.……Is a pro-housing vs anti-housing wedge emerging?…..
Most commentators are presenting a simple divide – Labour as pro-housing and Conservatives as anti-housing. Whilst things are never that simple, little happened during conference season to dispel the notion.
For the Conservatives, the December 2022 Draft changes to NPPF indicated that local plans need not meet housing need and Green Belt boundaries need not to be altered to meet such need. These are policies directly aimed at reducing housebuilding where the housing crisis is most acute – within and around our major cities. At the party conference housing wasn’t mentioned in podium speeches and the importance of protecting Green Belt was reiterated at the fringes.
In contrast, Labour have spoken about the need to retain housing targets, prepare more local plans, grant more permissions, and build more homes. Keir Starmer recently stated that, “it cannot be a simple discussion of will you, or will you not build on Green Belt’, followed by Lisa Nandy confirming that, “Labour will be honest about what is and what is not Green Belt”.
At the Labour conference housing was centre-stage in speeches. Afterwards Kier Starmer talked about development in ‘Grey Belt’ and agreed with Beth Rigby of Sky News that housing delivery under Labour will mean taking unpopular decisions that some local communities will oppose.
……..What does this actually mean in practice……..?
Of course, opposition politicians have always promoted more housebuilding and incumbents have always accused the opposition of wanting to concrete over the countryside. And despite Labour rhetoric they actually opposed the Government’s sensible attempt to overcome the housing moratoria caused by nutrient neutrality.
But, on the key barrier to achieving 300,000 homes in sustainable locations, it does feel like a wedge – with Labour specifically referencing Green Belt pragmatism and Conservatives doubling down on Green Belt protection.
Maybe we will see a sensible debate on the key Green Belt question next Autumn? Namely should Green Belt continue to prevent English housing needs being met, or should it not?
……..If there is an wedge relating to Green Belt, what does current NPPF policy say……
Even the most cursory glance at existing NPPF policy on Green Belt points to the need for adjustment and clarification. Incoherent doesn’t do it justice:
- Para 137 tells us that Green Belts must be kept permanently open……
- But para 140 says boundaries can be altered in exceptional circumstances……
- But para 140 also reiterates that Green Belt must be permanent…….
- But para 141 then defines the exceptional circumstances which justify a review as being when housing need exists but can’t be met via (a) brownfield, (b) higher density or (c) dumping the new homes on your neighbours……
- And para 142 then even hints at urban edge development possibly being the most sustainable and appropriate option when compared to building in locations such as beyond the outer Green Belt boundary…….
- But then para 143 says boundaries shouldn’t be altered at the end of the plan period because Green Belts are permanent……
- And para 143 also says that Safeguarded Land should be defined to enable permanence – albeit very few LPAs do that.
In summary, NPPF confirms that permanent doesn’t mean permanent, unless you want it to, and exceptional isn’t exceptional, unless you want it to be. And building on the edge of a city may be a sustainable development option…….. or it may not be.
.…..So, what might happen now?…..
Draft NPPF (December 22) presumes against housing releases both on the edges of cities and within their lower-rise suburbs. If it gets adopted and unchanged it will rule out land releases sufficient to meet need in Green Belt cities until the general election at least. In that scenario, even the most pro-growth LPAs will regard Green Belt releases as just too hard politically.
Which means the best chance for younger generations who wish to live, work and raise families in and around successful cities is to hope that:
- The Dec 22 changes to NPPF are reversed or nudged into the ‘not-now’ file.
- Irrespective of whoever wins the next election, the silly references to permanence in NPPF will be removed. Anti-growth policies like Green Belt being specified as ‘permanent’ is crackers – it needs to be made clear that whilst a Green Belt may be regarded as permanent, it’s boundaries cannot.
- Sustainable urban-edge schemes, linked to transit and predominantly brownfield, can be found and released via a revised NPPF with clear release criteria.
- A policy framework to enable c.2-3% of the most sustainably located Green Belt can come forward for new homes, perhaps with a corollary being that the overall size of the Green Belt cannot be reduced.
……….Three final thoughts………..
Firstly, building on Green Belt is locally unpopular and the recent polling by Ipsos Mori for The Economist makes this clear. Hopefully, whoever is elected will understand that their mandate is to operate in the best interests on society, which may be a wider group than just those who own homes, comment on planning applications or sit on planning committees. For sure, Green Belt is popular but elected leaders must learn to recognise that (a) this popularity is based on a misunderstanding of what the role and purpose of Green Belt actually is and, (b) that compared to Health, Education, Immigration, Green Belt is unlikely to push swing voters from one camp to another.
Secondly, and recognising the political toxicity, perhaps we should see a Royal Commission on Green Belt, in the early months of a new Parliament. Its conclusions would inevitably be a recognition that, (a) there is widespread misunderstanding about the nature and purpose of Green Belt, (b) English housing need cannot sensibly be met without some limited development on the edges of cities, and (c) a new policy approach to a Green Belt which better balances the housing crisis and the prosperity of cities and regions is a fundamental policy requirement.
In other words, perhaps in future we can address the future of our great cities in a similar way to our peers in Europe. A peek at the Plan Paris Local d’ Urbanisme is perhaps a good start. Or recognising that between 2000 and 2010 Munich had only 30% of the Manchester’s population growth but grew its urban footprint by 7 times as much – always along high-quality rail corridors.
Far better than choking off our strongest economic and social engines.
Philip Barnes - Blog 