The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) aims to accelerate housing delivery and meet the ambitious target of 370,000 homes per year, totalling 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament.  What Does the Updated NPPF Really Mean for Housing Delivery? Is it a Step Forward or a Missed Opportunity?

In the Spring Paddock Johnson & Pegasus Group hosted representatives from a number of private sector and third sector businesses to debate its potential impact on housing delivery and whether the changes go far enough to speed up delivery. Will it make the difference we need and what will the new NPPF actually mean in reality?

The discussion highlighted challenges such as under-resourced statutory consultees and the complexity of planning applications.

Key points also included the need for a shift in mindset to address barriers, the importance of consistent policy interpretation, and the potential benefits of a zonal development model to assist officers and LPA’s in pre-authorising certain decisions and principles. This would give confidence to developers that overarching principles are pre-agreed and projects are financially deliverable, which isn’t the case at the moment.

We also covered the impact of inflation on affordable housing, the need for better resourcing and training for planning officers, and the role of regional Metro Mayors in challenging and streamlining processes, with potential opportunities to step in without projects reaching appeal stage.

This was referenced by Steve Jones from Drees and Sommers: “With the government aiming to deliver 1.5 million homes, and with a limited pool of contractors, we’re likely to see an inflationary bubble in the affordable housing sector that doesn’t necessarily align with tender price indices.”

A key aspect of the updated NPPF is granting the Government greater powers to ensure local councils adopt up-to date local plans but critical questions remain:

• Are the proposed changes truly addressing the core challenges of housing delivery?
• Are there unnecessary barriers that need to be removed, and does success depend on a shift in mindset? 
• How can we effectively leverage biodiversity net gain policies and unlock the potential of underutilized brownfield site

Resourcing:  cautious optimism, tempered with realism

Participants agreed that whilst intentions were good and change was needed the barriers to delivery were many. Resourcing was highlighted as major area. The Government’s promise of 300 extra planning officers is just not enough working to current planning processes. There are over 300 councils in England so this wouldn’t even provide one additional person per authority. In addition, retaining the current planning officers in the public sector is a challenge as many have moved across into the private sector, seeking better pay and more rewarding work.

Everyone was in agreement that there is a need to bring back the ability to pick up the phone and talk directly to planners. It would cut down email overload and get things moving more quickly. This also enables agents to develop working relationships with planning officers, there are currently many examples of LPA’s stating that they won’t engage directly with applicants. Could you imagine this happening in the private sector?

Craig Dulson from Westshield Limited highlighted: “It’s hard to speak to anyone in planning and losing the ability to pick up the phone for a brief conversation causes so many delays and increases costs. Developers would pay more for the planning application if it meant it was processed within the 13-week set deadline.”

Statutory Consultees are also stretched too thin and delays can stall entire projects. There’s a clear need to invest in capacity and rethink how consultation is structured. Similarly, planning and regeneration departments often operate in silos, despite working toward the same outcomes. That disconnect slows things down and can mean opportunities are missed.

Darren Muir from Pegasus highlighted this: “The proposed changes are a move in the right direction but do not go far enough. Statutory Consultees are under-resourced and this is a significant issue causing delays. Rather than removing them, they should be upskilled.”

Local Plans have a bigger role to play

The NPPF now gives Government more power to ensure councils have up-to-date Local Plans in place. Clear plans would make the development process faster and easier to work to. The plans will only be useful though if they are ambitious enough, well-resourced, and reflect the needs of the communities they’re designed for.

There was agreement around the table that communities should be more involved at the Local Plan stage, not just at the point of individual applications. Getting consensus early, to reduce problems later on would be hugely beneficial and reduce time.

We also discussed the idea of a zonal planning model, like ones used in parts of Europe. Instead of timely back-and-forth with regards individual sites, certain types of development could be pre-approved for designated zones. It’s not without challenge but the participants agreed it would be a good idea to explore

This was something that Simon Halliwell from Paddock Johnson would like explored: “We should be giving serious thought to implementing a zonal model of development, where areas are pre-assessed for risks like drainage capacity and height, to streamline the planning process.

