The revised National Planning Policy Framework has been given a largely positive reception.
New plans include giving planned homes a ‘default yes’ around rail stations.
Properties built upwards in towns and cities will also generally be given the green light, while there will be a fast-tracking of development schemes.
Lawrence Turner is director of Boyer, said: “The emphasis on building homes around railway stations is long overdue, and we support the proposed ‘default yes’ approach.
“However, minimum density expectations must allow sufficient flexibility to respond to local context, including heritage and townscape considerations, flood risk, site capacity and the availability of deliverable infrastructure.
“Similarly, higher-density suburban development must continue to meet established NPPF tests relating to residential amenity, parking and design code expectations.”
The government plans to establish a ‘medium size development’ category for sites between 10 to 49 homes, giving small developers a possible exemption from the Building Safety Levy, a charge introduced by the government to help fund the remediation of residential buildings.
Ben Standing, partner in planning at UK and Ireland law firm Browne Jacobson, said: “These [medium size developments] are often regarded as the most difficult sites to bring forward for development due to land costs and local opposition.
“While the government wants to introduce a permanent presumption in favour of suitable development, it must be mindful of how councils and developers engage communities early on so that valid concerns are mitigated ahead of construction work. This can ensure local people feel they are benefitting, not suffering, from national development targets.
“More broadly, there is a danger that constant planning policy flip-flopping actually holds back development rather than accelerates it. In our experience, regular significant changes to the system creates uncertainty for developers on how to cost these in, while local authority planners require sufficient guidance so they can make good decisions.
“Planning policy will only ever be one piece of the jigsaw in the government’s quest to build more homes. It must address the viability problem by tackling the wider economic and skills challenges that make construction so expensive.”
It also said there will be a ‘streamlining’ of energy efficiency standards and Biodiversity Net Gain, which may be a euphemism for watering down green energy rules.
Fergus Charlton, planning partner at national law firm Michelmores, is worried this could further erode environmental protections.
He said: “The government again has the green belt in its sights as being ripe for development.
“A year ago they introduced grey belt as a category of poor performing green belt on which housing can be built.
“Now proximity to a train station will further erode the policy protection given to green belt land, and this time the land’s contribution to the green belt purposes will not be taken into account.
“Piecemeal unplanned developments will increase urban sprawl and will encroach into the countryside, and will not necessarily deliver affordable homes.”