look promising, with £2.8bn of infrastructure commitments from development yet to be spent, with education authorities and the NHS no doubt being the two biggest recipients but not spending where it’s most needed.
Depending on your viewpoint, these new ‘rules’ could be a good thing if we are to lose grey or Green Belt to development, but there is the potential that the cost of delivery might make some developments financially nonviable. In such circumstances developers can argue to get their commitments to infrastructure and affordable housing reduced or removed. We need to watch this very closely as Golden Rules might not deliver what they promise, and we may just see more land lost to housing with no community benefits.
There are three main Golden Rules.
A. 50% of the houses must be affordable homes. This is an emotive area but it’s important to understand that these are not lower cost houses to buy on the open market. They are houses that sit between privately owned and council owned. They are not council houses. They are typically owned by a registered housing provider and are made available at reduced rent or for shared purchase to those that qualify. A few might be available for discounted purchase but with strict limitations under the First Homes scheme. An addition is that a proportion of affordable homes should be for social rent.
B. Infrastructure provision must be a clear part the development, whether education, health or transport.
C. The accessibility of green spaces, whether on site or off site, must be a clear part of any development.
These files are going to put a lot of financial burden on the landowner and developer. They will be expected to build the affordable homes to the same standard as all other houses on the development but sell them below market price to the registered housing provider. With the cost of land and construction being equal, such housing means less profit, and in some cases, they might be loss making.
But there’s another side to this which is often overlooked, will the registered providers have enough money to buy and manage this scale of affordable housing, or do enough such companies actually exist? It’s important to note that affordable housing is effectively private owned and rented out, or part sold with rent on top. They are not bought by councils, and councils don’t fund their build. In some situations, Government grants are available to help with affordable housing construction but it’s very limited. This flows to the developer, not the council, as far as we are aware.
Developers will also be expected to fund and possibly deliver the infrastructure ‘up-front’, but we can’t see anything yet to make this a certainty. They fund infrastructure today via S106 payments but there are no guarantees on if and when infrastructure will be provided. With these new Golden Rules that lack of delivery could be addressed but history doesn’t look promising, with £2.8bn of infrastructure commitments from development yet to be spent, with education authorities and the NHS no doubt being the two biggest recipients but not spending where it’s most needed.
Depending on your viewpoint, these new ‘rules’ could be a good thing if we are to lose grey or Green Belt to development, but there is the potential that the cost of delivery might make some developments financially nonviable. In such circumstances developers can argue to get their commitments to infrastructure and affordable housing reduced or removed. We need to watch this very closely as Golden Rules might not deliver what they promise, and we may just see more land lost to housing with no community benefits.
4. Renewable Energy
The proposed changes put new focus on councils allocating land for renewable energy projects (solar, wind etc.) in the drive to net zero. The clear implication being that significant weight must be given to approving such projects.
Our quick take on this is that planning applications for solar farms or wind turbines in the local Green Belt are more likely to be approved in the future, although we were starting to see this already under current planning legislation.
Our quick take on this is that planning applications for solar farms or wind turbines in the local Green Belt are more likely to be approved in the future, although we were starting to see this already under current planning legislation.
5. New Local Plan
Work has already started on the new Basildon Local Plan but it’s still early days. We are not due to see the first draft version on the plan towards the end of this year when there will be a Regulation 18 public consultation.
Because the plan is at a relatively early stage the expectation from the proposed planning system changes is that the council will now need to consider the higher housing targets, the introduction of grey belt, and any other changes relative to the plan making process.
At this point it’s not possible to say whether this will add delays to Basildon council’s plan to submit the new Local Plan to the Government for examination by mid-2025.
Because the plan is at a relatively early stage the expectation from the proposed planning system changes is that the council will now need to consider the higher housing targets, the introduction of grey belt, and any other changes relative to the plan making process.
At this point it’s not possible to say whether this will add delays to Basildon council’s plan to submit the new Local Plan to the Government for examination by mid-2025.
