New planning rules: Major updates to the NPPF [August 2024]

On the 30th of July 2024, Labour released its draft revisions to the NPPF, revealing substantial reforms to national planning policy.

From reinstating local housing targets to finally defining the grey belt, the revisions to the new NPPF are significant and, if all goes to plan, will help propel house building in England to the levels it desperately needs to meet.

In this article, we’ll take a microscope to the revised NPPF and proposed legislation changes, highlighting the key updates you need to know.

We’ll also share our expert opinion on what the proposed NPPF changes will mean for housebuilding in Britain and we'll recap what the industry has to say about the NPPF amendments.

So let’s get to it: your guide to all the new planning rules and the changes being made to the NPPF.

The Labour Party hinted at big change in the lead-up to the election and the first steps to delivering 1.5 million homes over the next five years have now been made public.

On the 30th of July 2024, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Angela Rayner addressed the House and announced the measures the Labour government will take to reach its ambitious housing promises to ‘turbocharge growth’.

Opening her address, Rayner said, “We’re facing the most acute housing crisis in living memory. 150,000 children in temporary accommodation. Nearly 1.3 million households on social housing waiting lists. Under 30s less than half as likely to own their own home, compared to in the 1990s. Rents are up 8.6% in the last year. Total homelessness at record levels. There are simply not enough homes.”

Rayner went on to announce the reinstatement of the mandatory local housing targets that were scrapped by the Tories in late 2022, explaining they would not only return but that the previous national target of 300,000 homes would hike to 370,000.

On the same day as Rayner’s address, the government released the NPPF tracked changes document, which shows exactly what is being scrapped from the old NPPF, what will remain, and what will be added. 

The proposed NPPF changes are up for consultation until late September. Once it’s closed, the government will consider the feedback before officially adopting the new framework.

So, what are the main changes to the updated NPPF?

The draft NPPF has a lot to say about the Green Belt, making many necessary changes. 

While I believe more could have been done (as I will discuss at the end of this article), these steps are a starting point and are more than any previous government has done for Green Belt reform since it was first introduced. For that, I commend them.

With this in mind, let’s take a look at what the government has in store when it comes to the Green Belt.

The new NPPF formally defines the ‘grey belt’, which was first introduced into the planning lexicon by Keir Starmer back in October 2023.

The new definition describes grey belt land 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, but excluding those areas or assets of particular importance (other than land designated as Green Belt).”

So long as the development doesn’t undermine the overall Green Belt function, housing on grey belt land can be permitted.

The new paragraph 142 of the NPPF says that Green Belt boundaries should only be adjusted where there are fully evidenced and justified exceptional circumstances, via updating a local plan or creating a new one. This is much the same as the former rule. 

However, now the exceptional circumstances for justifying development include instances where a local planning authority (LPA) “cannot meet its identified need for housing, commercial or other development through other means.”

On these occasions, an LPA should review its Green Belt boundaries and “propose alterations to meet these needs in full, unless the review provides clear evidence that such alterations would fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole.”

Additionally, the new paragraph removes the section that states “there is no requirement for Green Belt boundaries to be reviewed or changed when plans are being prepared or updated” making reviews mandatory in the right contexts.

Importantly, when reviewing Green Belt land for development, LPAs will need to consider land in the following order:

So, councils must first consider PDL, then they can move on to the newly defined grey belt areas, before finally using other sustainable Green Belt locations for housing development.

According to the new paragraph 155, when major development does go ahead on land that has just been released from the Green Belt via local plan preparation or review, or on sites where building is allowed through “development management”, the following requirements need to be met:

It is great to see the provision of affordable housing included in this draft legislation and that there is an obligation to improve or create green spaces that are accessible.

It’s a more holistic approach to development and will ensure the integrity of the Green Belt remains and help to make building on the Green Belt a positive thing, rather than the negative it’s forever been painted as.

There have been changes to one of the exceptions to Green Belt development, namely to paragraph 154g), which said limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use, could go ahead in the belt when it: “would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development; or not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority.” 

Now, in its new form as paragraph 151 g), the definition has been simplified to allowing development for: “limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.” 

This change strips out the need for the new dwelling to be the same size as what previously existed and it also removes the affordable housing need element of the exception.

Plus, in the new paragraph 152, the draft NPPF says that in addition to the points in paragraph 151, housing, commercial, and other development in the Green Belt shouldn’t be deemed as inappropriate where:

As a reminder, the new paragraph 155 requires major development in the Green Belt to be at least 50% affordable and improve infrastructure and green spaces.

