This follows pressure from nearly 60 backbench MPs who sought to ban mandatory housing targets in England, ban the requirement for a five-year housing land supply, introduce a ‘character test’ for developers and a community right to appeal. The MPs have already delayed votes to the LURB and now further debate will be held on the amendments.

Other Conservative MPs had expressed concern about the backbench MPs’ amendments warning they would be “anti-growth” and lead to fewer homes being built, and the public accounts committee has said the government is unlikely to meet its housebuilding targets and not enough socially-rented homes are being built.

Michael Gove has now announced the proposed amendments in response to the MP demands, stating “If we are to deliver the new homes this country needs, new development must have the support of local communities. That requires people to know it will be beautiful, accompanied by the right infrastructure, approved democratically, that it will enhance the environment and create proper neighbourhoods. These principles have always been key to our reforms and we are now going further by strengthening our commitment to build the right homes in the right places and put local people at the heart of decision-making.”

Some key aspects of the government’s published amendments to the Bill include:

• A strengthening of Green Belt protection requiring the NPPF to set out that unmet housing need does not constitute Very Special Circumstances; that national development management policy must not include any provision that requires any housing to be built on the green belt; or encourages the building of housing on the green belt

• A requirement for developers to submit housing delivery progress reports, which will be to be imposed via condition to the grant of planning permission.  Exceptions will apply to certain areas including sites within an enterprise zone, or simplified planning zone

• A requirement that the NPPF must require unmet housing need to be calculated using the most recent ONS household projection (not “outdated” 2014 ONS household projection figures), when considering any planning application

• Reviewing permitted development rights against their effectiveness in achieving housing targets; the quality of housing delivered under PD rights and other considerations

• A Deliberative Democracy clause, which requires LPAs to involve the community in drawing up local plans and to set, amongst other considerations, the type of economic spaces; type of housing; infrastructure required; environmental considerations

• Enabling Street Votes which will enable communities to impose development orders on their streets

A clause put forward by Simon Clarke MP in relation to loosening restrictions on onshore wind provision has been retained in these amendments.

In addition, Gove has written to MPs to outline a series of wider planning reforms – to be consulted on and also brought forward in a revised NPPF, due for consultation by Christmas.  These pay much more credence to the MPs’ demands, and include:

• Retention of a method to calculate local housing need, but making this an advisory starting point that is not mandatory.  LPAs working with local communities will determine how many homes can actually be built

• LPAs will not be expected to build at densities that are out of character or lead to a significant change of character

• An end to the LPAs obligation to maintain a rolling five-year supply of land for housing where their plans are up-to-date.   Where there is an up to date Local Plan or LPAs are benefitting from transitional arrangements (where a local plan is being brought forward at an advanced stage), the presumption in favour and tilted balance will not typically apply

• Dropping the requirement for a 20% buffer to be added in cases of under delivery of housing

• Plans will not have to be ‘justified’ and it may be easier for plans to go through the system with less evidence

• LPAs will not be expected to review the Green Belt to deliver housing

• More input for local communities in plan making

• National fee increase including doubling of fees for retrospective applications where breaches have occurred

• Allowing LPAs to refuse planning applications for developers who have built out slowly in the past

• Removing punishments for LPAs who suffer from developers not building out by changing the housing delivery test

• Consultation on how a developers ‘character’ might be a determining factor in the decision making process

• Continue to seek further development in towns and cities through PD rights (seems the provision to review these in the Bill might have ramifications for this)

• Promote brownfield development through ending the duty to co-operate which has made it easier for urban authorities to impose housing on suburban and rural communities; making it harder for developers to build on important agricultural land for food production

• Review of the Use Classes Order to enable places (e.g. Cornwall) to better control changes to the use of short term lets (a clause also echoed in amendments proposed to the LURB)

Whilst a string of the backbench MPs’  clauses have not made it to the latest Bill, their demands are largely included in the list of considered changes to the NPPF and other consultations to be undertaken.

David Jackson, Savills head of planning, says, “Planning for economic needs is critical, particularly in this challenging period, and the announcements focus mainly on residential development.  Recognition of the relationship between housing, employment and energy and other infrastructure must be central to the planning reforms as they progress.  There also needs to be more focus on the carbon challenge and in this context the moves to facilitate onshore wind are welcome, but there is still more that can be done.

A number of the announced measures are of course already embedded in the planning system – good design, local engagement, housing need, brownfield first, respecting local character.

The changes to how Councils plan for housing need – reported as having ‘abandoned, or weakened housing targets’ – seek to provide greater scope to take local circumstances into account in setting Local Plan housing requirements and determining applications.  The underlying position is that there remains an urgent need for more homes, which must be addressed across the country. The  question is therefore how much leeway will the Government give to Councils to adopt Plans that provide for less housing than is needed given the resulting economic and social consequences.”