A s the dust begins to settle on the new Government's planning reform announcements arguably the most striking element is the tone that has been adopted. The last government ebulliently espoused ‘a coherent, holistic, long-term reform programme' but regular set piece announcements and consultations presented sceptics with plenty of opportunities to question whether there was anything coherent, holistic and long-term about it.

The ‘Super Squad', for example, alongside the ‘Accelerated Planning System' and the aspiration that Barrow-in-Furness become ‘a new powerhouse for the North' are unlikely to be spoken of ever again.

That coherent, holistic, long-term reform programme, so it was claimed, sought to ‘ensure the planning system at last delivers as it should', but the root of the December 2023 changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was, ultimately, the appeasement of rebellious backbench MPs and a retreat from tackling the underlying policy obstacles that stand in the way of more homes being planned for.

In contrast to the heavily choreographed media opportunities favoured by the last secretary of state, the agenda of the new one was delivered in a matter-of-fact manner by way of a statement, in Parliament that subsequently appeared online, with a simple and straightforward title: ‘Building the homes we need'.

The new Government would appear to have not only the mandate and the majority to ensure the planning system delivers as it should, but an actual coherent plan for doing so as well. That plan involves going beyond simply reversing the December 2023 NPPF changes and tackling too the underlying policy obstacles preventing the planning of more homes.

In 2023, the number of local plans published in draft, submitted for examination, and adopted were all the lowest for a decade. That collapse in local plan-making can be attributed to housing targets (both in terms of obfuscation about their status and the credibility of their configuration); green belt as a political dividing line and removing the cross-boundary arrangements necessary for unmet housing emanating from larger towns and cities to be distributed across a wider housing market area.

As of last December, the status of the standard method as the basis for plan-making (itself already widely discredited because of a reliance on out-of-date data and an arbitrary uplift for London and the 19 other largest town and cities) was diminished, green belt boundaries need not be amended to meet housing need and the limited safeguards to make sure that unmet need arising in one place would be met elsewhere were removed.

If the new Government adopts the NPPF that has been published for consultation then the current standard method that is based upon downward projecting household formation data (as well as the cities uplift) will be replaced by a new, more robust, stock-based starting point. It is to be made clear that green belt boundaries should be amended to meet need, and unmet needs will not be allowed to disappear into the ether, with the ‘Duty to Cooperate' revived in the short term pending a return to pan-England strategic planning in the medium to long term.

It remains the case, of course, that in parallel to local plans taking longer to adopt, it is taking longer for Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to determine planning applications as well. There will need to be a similar focus on the underlying reasons for this, but, for the most part, they relate less to political will and more to processes and procedures.

In policy and plan-making terms, the issues are less about processes and procedures and more about political will. Targets, green belt, and ‘greater-than-local' planning are the nettles that have not until now been grasped, so recent proposals are very much welcomed.

Equally notable though, beyond the absence of fanfare and the desire to take on thorny topics, were the letters issued by the Government to LPAs, Metro Mayors and industry stakeholders setting out the Government's expectations of those respective parties. A letter was also issued to the Planning Inspectorate about the rigour with which local plans are to be examined.

These letters and the grasp of key issues conveyed a joint sense of purpose and an unequivocal message that there would only be one direction of travel.

No fuss. No fanfare. ‘How' not ‘if' new homes will be built. A new broom indeed.

Sam Stafford is planning director for the Home Builders Federation

X - @HomeBuildersFed