That’s the most important Green Belt changes covered. Now let’s move on to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development - which encourages planning permission to be approved in cases where plan policies are outdated - has been clarified, with the instances in which it should be used for ‘decision taking’ expanding.

While the current NPPF says that the presumption is only triggered in instances where there are “no relevant development plan policies” or if those that are “most important for determining the application are out-of-date”, the new NPPF clarifies things and highlights that those ‘relevant policies’ are those relating to the supply of land.

On top of this clarification, the changes will also include a direct reference to the importance of integrating locational and design policies, as well as policies concerned with affordable housing. This move is to prevent developers from exploiting the presumption to create low-quality, unsustainable development. 

According to the consultation text, the purpose of the update is to “improve the operation of ‘the presumption’ in favour of sustainable development, to ensure it acts (as) an effective failsafe to support housing supply, by clarifying the circumstances in which it applies; and, introducing new safeguards, to make clear that its application cannot justify poor quality development.”

As mentioned earlier, the national housing target has now been lifted to an ambitious 370,000 homes annually; formerly the goal was 300,000, a target that’s not been met in over 50 years.

To increase the chances of hitting this huge number and delivering 1.5 million homes over this parliamentary term, mandatory housing targets have been reinstated, meaning the housing targets are no longer advisory, but compulsory.

Under the new NPPF update, all councils will be required to set housing targets according to one standard method, rather than using differing metrics from council to council. Though the standard method was the go-to approach in the past, councils had the option to use different methods if they wanted to.

Now, the only way an area will be able to reduce its housing requirement is if there are local constraints on land and delivery, including national parks, flood risk areas and protected habitats, but there would need to be plenty of evidence to justify that lower delivery. 

Finally, LPAs will also need to show in that process that all possible measures have been taken to increase supply before a reduced housing requirement could be considered.

As was mostly expected, the changes to the 5-year housing land supply (5YHLS) made by the Tories at the end of 2023 will be reversed. Now, LPAs will again need to demonstrate a 5YHLS, even if its local plan was adopted less than five years ago.

In short, before it was scrapped, the 5YHLS meant LPAs would, every year, need to update the supply of deliverable sites, providing enough land for five years of housing. 

The amount of housing needed over that five year period was calculated either against the requirement within the local plan or if the local plan was not up-to-date, via local housing need. If LPAs were unable to show a 5YHLS, then the presumption in favour of sustainable development would need to be applied to decision making, increasing the delivery of new housing.

Importantly, a lack of a five-year housing land supply can also constitute very special circumstances for Green Belt planning approval. This means that if an LPA fails to demonstrate a 5YHLS, it can justify development on Green Belt land, particularly when combined with other compelling factors like the provision of affordable housing or critical infrastructure needs​.

In December 2023, the Tories amended the NPPF to say that where an LPA has an up-to-date plan, so long as that plan remains up-to-date, an LPA does not need to continually demonstrate a 5YHLS. Further, those LPAs in the late stages of plan making would only need to show a 4-year housing land supply.

So, the new NPPF will reverse these edits, requiring all LPAs, regardless of the age of its local plan, to abide by the 5YHLS and consistently deliver a five year supply of housing land.

You might be wondering what happens to councils currently in the middle of creating new local plans. Do they stick with the previous NPPF, or adapt to the new one?

Well, fortunately, not all LPAs will need to start from scratch and there will be transitional arrangements for those LPAs with emerging plans. 

This is described in detail in Annex 1, but in a nutshell, plans at the examination stage will be assessed based on the current NPPF. 

The catch is if the new local housing need figure is 200 homes or higher than the requirement outlined in the adopted version of the plan, then the LPA will need to prepare a new plan according to the new NPPF.

Similarly, LPAs with emerging plans at the Regulation 19 stage (the final stage of public engagement before the plan is submitted for examination) one month after the new NPPF is published, then the existing framework can still be used. 

However, again there needs to be no more than 200 homes annually between the LPA’s revised housing need figure and the proposed housing requirement.

LPAs with gaps of 200 dwellings or more will be required to revise plans according to the new NPPF before the submission of the plan within the first 18 months of the new NPPF being published.

Finally, plans that are in the earlier stages should be adapted to meet what is required of the new NPPF.

