Planning has been firmly on the agenda of the new Labour government and the draft NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) landed just four days after we received our new administration. In this article, we consider what “Getting Britian Building Again” will mean for farmers, and whether things are set to change for the better.
What do we know so far about planning?
Consultation on the draft NPPF has now closed and while we were assured that the updated version would come into effect this year, timescales look set to slip into the new year. This means that the implications of the budget will precede any shift in approach to planning – but makes for an uncertain landscape at present. It would seem the clarity is set to come in piecemeal fashion with further planning reforms still to follow in the shape of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the findings of a number of other taskforces.
The draft NPPF is currently a material consideration in decision-making. This means that support for renewables and house building are relevant to the determination of planning applications. However, local planning authorities will not yet be required to adhere to the requirements of the draft NPPF in their local plan-making or decision-making. Therefore, the immediate impact is fairly limited in terms of the direction of travel, support for renewables is strong and may give rise to greater opportunities for agricultural landowners.
The impact of the housebuilding drive
We know that the government is focussing on the delivery of housebuilding. This will mean that, in much of the country, housing targets will increase. If those homes are not provided for in local planning and decision-taking, authorities can expect to receive speculative applications for development. For those landowners with options or conditional contracts in place in respect of their land, this could be welcome news.
However, the focus on housebuilding is also prompting the government to consider strategic level developments and ‘new towns’. These are likely to require the assembly of large parcels of land and may, in turn, increase the likelihood of reliance upon compulsory purchase powers. Alongside these are proposed reforms to compulsory purchase compensation rules to ensure compensation “is fair but not excessive.”
Green belt versus grey belt land
The proposed approach to the green belt may assist in terms of new opportunities. This will give greater impetus for review of green belt boundaries and release of land from the green belt where housing targets are not being met.
There is also the new concept of ‘grey belt’ land; land within the green belt which is either previously developed or does not contribute to green belt principles. What constitutes ‘previously developed land’ is already defined, and was not proposed to change in the consultation draft, but Angela Rayner has subsequently advocated the inclusion of hardstanding and glasshouses.
However, the definition retains, in the draft at least, an exclusion in respect of land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. The changes that come to fruition in relation to the green belt, grey belt and previously developed land, will be of interest – particularly in terms of affordable rural housing.
Helpfully, we can expect greater support for the development of brownfield land, with acceptance for the first time that development of brownfield land is acceptable in principle. In urban settlements, there may be increased support in the form of a ‘brownfield passport’ to give a default ‘yes’ to development subject to exclusions. This change is broadly welcomed and may be helpful depending upon the extent to which the passports will assist, indications being that they will apply to urban settlements only.
The government is also striving to achieve global local plan coverage. This will of course take time and so is not a position that we can expect to see for some years to come, even with the government indicating their readiness to intervene if local planning authorities are not doing enough to achieve their housing targets. The principle is admirable and would give greater certainty for all – something that would be much welcomed. The question being whether this can be delivered and how quickly.
Until then, we have permitted development rights – noting recent tweaks to Class Q – to rely upon, where possible, and Biodiversity Net Gain remains unchanged.