So, they’ve finally landed: The changes to the NPPF that were first conceived through the Villiers-Seeley amendment over a year ago, consulted upon early in 2023, which were meant to be announced alongside the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act and which finally arrived on Tuesday. I have heard some comments about the efficacy of the timing – just before the Christmas break – to announce a change the Government would rather not talk about too much because of the ructions they have been causing within the Conservative Parliamentary Party. Personally, I see more of a connection to the final of Strictly, for all the nimble political footwork on display. Here we give our overview of the problems the new framework sought to solve, the key changes implemented as a result and how these could potentially mitigate some of the wider political challenges.
The issue the NPPF changes needed to resolve is very sensitive and tricky for the Government. Consider the factors at play: Plummeting levels of housebuilding leaving many young people unable to get on the housing ladder (why should the next generation vote Conservative if they have nothing to conserve?); the dire impact on the economy of falling levels of development; the backlash against development across the Home Counties which has cost the Conservatives hundreds of councillors who have been replaced by independents, Liberal Democrats and Greens; a rebellion by over 60 Tory MPs against housing targets through the Villiers-Seeley Amendment; a counter-rebellion against the proposed NPPF changes in the Spring of this year and all about a planning system that the Conservatives have been in charge of since 2010.
So what changes will the new framework introduce? You could fill several seminars’-worth picking over the details but, politically, the key changes are about taking development pressure off rural areas by removing the requirement for local authorities to review Green Belt boundaries and loosening the application of the standard method and emphasis on urban areas taking more development. There was also a very clear message to local authorities that, in order to benefit from new protections against development, they have to have a Local Plan in place. For a more detailed explanation of the new framework I recommend this webinar from Have we got planning news for you.
Our industry will pick over and analyse the detail of the new framework. Early responses are that the changes to the Green Belt reviews will cause housebuilding to fall further and that the urban uplift will not be able to pick up the slack. It is hard to escape the sense that the new NPPF owes something to the overall lack of strategy direction from the Government in recent years and do not go much beyond being a short-term political ‘fix’. Nonetheless, it is worth focussing on the way that Gove has managed the political challenges for his Party around development: He has relieved the pressure on local authorities in the Home Counties, enabling Tory MPs there to claim, in the run-up to the General Election, that the Government is protecting the Green Belt. This provides some breathing space to many Conservative MPs who have been increasingly alarmed at some high profile by-election losses to the Liberal Democrats, where development has been a key issue. With the new framework’s quid pro quo (“I’ll take the development pressure off you, provided you have a local plan in place”) Gove has put the onus back on to many, new Independent and Lib Dem administrations in former Conservative local authorities – batting the ‘ball’ of local concern on development issues into their side of the court. He has also been careful to put on the ‘naughty step’ some Conservative-run authorities as well (Basildon and Amber Valley being two examples), but, overall, the NPPF changes put the Conservative Government on the front foot and throw their detractors in local government off balance. Through the urban uplift (note, not suburban uplift) he focuses development on brownfield land in areas that are less likely to vote Tory. He can argue that, while fewer homes will be built in rural areas, more will be built in urban areas – whether or not this is true will become clear in the coming months but it arms Conservative MPs with an argument in the forthcoming General Election. He has also sought to place some of the blame for the housing crisis onto his political opponents – singling out London’s Labour Mayor, Sadiq Khan, for criticism in failing to deliver enough homes. Gove announced a review of the London Plan and, through his announcement of 150,000 homes around Cambridge, has an effective rebuttal to the charge of ‘Nimby’.
Add to all of this to his announcing the NPPF changes at RIBA’s Grade II*-listed headquarters, and a speech that was laced in language about beautiful design, the Victorians, their innovation and their “love for the future” and you have a Secretary of State masking his Government’s political weakness by going out on the front foot.
Ok, Gove’s actual dance moves may not be as polished as his political paso doble, but you have to admit that he has played a very weak political hand as well as he possibly could.
Gabriel Abulafia is Head of Political & Stakeholder Engagement at Redwood Consulting