Housing targets in South Gloucestershire hiked
The government has announced what it calls “radical” changes to how many new homes it thinks each local authority should be required to find land for
New planning rules that will force a massive 30 per cent rise in housebuilding in South Gloucestershire are a “potential disaster” and an “attack on green spaces”, critics warn.
The new Labour Government has announced what it calls “radical” changes to how many new homes it thinks each local authority should be required to find land for.
In South Gloucestershire it means an increase from 1,317 at present to 1,717 every year over the next 15 years – a total of 6,000 extra homes than currently planned – while for Bath & North East Somerset the figure will go up by more than half, from 717 to 1,466.
North Somerset has been told it must allocate land for an additional 17 per cent of housing, from 1,324 to 1,587, while Bristol’s target, like many urban areas under the proposals, will actually fall by 10 per cent, from 3,378 to 3,057 a year.
It follows an announcement in the House of Commons by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner on July 30 over changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which underpins the planning system, subject to eight weeks of consultation.
The reforms change the method used to calculate how many homes should be built in each area across the country, with more houses added to existing targets depending on how much higher property prices are than earnings.
Some existing protected greenbelt land deemed to be low quality, such as disused petrol stations and car parks, will also be redesignated “grey belt” where development would be made much easier to approve.
South Gloucestershire opposition Conservative councillors have criticised the plans as an “attack” on the district’s countryside and promised to fight them.
They say the changes come on top of plans already being pursued by the council’s Lib Dem/Labour administration that would see the “wholesale destruction of large swathes of greenbelt land”, particularly in the East Fringe.
Group leader Cllr Sam Bromiley said: “The Conservative group is completely and unequivocally opposed to these new planning rules.
“We stand shoulder to shoulder with residents who do not want to see their greenbelt destroyed by a Labour government that is unwilling to listen to their understandable concerns.
“These new rules are yet another attack on South Gloucestershire’s precious green spaces and we will continue to fight them every step of the way.
“Reclassifying greenbelt land as ‘grey belt’ in order to force developments through while ordering South Gloucestershire to take ever increasing amounts of housing, all while completely dismissing the views of local people, is, quite simply, an appalling way for a government to behave.
“South Gloucestershire’s greenbelt is under attack from the Labour/Lib Dem coalition in charge of the council and now from the national Labour government.
“Only the Conservatives will stand up to protect it.”
Ex-council leader and now Thornbury & Yate Lib Dem MP Claire Young branded the proposals a “fairytale”.
“As a former council leader, I know how important it is that we see houses built – especially smaller, more affordable homes that young people and new families can afford to buy or rent.
“But seeking to simply jack up the top-down targets without addressing concerns about supporting infrastructure or protecting our green spaces is not the way to make this happen.
“Here in South Gloucestershire, we’re already struggling to meet current targets – never mind having to also locate space for 6,000 extra properties. It’s frankly a fairytale.
“That’s why I’m urging the Government to rethink these proposals and instead ensure developers build the infrastructure and quality social homes we need.”
The reforms have also been blasted by planning campaign group TRAPP’D (Thornbury Residents Against Poorly Planned Development) as a “potential disaster for South Glos”.
In its latest newsletter it said the reforms were a “big boost for speculative applications” and could force South Gloucestershire to take other area’s shortfalls, including the massive increase being imposed on B&NES.
It said: “The fundamentals remain unchanged that from a planning point of view a significant expansion of Thornbury is extremely difficult to justify, with far better options around the Bristol fringe.
“We therefore remain positive that with a strong input from TRAPP’D, and vocal support from local residents, we will achieve the extended break that Thornbury so desperately needs from large-scale greenfield development.”
The group said the plans would “unfairly harm communities and do irreparable harm to our environment, without even achieving its aim of creating sufficient growth to making housing more affordable”.
It said the proposals were doomed to fail because forcing councils to plan for more houses was not the same as actually building them.
TRAPP’D said the fatal flaw was that private housebuilders, not local authorities, built homes, and that the thinking behind the changes was that the more homes there were, the more their prices would drop.
But the organisation said: “Housebuilders will never build out sites at a rate that causes house prices to fall.
“Big builders cannot afford a big price reduction, and they will never act to deliberately bring it about.
“Developers, on the other hand, will be delighted to acquire more land with planning permission – especially the biggest, juiciest, greenfield sites.
“What this formula will do, therefore, is to increase the phenomenon of land-banking and allow builders and developers to pick and choose sites they wish to develop (ie, larger greenfield in preference to smaller brownfield), because they will feel they have the whip hand over local authorities.
“In the end, wannabe ‘get-rich-quick’ landowners and developers/builders will be the ones to gain from these reforms.
“In the meantime, residents will be punished with an ever-increasing loss of their green space, more development without infrastructure, and no improvement in affordability of new homes.”
Last month, residents held a demonstration at a meeting of South Gloucestershire Council cabinet against plans for thousands of homes on the greenbelt near Bristol as members approved the next stage of a 15-year blueprint for the district’s future, including where more than 22,000 new homes should be built.
The protest by campaign group Save Our Green Spaces was against the latest iteration of the Local Plan, which is currently out to public consultation.
The masterplan allocates land for 22,241 homes from 2025 to 2040 – almost 1,500 a year, which is more than previously but still short of the new target set by government subsequently of 1,717, which means some of the plan may have to go back to the drawing board to find even more sites for housing.
The difference with earlier versions of the Local Plan was that it added 17 new sites, nine in the greenbelt, with a total of 1,751 additional homes, but this still did not give enough of a “buffer” to help Bristol meet any of its unmet housing need if some of the developments did not go ahead.
Council leaders told the meeting they were not destroying the greenbelt and that there was no choice but to allocate a small proportion of previously protected land for homes to tackle the housing crisis.
Asked to comment on Angela Rayner’s announcement, a South Gloucestershire Council spokesperson said: “The Government is asking for views on proposed changes to the NPPF, which it hopes will support its ambition to increase the number of affordable homes and deliver economic growth.
“The council is currently evaluating these proposals as they have implications across our Local Plan.
“There are some immediate good points, for example whereas the previous government was seeking to prevent councils setting ambitious climate targets in their Local Plans, these proposals will enable us to continue with our ambition.
“And they will assist us in ensuring as many of the new homes as possible are social housing.
“We are already nationally leading in the delivery of Social Rent affordable homes (regularly delivering more than 300 per year and well over 400 in 2023/24) and have ambitious targets for social housing in our current draft plan.
“The NPPF proposed changes will enable us to strengthen the social housing element of our plan still further.
“Other elements, particularly in relation to housing numbers, are more complex to interpret and have some unexpected implications that require working through before the council can comment on the impact.
“All local authorities are now in the position of reviewing the implications and making appropriate plans.
“We intend to continue to progress our Local Plan to secure plan-led delivery and to address the issues of local growth pressures.
“We are fortunately in the middle of a further Reg 18 Local Plan consultation on housing numbers and sites, and will be evaluating the impacts of the draft NPPF as part of that process.
“We then intend to bring forward a final version of the plan for a decision before submitting the plan for examination in 2025.”