Yesterday the government announced an update to its National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – the headline set of guidance to planners and developers.
Billed as a means of accelerating the delivery of much-needed new housing, the update marks a first step in ministers’ promises to overhaul the planning system and get “on the side of builders not blockers”.
Headlines focus on a 12-week deadline for local authorities to progress local plans to adoption where they are still in development (less than a third have current, adopted plans currently) and that plans should reflect its updated housing delivery targets by July 2026.
Additionally, that rules on building on greenbelt land are being relaxed, with councils asked to review their greenbelt boundaries through a “common sense” approach utilising ‘grey belt’ land – unproductive land on the periphery of existing towns and cities.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said “Today’s landmark overhaul will sweep away last year’s damaging changes and shake-up a broken planning system which caves into the blockers and obstructs the builders.”
Government does maintain some emphasis on the need to ensure homes are “high-quality and well-designed”. But CIWEM policy director Alastair Chisholm said the reforms risk putting even greater pressure on already over-stretched local planning authorities and lead local flood authorities. “There is no evidence of any extra support coming forward for them to ensure that new developments coming forward at greater pace are resilient to increasing flood and water supply risks, exacerbated by a rapidly changing climate.”
One area of tension exists in relation to how more sustainable drainage (SuDS) might be ensured in new developments – which are increasingly being found to flood, hard to insure and secure mortgages for. The last government committed to implementing Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (which mandates SuDS in new development with a secure route to their long-term adoption and maintenance) after the current planning-led approach had demonstrably failed to achieve these outcomes. However, the new government is non-committal over whether it will take this commitment forward, perhaps because it views it more as ‘blocker’ than ‘builder’.
But this would be a mistake. There is a strong tone of social justice woven through the government’s ambitions on housing – increasing supply where it is needed alongside an increase in social and affordable housing. But housing should last for generations (particularly if well-designed and well-built) and be fit for purpose across these timescales. Coming generations will see the impacts of climate change unfold across our towns and cities and homes will need good drainage and enhanced water resilience across the board.
There is some slight strengthening of how SuDS are considered within the NPPF. Requirements for them to only be delivered in ‘major developments’ (commonly but not strictly considered to be development larger than around 10 homes in scale) have been removed, but lead local flood authority scrutiny, adherence to operational standards and provision for maintenance is only still required for major developments.
This tweak hints that perhaps government feels planning is still the way to deliver SuDS. That risks perpetuating the consideration of SuDS as a factor to be weighed up by planners alongside all others associated with a development and prolonging the ambiguity and adversarial nature of the current planning system. On the one hand a little more colour and detail on what SuDS might involve; on the other a strict demand to “all do our bit and do more” to deliver more housing units with no more capacity or clarity to enable their resilience.
Meanwhile, climate change and the flood risk to new homes advances at pace.
By Alastair Chisholm, Policy Director at the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM).
