Parliamentary committee laments “stop-start” planning policy reforms in report on proposed NPPF changes

July 17, 2023

MPs have criticised a "stop-start" approach to planning law reform over recent years that has caused uncertainty for local authorities and planners, in a report into the Government's proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

In the report, which was produced by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (LUHC) Committee, MPs also raised concerns that the introduction of National Development Management Policies could override local plans.

The Government detailed its proposed changes to the NPPF in a consultation document published in December of last year.

The reforms are wide-ranging and include the removal of the requirement for councils to continually demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, new lines that stress councils are not required to revise Green Belt boundaries or build at densities out of character even if they are set to miss their house building targets, and the ability to include past over-delivery in their housing numbers.

The changes also included an amendment emphasising that: "The outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting-point for establishing a housing requirement for the area."

But in its report published on Friday, the LUHC Committee said that the changes represent another differing proposal for national planning policy reform since 2019.

It said that the changes to the NPPF and the subsequent public consultation "continued the trend of stop-start planning reform that we have seen over several years".

It added that this uncertainty has resulted in 58 local authorities stalling, delaying, or withdrawing their local plans to deliver housing — 28 of those since the December 2022 announcement.

"Contrary to the Government's objective of facilitating local plan-making, the short-term effect of announcing the planning reform proposals has been to halt the progress of local plans in many areas."

Among the proposed changes to planning policy is the introduction of National Development Management Policies (NDMPs). These will be set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.

Details are yet to be provided on how NDMPs will be implemented, but the committee raised concerns that they will override local plans in favour of national policy in some cases. "We therefore believe that the Bill should require that draft NDMPs be subject to formal parliamentary scrutiny before they are made."

The call follows a similar warning made by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), which said a lack of public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of NDMPs could see local communities have limited engagement in the planning system.

The LUHC committee report also criticised the standard method for calculating housing need, describing it as "not currently fit for purpose".

It noted that the standard method is based on 2014-based housing projections, focuses on housebuilding in areas where economic activity is already high, and includes an arbitrary 35% uplift for urban centres.

"Instead, a revised standard method should take account of future local need, encourage regeneration across the country, and apply fairly to all local authorities", it said.

On the plans to make housing targets advisory, the committee said that in the course of its investigation, it heard evidence from stakeholders that such a reform would render the national housing target of 300,000 new homes built per year "impossible to achieve".

It also claimed that the Government had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate how its proposed reforms would increase housebuilding to meet the national housing target by the mid-2020s.

Staffing issues were also highlighted in the report, which said that the Government's planned reforms would fail if local authorities lack sufficient resources to implement them.

It claimed that the package of support the Government has outlined "does not go far enough to address the significant resourcing challenges which local authorities currently face".

The report made a number of recommendations, some of which called for the Government to:

Update the standard method of calculating housing need so that it takes account of future local need, encourages regeneration across the country, and applies fairly to all local authorities.
Abolish the urban uplift when it reviews the standard method in 2024.
Give greater importance to planning for Social Rent homes and for the 300,000 objective to include a target for 90,000 Social Rent homes per year.
"See the merit in pausing plans for further reform" in order to allow for a period of stability in which reforms already introduced can be properly implemented, and any lessons from that implementation learned.
Urgently conduct and publish impact assessments on all future NPPF changes.
Launch a national review of the purpose of the Green Belt to assess the circumstances where brownfield sites within the Green Belt should be considered for development.
Make each draft NDMP subject to full and proper parliamentary scrutiny before coming into force.

Clive Betts MP, Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (LUHC) Committee, said: "We have a national shortage of housing in England and there's evidence the Government's latest shake-up of planning rules is already having a damaging impact on efforts to increase the building of new homes.

"People are facing rising housing costs. Housing affordability is a major issue. For our economy and for communities across the country, it's crucial the Government takes urgent action to encourage the building of more homes. Without urgent action, the Government will fail achieve its national housing target of building 300,000 net new homes per year by the mid-2020s."

He added: "Planning consultants say annual housebuilding will go down to around 150,000 a year under the Government's proposed policy reforms. The prospect of a major hit to the building of new homes resulting from the Government's planning rule changes is deeply concerning, especially for people wanting to get on the housing ladder, families eager to move home, and communities crying out for affordable places to live."

Adam Carey