6. Planning Applications
Until the proposed changes are set down in a new version of the NPPF, any existing planning applications will be considered relative to the current (December 2023) version of the NPPF. The concept of grey belt will not apply, and any decisions taken relative to housing targets will be based on the current Standard Method and 5 year housing supply calculations.
7. Conclusions
All in all, these proposed changes are very concerning when it comes to maintaining the Green Belt around Billericay and across the wider Basildon borough.
Basildon council will be under huge pressure to come up with a new Local Plan that meets the full housing needs target. They will have to look at recategorising some land as grey belt to achieve that. Some ‘prime’ Green Belt might be needed too. There simply isn’t enough brownfield available.
The 5-year housing land supply will become even more challenging leading to more planning applications being approved.
Despite commitments that the Green Belt is important, and that communities will have a say in outcomes, the Government’s proposed planning reforms come across as something quite different. The drive to hit spurious housing targets continues and that seems to be driving the agenda.
As we have said in the past, targets don’t built houses, councils don’t build houses. Private builders build houses, and they work to their own agenda, which is not the same as the Governments’.
We are already seeing comments from inside the industry that the resources don’t exist to build this scale of housing. It’s widely recognised that it won’t address housing affordability (lower prices).
The real risk is that we are going to see even more land allocated for future development in Local Plans, or given planning permission, but nothing will actually get built at scale. That has happened in the past and with these new planning rules it’s bound to get worse. Once it’s gone it’s gone, even if the land sits idle.
Basildon council will be under huge pressure to come up with a new Local Plan that meets the full housing needs target. They will have to look at recategorising some land as grey belt to achieve that. Some ‘prime’ Green Belt might be needed too. There simply isn’t enough brownfield available.
The 5-year housing land supply will become even more challenging leading to more planning applications being approved.
Despite commitments that the Green Belt is important, and that communities will have a say in outcomes, the Government’s proposed planning reforms come across as something quite different. The drive to hit spurious housing targets continues and that seems to be driving the agenda.
As we have said in the past, targets don’t built houses, councils don’t build houses. Private builders build houses, and they work to their own agenda, which is not the same as the Governments’.
We are already seeing comments from inside the industry that the resources don’t exist to build this scale of housing. It’s widely recognised that it won’t address housing affordability (lower prices).
The real risk is that we are going to see even more land allocated for future development in Local Plans, or given planning permission, but nothing will actually get built at scale. That has happened in the past and with these new planning rules it’s bound to get worse. Once it’s gone it’s gone, even if the land sits idle.
8. What Can We ALL Do?
Please give consideration to responding to the Government’s NPPF consultation that’s now running until the 24 September.
Get involved in the Local Plan process at the next public consultation stage. This was expected to be late this year but might get delayed. It’s the only chance we have to say what we think and try to get a good outcome.
Continue to comment and object to planning applications on Green Belt land and ensure that current and any new planning policies are being correctly interpreted and applied.
As always, we will try to provide help on here and on our Facebook group.
Get involved in the Local Plan process at the next public consultation stage. This was expected to be late this year but might get delayed. It’s the only chance we have to say what we think and try to get a good outcome.
Continue to comment and object to planning applications on Green Belt land and ensure that current and any new planning policies are being correctly interpreted and applied.
As always, we will try to provide help on here and on our Facebook group.
9. Links
Proposed version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) showing changes over the previous December 2023 version;
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66acffddce1fd0da7b593274/NPPF_with_footnotes.pdf
Government Consultation on the NPPF and other planning reforms;
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system
Community Planning Alliance;
www.communityplanningalliance.org/
London Green Belt Council;
londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk/
Campaign For Rural England;
www.cpre.org.uk/
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66acffddce1fd0da7b593274/NPPF_with_footnotes.pdf
Government Consultation on the NPPF and other planning reforms;
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system
Community Planning Alliance;
www.communityplanningalliance.org/
London Green Belt Council;
londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk/
Campaign For Rural England;
www.cpre.org.uk/