Predictably, given its impact on their sector, the housing industry has broadly expressed its support for Labour’s planning reforms and the updated NPPF.

Melanie Leech, chief executive of the British Property Federation, said, “These measures send a clear signal of intent to deliver more homes. We need a multi-tenure approach to tackle the chronic housing supply shortage, which sees social and affordable housing, homes for sale and build-to-rent firing on all cylinders. We are therefore particularly pleased to see that as part of the draft revised NPPF, the government will double down on encouraging every part of the housing sector to play their full role in building the homes we need.”

Similarly, chief executive of the HBF, Neil Jefferson, said, “Today represents the first and most important step ministers have taken in addressing the barriers to delivering new homes.

“The scale of the government’s housing ambition has given hope to the homebuilding industry, [which] stands ready to increase supply and tackle the country’s housing shortage.”

When it comes to the Green Belt updates, even the Countryside Alliance, an organisation focused on issues relevant to the countryside, noted, “The proposal to reclassify some land as ‘grey belt’ is to be welcomed and the Alliance will play its part by responding to the consultation to ensure the countryside is protected where appropriate. The impression that most of us have is that the green belt is very special, prevents urban sprawl, and is a home to nature, but the reality is that much of it is not. It is not like a national park, which has been designated because it's extraordinarily beautiful, it's been designated just because of where it is.”

It’s fantastic to see more people properly grasping the purpose of the Green Belt and conceding that those areas of grossly overstated environmental or aesthetic value should be reallocated for housebuilding.

The changes to the new NPPF are certainly a step in the right direction and it is great that we have a government so committed to housing and boosting delivery across the country. This moment calls for bold change and some of what Labour has proposed in revising the NPPF is very bold indeed. However, I would suggest that other elements of the government’s new planning rules don’t go far enough.

While reinstating the mandatory local housing targets and increasing them to 370,000 per year is a hugely ambitious goal (one I don’t think is possible given the skilled labour shortage and the fact we haven’t built more than 300,000 homes in a year since 1969), other changes are decidedly less ambitious. 

While it is great to finally have the term ‘grey belt’ defined, I believe further refinement could have saved a lot of time and confusion.

The definition rather broadly describes ‘grey belt’ as previously developed land and/or areas of Green Belt land that make a limited contribution to the Green Belt’s key purposes. 

It relies on subjective assessments of what constitutes a ‘limited contribution’ to the Green Belt’s goals, which is likely to cause an uneven distribution of ‘grey belt’ sites and exacerbate regional disparities in housing availability.

If we are to truly deliver the homes we need, a strategic, nationwide review of Green Belt land should be considered to identify areas where the land plays a minimal role in controlling urban sprawl but can significantly enhance housing supply.

The NPPF consultation is open until 24 September 2024, which means the public can have their say before the new planning rules are made permanent.

In terms of when the new NPPF will officially be adopted, earlier promises of mid-October seem unlikely, however, the government has confirmed the revised NPPF will be published before the year ends.

Urbanist Architecture is a multidisciplinary practice that provides architectural, town planning, interior design, and project management services all under one roof. 

We like to think this gives us an edge as we’re able to bounce off one another and deliver truly innovative designs for clients that also have a great chance of gaining planning permission. In fact, our team has a 97% success rate when it comes to achieving planning permission, so you know you’re in safe hands when you work with us to navigate this new planning landscape.

Given your interest in planning legislation changes and Labour’s big plans for housing, I thought I’d let you know about our new book, ‘Green Light to Green Belt Developments’.

The Green Belt is one of the most contentious and misunderstood pieces of planning policy in England and it’s a topic we at Urbanist Architecture have a lot of experience working with. For this reason, we decided to pool our learnings and pen a book delving deep into the Green Belt from every possible angle.

‘Green Light to Green Belt Developments’ investigates the policy's biggest winners and losers, explores its connections to climate change and the housing crisis, as well as what the future might hold, particularly now a new Labour government is in power. It also looks at the history of the policy and how it’s managed to endure while other policies have evolved and adapted with the times. Of course, it also identifies the exceptions and special circumstances that exist for permitting development in the Green Belt, so you can better your chances of gaining planning permission.

We’ve written this book for anyone seeking a more rounded understanding of one of England's most debated urban planning issues, making it accessible to both industry professionals and the general public.

Whether you are a landowner in the Green Belt wishing to understand the potential for land value uplift or a developer planning to build new homes in the Green Belt, this book is an essential read. Order your copy now.