Will Labour’s planning reforms spell the end of nimbyism?

In mid-December the Government interrupted many a planning office Christmas party with draft changes to national planning policy, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the “NPPF”). 

Since well before it was in power, the Government has made planning reform a key part of its “pro-growth” agenda. It has been very vocal about how it sees the planning system holding back development, and has made a string of high-profile announcements of various initiatives intended to – in their words – get the nation building again, not least to make housing more affordable for more people. This consultation is the next step in those initiatives. 

To help navigate the consultation proposals, and the evolution of the planning system that they represent, the government has identified 12 core “changes”. Some of these are welcome innovations, for example the increased focus on building homes around stations and cutting red tape for development on medium sized sites (between 10 and 49 units). With others, it is difficult to see how they are departures from long established town planning principles, for example, the commitment to mitigating climate change, and conserving and enhancing the natural environment. 

But what about the proposals that could actually make a difference? First of all, it has to be recognised that they are wide-ranging and a planner could spend all day picking them over – however some of the general themes will have “real-world” consequences. Secondly, it is important to understand that the NPPF can be split into two main purposes:

· To provide a framework within which sub-national planning policy needs to be formulated – these local policies are intended to be the main yardstick against which planning applications for individual development are judged (ie “plan making”), but 

· It also sets out policies which also need to be considered when individual planning applications are considered (“decision taking”). 

On the plan making side, more detail is given on the Government’s commitment to “strategic” plan making. This is plan making on a level above local authority, and is intended to be a way of making sure that the development needs of a wider area are considered when policies are made. The practical implication of this is that it is more likely that housing that meets the needs of one local authority may end up taking place in another. This could obviously prove to be controversial, to say the least. 

However, it is arguably the decision-making side that the government is highlighting in the 12 changes. That said, for all the talk of “brownfield passports”, the effect of the proposals on the ability to get planning permission for development within existing settlements is likely to be quite subtle. These locations have long been favoured as a focus for development in national policy, and this remains the case. 

Outside existing settlements, where development has historically been discouraged, it is a slightly different story. Late in 2024 the Government introduced the “Grey Belt”, parts of the Green Belt that were – subject to various policy tests – suitable for development. Outside settlements in non-Green Belt locations there are now a range of types of development proposed to be explicitly identified as being potentially appropriate, including housing near stations, and housing and logistics development that can meet an identified unmet need. This is far from a “green light” for any development in non-urban areas, and even these types of development should only be approved if the benefits of granting planning permission are shown to outweigh any adverse effects (an assessment which will be different on each site). Overall, however, if these changes are adopted, it will very likely mean an increase in development outside existing settlements. 

It is inevitably difficult to assess how many of the proposals will make it through to the final document. What is certain is that the changes are a continuation of the Government’s efforts to encourage development. However, at a time when housebuilding is at its lowest level since the pandemic, many are saying that the Government is not moving fast enough. 

Much has been made of the Labour crackdown on Nimbyism, or the restriction of the public’s right to engagement when it comes to development (depending on your point of view). However, the advice we are offering to anyone looking at developing land is to progress sites with the Government’s initiatives in mind, and to promote planning applications as soon as possible. After all, with political tensions running high, we don’t know how long the current pro-development agenda will be in place.