The planning system is too democratic and that technical experts should be trusted more than public opinion.”

Paul Westhead from Place Capital Group interjected that this might help address Nimbyism: “Nimbyism continues to be an issue with local objections often focusing on negative impacts rather than the benefits of creating more and much-needed social housing.”

Metro Mayors: more power, better outcomes?

An interesting point raised was around the role of regional mayors. They have the power to call in decisions on schemes that support wider regeneration goals – but are we using those powers enough? In some cases, a more strategic regional view could influence funding and conditions.

Rob Mason from ION Developments added: “Projects funded by Homes England rightly can have conditions placed on projects relating to Net Zero Carbon to Modern Methods of Construction. We need to work together with such agencies to achieve these objectives within the viability challenges we face.”

In summary

The big takeaway from the conversation wasn’t just that we need more homes. It’s that we need a planning system that’s properly resourced, more collaborative, and brave enough to try new approaches. 

Oliver Chan, Westchurch Homes added: “When submitting an application, we are almost planning for the appeal on submission. We shouldn’t need to have that mentality but it’s needed with the current complex system.”

Some key actions that came out of the session:

• Look again at how we fund and support local planning teams and statutory consultees.
• Cut unnecessary red tape and encourage a more agile mindset across the system.
• Test a zonal planning approach and be open to new models that might work better.
• Engage with professional bodies to shape policy from within the sector.
• Understand how wider regulations like building regulations and biodiversity net gain can help or hinder delivery.
• Allow the use of grant funding for stalled section 106 sites to unlock sites delayed due to being unable to find a registered affordable housing provider

Jo Bryan from Tawd Valley Developments Limited expanded on this:

“Some of the changes made to the NPPF in respect of affordable housing are relatively minimal and an over-reliance on the private sector is still apparent. The financial viability of new affordable housing schemes remains a challenge. The private sector in isolation will not be able to deliver the 1.5m by mid-2029 housing target to tackle the housing crisis.

A bolder move by the Government is needed. In the short term, allowing use of grant funding for stalled section 106 sites would help unlock sites delayed due to being unable to find a registered affordable housing provider for the section 106 affordable housing units.”

The updated NPPF has some good ideas – but ideas alone won’t build homes. If we want to hit the Government’s housing target, we need to shift from policy tweaks to practical delivery. That means better funding, bolder thinking, and a planning system that’s genuinely fit for the future.

We’re ready to be part of that conversation and help shape what comes next.

Since hosting this event the Government has held its Spending Review and announced a series of major changes to unblock the delivery of new homes in England. This has included the announcement of

• A new National Housing Bank that will drive £16bn of new investment into the delivery of 500,000 homes.
• A new Affordable Homes Programme which will prioritise social housing.

In addition, there have been advancements in terms of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which rationalises certain planning processes such as the scheme of delegation and committee involvement. We welcome the proposed changes, however, if policies and attitudes to housing development don’t change the same problem will prevail, that being a heavily burdened appeal system taking the place of difficult decisions by Local Planning Authorities.

Whilst these plans will provide assistance in moving forward new homes in England, they do not address some of the key issues stalling planning. Funding is needed but if developments can’t move quickly through the planning process developments will stall or worse fall by the wayside.

Scott Grayson from The Casey Group concluded:

“We need more bravery in the planning system, as the government’s target of 1.5 million new homes in five years is challenging.”

This insight was composed in partnership with Paddock Johnson and Pegasus.

Contributors to this discussion included:

• Craig Dulson - Westshield Limited
• Darren Muir - Pegasus
• Jo Bryan - Tawd Valley Developments Limited
• Maria Killick - Paddock Johnson
• Oliver Chan - Westchurch Homes
• Paul Westhead – Place Capital Group
• Rob Mason - Ion Developments
• Scott Grayson - The Casey Group
• Simon Halliwell - Paddock Johnson
• Steve Jones - Drees & Sommer