By Alexandra Woolmore, Head of Planning at The Hill Group

In December 2024, The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) published its revised National Policy Planning Framework. Key reforms included the reintroduction of mandatory housing targets, the restoration of the five-year housing land supply, a new Standard Method, and changes to Green Belt policy, including the introduction of the ‘grey belt’.

It’s a dynamic moment for the planning industry. At a time of sweeping reforms and an emphatic push from the new Government to drive the number of new homes being built, it’s been fantastic to be part of The Hill Group, a business that is not only embracing change but driving it – playing a pivotal role in delivering the much-needed homes and great places that communities rely on.

As a top 10 housebuilder, we are committed to driving positive change in the built environment and welcome the return of mandatory housing targets and the use of a consistent methodology across all councils. The previous experiment of removing these targets clearly failed. Without clear targets and a uniform approach, developers lacked certainty and councils had little incentive to address their local housing need, leading to a significant decline in permissions and delivery in some areas. There’s a lot of catching up to do, but we should start seeing the impact of these mandatory targets reflected in the number of applications over the next couple of years.  I am doubtful we’ll reach the levels necessary to meet the Government’s headline housing target of 370,000 homes a year, given the many factors that can delay or halt delivery once permission is granted and which sit outside of the scope of the NPPF. However, the NPPF changes lay a strong foundation to build from.

As a conscientious developer, Hill is already committed to delivering the infrastructure and green spaces required to support new (and existing) communities and does not shy away from affordable housing policy targets. 

However, all roads now appear to lead to 50% affordable housing on any major green belt development, with apparently no wiggle room for viability arguments.  We await clarity on this from the expected review of Viability Guidance, but at a time where registered providers are simply not purchasing affordable housing, it is hard to see how this level of supply will be picked up.  Many schemes are already on the precipice of deliverability, with increasing requirements for affordable housing, infrastructure and environmental measures or contributions putting pressure on viability. I hope the guidance, when issued, reflects this challenge by providing more flexibility around the circumstances where viability assessments can be used.

This change also goes hand-in-hand with the more radical Green Belt policy changes, which will put additional pressure on councils with increased housing targets to turn to the Green Belt to meet supply. Ultimately, the success of both the mandatory targets and new standard method will be key in determining how effective Green Belt and grey belt policies are at delivering permissions and, ultimately, homes.

The grey belt concept is a flagship policy in the Government’s efforts to tackle the housing crisis and represents one of the most significant changes to planning policy in decades. As a principle, it is a change we broadly welcome.  Coupled with the new housing targets, it is likely to drive a substantial increase in permissions over the next few years. I suspect there are no developers or housebuilders that are not revisiting their portfolio and evaluating their sites through this new lens. The outcome will likely be a surge of applications over the next 12-24 months, especially in previously secure areas which now find themselves without a 5YHLS.  However, the real test will come as these applications move through the system. Resources are already stretched within Local Planning Authorities, and in some places, multiple major schemes will now be competing for officer attention.

The addition of 300 new planners over the next two years is a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough to offset the significant loss of planners from the profession in recent years. Or to provide the immediate resources needed to support the anticipated rise in applications and the preparation of new Local Plans. To truly meet the demand, we need to not only bring back experienced planners but also make planning a career of choice for graduates, ensuring we have the broad range of skills required at all levels. Prioritising housing delivery and strategic development at the top of the agenda may help attract new talent, but it must be accompanied by sufficient funding and innovative thinking around how councils can position themselves in a competitive employment market.

Finally, I won’t lament the loss of the words ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ from the NPPF – terms that are highly subjective and undefined, and in many ways, did little to improve the quality of development. What’s important is that everything else needed to support the delivery of ‘well-designed’ development remains in place in the NPPF, so there’s no reason to expect a dilution of quality because of their removal. I am proud to say that we at Hill can stand next to any of our developments and be proud of their design credentials – and that certainly won’t change.

By Alexandra Woolmore, Head of Planning at The Hill Group