Cautious welcome for Raynor’s radical planning shake-up

We welcome the thrust of the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement this week on planning reform. 

In particular, we support the return of mandatory housing targets and the emphasis on delivery in areas where affordability issues are at their most acute.

It is positive to see that local authorities will be obliged to deliver the housing that is needed in their areas, and while we support the fact that they can decide how to do this, we are pleased to see they will not have the ability to duck the issue simply because they choose to do so. 

We also welcome the determination to deliver sustainable patterns of development, and to carry out a strategic review of the Green Belt in the many instances where there is insufficient brownfield land or non-Green Belt greenfield land in order to achieve the housing targets.  

We look forward to studying and further understanding the definition and approach to the so-called Grey Belt, but firmly believe there will be a need for balanced Green Belt releases to attempt to meet the highly ambitious housing targets.

Housing targets 

This target, of 370,000 homes per annum, will be widely welcomed by the housing sector, developers and those in current housing need. However, there are enormous challenges around even delivering 300,000 new homes in the short to medium term so an uplift to 370,000 will make the task more difficult yet.   We do however applaud the ambition and note that the Government clearly sees a role for Councils to deliver some of the homes needed themselves.  Again, this is a positive.

Green Belt and Grey Belt

The Green Belt and the so-called ’Grey Belt’ were an important focus of Angela Rayner’s statement. She has confirmed that Councils must review Green Belt boundaries if they cannot meet their identified level of housing need on brownfield land alone, which is also welcomed. 

Release of land from the Green Belt will however be predicated on satisfying a set of “golden rules” which will deliver additional public benefits such as increased affordable housing (set at a minimum of 50%) and other improvements to public infrastructure. 

On the face of it, the “golden rules” are reasonably logical but viability will need to be carefully considered, something the Government appears to accept. However, as Carter Jonas’ recent research has shown, it is unlikely that we will achieve the housing numbers needed on ‘grey belt’ sites alone (in addition to brownfield and other non Green Belt greenfield sites). 

Proposals to call in stalled planning applications

Often these grey belt sites may be remote and not sustainable so one needs to approach the matter with care, and the revised NPPF does accept that some Green Belt releases may also be needed in some locations. 

Confirmation that the Government may intervene and call in stalled planning applications, particularly where these would deliver significant housing numbers, is something we also support. Essentially it seeks to prevent local objectors from delaying housing schemes or local politicians from approving them. Whilst it is a last resort only to be deployed if the local Council is failing to deliver, it gives some confidence that the Government will back the builders rather than the blockers.