In what has been a week marred by tragedy in Southport and military escalation abroad, we’ve had little cause for optimism. But one story which could have lifted spirits ended up being quite the mixed bag.
On Tuesday, the Government released the revised edition of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – the document which could hold the key to Labour’s ambitions to get us building. Much of it is extremely welcome. When it comes to getting new energy infrastructure built, the new measures could be powerful. The ban on onshore wind in England has been lifted and solar farms are no longer being considered an existential threat to the countryside.
We’re also, apparently, going to start building some more prisons. This is particularly important. Due to a chronic shortage of clinks, the Government is going to release vast swathes of prisoners early to tackle overcrowding. This is clearly a short-term and potentially dangerous solution, but the NPPF contains measures which will make it tricky for councils to reject planning applications for new jails.
Now to the elephant in the room – housing. Some of Labour’s plans seem fine, even welcome. The national housing target is being raised from 300,000 to 370,000. This is obviously a positive step in addressing our housing shortage, but as Samuel Hughes pointed out in CapX this week, few believe this will be enough of a boost to stabilise prices.
It’s the local housing targets where things start to get complicated. Labour have opted to change the algorithm by which they are worked out. The ‘standard method’ formula based on households and projected household growth has been altered to focus more on affordability. But as CapX Editor-in-Chief Robert Colvile set out in a monumental thread on X, the combination of shifting the basis of the formula and removing the ‘urban uplift’ (introduced by the Tories to force housing on to brownfield in the big cities) has had a number of less than ideal consequences. In particular, housing targets in many of our cities have been drastically cut. In London, the decrease is 20%. All the while, targets in rural areas and the North have risen considerably. Given that housing affordability in urban areas like London is extremely limited, while supply in parts of the North is fairly high, this is a puzzling development.
As Robert highlighted, the new formula does raise allocations in London and the South-East compared to what is actually being built, but some of the councils with the highest increases are where the housing crisis is least acute. In relatively affordable areas such as Burnley, Hartlepool and County Durham, residents are going to get a mammoth uplift. Whereas the least affordable areas such as Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond and St Albans are getting relatively few – especially because the London Plan protects councils in the capital from having to build their fair share.
It should also be noted that many of the most affordable areas are surrounded by green belt land. Labour’s plans to take on those who zealously defend it are welcome, but could increase the scale of Nimbyism – and come with affordable housing quotas that few developers may be able to afford.
Perhaps these effects are merely the unintended consequences of rushed policymaking. But a line from the document suggests it might be intentional. According to the NPPF, there is a need to focus on ‘rebalancing the national distribution to better reflect the growth ambitions across the Midlands and North’.
Honourable sentiment though that may be, if it delivers homes in areas which don’t need them and neglects those which do, it is a nonsensical basis for housing policy.
Thankfully, the changes are still being consulted on, so there is time to fix these mistakes. As experts such as Tim Leunig have argued, Labour must amend the formula and ensure that housing really is delivered where it is most needed. For a government elected on a platform of boosting growth and getting Britain building, to choose not to would be a very bad look.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
