On 30^th July, the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, delivered a ministerial statement in the House of Commons. She introduced the “government’s plan to get Britain building” and “a radical plan to not only get the homes we desperately need, but also drive the growth, create jobs and breathe life back into our towns and cities.”

The issues to be addressed are not to be underestimated. In terms of new homes, there has been a persistent year after year under-delivery since the 1970s based on the government’s own statistics. 300,000 net new homes are required to meet need every year, this need stemming from people living longer, decreasing household size, net migration and loss of existing housing stock.

Alongside the net increase in supply required is a need for homes to be in the right places where there are jobs, homes to be of an acceptable standard in terms of construction, space, energy efficiency and accessibility, and for them to be affordable. The last concern is obviously affected by the under supply.

The underlying statistics (ONS 2024) make for uncomfortable reading.

In the financial year ending March 2023 only 210,320 net new homes were completed in the UK. The last time it exceeded the 300,000 currently needed was in 1976 and this was due to over 150,000 local authority homes being delivered that year.

In 2002, the median salary in England was £20,739 and the median house price was £102,000. This equated to an affordability ratio of 4.92. In 2022, the median salary was £33,208 and the median house price was £275,000 equating to an affordability ratio of 8.28.

3.5 million homes in England in 2021/22, including 12% of households with dependent children, were in ‘non-decent’ condition i.e. those that do not meet the statutory minimum standard for housing, do not provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort, are not in a reasonable state of repair, or do not have reasonably modern facilities and services.

The new government’s plans include: –

• A mandatory standardised housing needs methodology that will result in significant uplifts in the identified need in the majority of areas with the exception of some cities such as London.
• The designation of some areas of green belt as grey belt to include but not be limited to brownfield land.
• Reforms to the local plan preparation and adoption process.
• Prioritising new social rented homes and better protection of existing affordable housing stock by reviewing Right to Buy.
• Reform of strategic planning to provide the mechanism to deliver infrastructure such as wind farms, solar arrays and pylons.
• A new generation of new towns.

Shortly after Angela Rayner’s Statement, a draft new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published for consultation setting out more detail and the government’s policy position on matters ranging from housing delivery, economic development, climate change, design and heritage. Embedded within the new NPPF are the planning mechanisms to secure delivery of the government’s objectives such as increased housing supply and the delivery of strategic, including energy, infrastructure.

New NPPFs are nothing new. Indeed, we’ve had two iterations in the last twelve months alone (September and December 2023).

The first NPPF was published when Eric Pickles was the Secretary of State in 2012 and Greg Clark the planning minster. All NPPFs are a material planning consideration in decision making when local planning authorities, planning inspectors and ministers determine applications. They do not challenge the plan led system and the primacy of local plans and neighbourhood plans in decision making.

The government’s plans do not change the fundamental principles of this system.

The intention and reality are that NPPFs influence decisions as a material consideration; local and neighbourhood plans are the first port of call in the decision maker’s assessment but the weight afforded to the policies contained within these plans is tempered by varying degrees according to the consistency or otherwise with the latest NPPF’s content.

At first sight it is likely that many local and neighbourhood plans will find themselves at odds with the new NPPF, especially in relation to matters such as housing supply. This inconsistency should mean that less weight is afforded to these plans, significant weight is afforded to the NPPF, and more housing is granted.

The proof will be in the pudding. Government plans have been previously derailed by the bureaucracies, resource deficits, politics and legal challenges that characterise the planning system. In some instances, these have been self-inflicted as resources have been drained from local authorities, a lack of consultation has been carried out or local considerations have forced national U-turns. And, in a multitude of instances, proposed developments have rightly been refused; there should always be a balance and growth must always be assessed in the context of our collective duties towards biodiversity, climate change, landscape, living standards etc.

There are other factors at play that affect delivery but they key is undoubtedly the planning process.

Following the end of the consultation period for the new NPPF in September it is the government’s intention to publish it in its final form by the end of the year.

There will undoubtedly follow a period of months if not years as developers, council officers, consultees, interested parties, councillors, barristers and other stakeholders grapple with the meanings behind the words. As night follows day, there will be the inevitable publication of complementary guidance notes, discussions, disagreements, local resistance, perceived contradictory decisions, appeals and judicial reviews.

One can only face this future with the hope that, this time, affordable, quality homes in the right places with the infrastructure that they need can be delivered to meet need.