The environment sector should pay close attention to the planning changes coming – Inside track

This post is by Maria Lee, professor of law at UCL.

Land use planning matters. It is a necessary part of our response to the biggest challenges of our time, from the climate and environmental crises to social and economic inequalities. It is a fundamentally democratic activity, both because it drives political choices about the future, and because it sits within and invigorates our democratic institutions and practices, especially at the local level.

The consultation on the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), running until 24 September, covers a lot of ground. Here, I address one issue – housing – that is in the consultation, and one set of issues – planning’s capacity for the democratic shaping of places for people, communities and nature – that isn’t.

The term ‘grey belt’ isn’t valuing ‘everyday’ nature
Housing, according to the UN, is “the basis of stability and security for an individual or family. The centre of our social, emotional and sometimes economic lives”. Like every version of the NPPF since the first in 2012, the 2024 proposals rest on the assumption that the housing crisis is rooted in inadequate supply, brought about by planning constraints. Building from this starting point, the consultation focuses on speedy delivery of more planning permissions.

Detailed changes proposed include a new ‘standard method’, a single national formula, for calculating local authority housing need. This effectively precludes public debate over what we might mean by ‘need’ (what sort of housing, who for, what for?). Even if the detail is obscure, the implications are clear: more houses, across the country.

The housing target is mandatory and land should be provided in local plans. As before, “existing National Park, protected habitats and flood risk areas” might mean a local authority cannot meet its target. But, in a significant change, if the local plan does not otherwise provide enough housing land, the local authority should review the boundaries of its green belt. The now famous ‘grey belt’ is a derogatory term that has perhaps too quickly achieved an air of inevitability. It comprises previously developed green belt land, plus green belt land that makes a “limited contribution” to the purposes of the green belt, which, importantly, do not include the positive benefits of ‘everyday’ nature.

Green belts will shrink
Grey belt will be allocated for housing after brownfield land. If necessary to meet the housing target, the non-grey parts of the green belt should also be made available, unless there is “clear evidence” it “would fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole”. Again, this is technical, but the message is clear: less green belt land.

If the local plan does not meet local housing need, as defined, the tilted balance in favour of planning permission applies to applications. It becomes difficult for local authorities to refuse planning permission on developers’ preferred sites, even if alternative brownfield sites are available. With similar priorities around ‘grey’ land, this now applies even to land still classed as green belt. However, and more empowering for local authorities, ‘location’ (apparently primarily meaning transport), design and affordable housing policies are now listed as potentially “adverse impacts” that could justify denying planning permission.

The “golden rules” for housing on what was previously green belt land are designed to make development more palatable. The golden rules require the provision of 50 per cent affordable housing, appropriate infrastructure and local green space, albeit subject to viability (including financial return for the developer). The big question is why these conditions should not apply to all new development.

Fixing the crisis of adequate housing is about more than supply
These proposals are new, and yet familiar, consistent with decades of reform purporting to fix the planning system, which is understood as a barrier to growth. Planning does reduce the supply of land for housing, in the service of other environmental, amenity and community needs. We know that increasing planning permissions does not in itself increase housing supply, and that addressing the complex and multi-faceted crisis of access to adequate housing is about more than supply. We might consider, for example, the role of UK housing as an investment, for ordinary citizens seeking financial security, and for global and domestic capital. This has affected the way we all – local and central government, global investors, ordinary homeowners and would be homeowners – think about housing, and means that demand is not limited to those seeking a home.

Could there be new emphasis on the nature and quality of housing?
Thinking more positively, beyond the numbers, the proposed changes could encourage harder thinking about quality, emphasising design and access to green spaces. Inequalities underpinning the poor distribution of housing go very deep, and there may be more room for local authorities to plan for social rent alongside so-called ‘affordable’ housing, and even for what the deputy prime minister calls a ‘council house revolution’. Social and affordable housing has long been dependent on capturing part of the profits of market-oriented housing, embedding high prices and unaffordability into the system. Details of government investment and changes to Right to Buy are promised in the autumn spending review, alongside a housing strategy. This could indicate change beyond the planning system.

Planning is political and should be democratic
Taken alone, the NPPF consultation could fit into a story of decline for public sector planning. Planning has been politically vilified for decades, whilst local government, which we depend on to make planning work, has been increasingly hollowed out. This consultation presents planning as a technical delivery mechanism for self-evidently desirable outcomes. But profound political choices are made and implemented through planning, shaping our futures and distributing economic, social and environmental costs and benefits. Who gets a say in these choices is crucial. The government may be looking beyond planning, as it is on housing. Although economic growth seems to take priority over democratic engagement, measures like the English Devolution Bill could address the democratic deficit in England, with a virtuous effect on planning.

The point is not that current residents should have a veto over development, or that democracy can be adequately captured in a single constituency (local or national). But democratic decision making is surely relevant to planning reform? A positive vision of planning is possible, providing space for collective consideration of what we need when places we care about change, what we need from homes and how we navigate our shared interests in equality, environment, infrastructure and amenity.

Change to planning and development, from within the planning system (not least the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and statement on New Towns) and beyond, will be a feature of the coming months and years. Paying attention to these changes will be vital, perhaps especially for the environmental community.