19 Dec 2024
Have sweeping changes to planning policies vindicated St Albans district council’s decision to steam ahead with its Local Plan?
The Plan, which allows for the building of 15,000 new homes in the district up to 2041, was submitted for Government approval just two weeks before far-reaching revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
At the moment only strategic changes have been announced, with the practical consequences for local councils to come later, but there are key takeaways which cannot be ignored as the Government strives to build 370,000 new homes each year.
These include the establishment of ‘grey belt’ sites which include quarries, car parks, golf courses, glasshouses, solar parks and leisure facilities such as caravan parks and campsites.
Earlier this year SADC was told it would have to find space for a further 10,500 homes to meet the Government’s revised targets, but the Lib Dem administration hoped pushing ahead with the Local Plan could work to their advantage.
As the Plan has already been submitted for examination, the Government has said it should be examined under the relevant previous version of the NPPF.
But because the annual housing requirement in the Plan will be less than 80 per cent of the established local housing need, SADC will have to begin work on its subsequent Plan as soon as the current one is approved.
So has SADC’s gamble worked? Council leader Cllr Paul de Kort believes they made the right decision, even though it is still early days for local authorities in understanding the implications.
“We have been increasingly vindicated in our push to get our draft Local Plan in for examination. SADC’s housing targets have been further increased to 88 per cent above the numbers produced by the previous ‘standard methodology’ which we met in our submission.
“Whilst our Local Plan is being examined it is impossible to progress assessment of the further sites that would be needed, should the Government still be looking to pursue this target at the time we are able to resource the necessary work.”
He denied that the Local Plan would be obsolete even before it is approved.
“It seems the Government has listened to feedback from councils like ours that wanted to be able to proceed with Plans that were in the very final stages of preparation. They seem to be rewarding those councils that have made making a genuine effort to meet the targets laid down previously, even if under protest at the lack of local consideration.
“There is still great uncertainty around how the NPPF will deliver on the stated imperative to achieve growth both in the volume of appropriate housing and in high quality employment opportunities.
“There are several specific references to the provision of social housing but not a clear, cast-iron commitment that the NPPF can be relied upon to secure our aspirations here. The same is the case for the provision of sufficient, timely additional infrastructure.”
The reaction from local politicians from other parties has been mixed.
Cllr Simon Grover, leader of SADC’s Greens and Independent group, said the revised NPPF represents a step backwards for local democracy and sustainable development.
“By allowing planning officers to approve developments without councillors’ input, it sidelines local communities and prioritises profit-driven developers over genuine need. In St Albans, this approach risks creating more high-cost, car-dependent homes that fail to address our affordability crisis.
“The so-called ‘grey belt’ offers no real solution to land shortages in St Albans. Sites such as quarries, car parks and golf courses are limited and often unsuitable for housing. This definition doesn’t magically create viable land – it simply opens the door to inappropriate and environmentally damaging developments. In a district already under pressure, this could lead to conflict between competing priorities like green space preservation, food security, and nature recovery.
“Rather than working to the council’s advantage, these changes will make things harder. By bypassing local decision-making, they risk imposing poorly planned developments that fail to meet community needs.
“There are already thousands of unbuilt homes nationwide with planning permission, yet the Government ignores this bottleneck, blaming councils instead. The new targets will impose inappropriate developments on our green spaces while neglecting vital infrastructure like GP surgeries, schools, and public transport.
“St Albans needs the right homes in the right places – high-quality, affordable social housing that meets local needs and adheres to strict environmental standards. Developers must be held accountable for delivering these homes while contributing to essential services, not just profits.
“The Government’s framing of this as a battle between ‘builders and blockers’ is an insult to residents who understand the need for balance – protecting nature and ensuring food security alongside meeting housing demand. Green councillors in St Albans will continue to fight for truly affordable, sustainable housing while opposing damaging developments that threaten our environment and community wellbeing.
“Local democracy must not be bulldozed.”
But Mike Hobday, Labour councillor for London Colney and deputy leader of the Labour group on St Albans district council welcomed the changes: “At last we have a Government telling councils to build on previously developed land instead of prime agricultural Green Belt. St Albans district council has chosen to prioritise building on the Green Belt, for example at London Colney, south of Napsbury Park. All parties said at the General Election that the country needs more homes, but it is Labour councillors who stand up to protect valuable local Green Belt land.
“If there is common ground that we need new and higher targets for homebuilding, then the political debate is about where the homes should be built. Both nationally and locally, the Labour Party is advocating strongly for its golden rules of: brownfield first; grey belt second; affordable homes; boost public services and infrastructure; improve genuine green spaces.
“Labour councillors opposed the St Albans Local Plan because it bypassed brownfield and grey belt options in order to build on prime agricultural land. We will be fighting the Local Plan at the public inquiry in late 2025 and will hope to win amendments in line with the new golden rules.”
These rules requires developers to be able to demonstrate the necessary infrastructure for local communities, i.e. GP surgeries, local transport, nurseries, as well as social and affordable housing, when proposing building on Green Belt land.
Meanwhile, SADC Conservative deputy leader Cllr Matt Cowley offered a damning response, placing blame firmly at the feet of the Liberal Democrat administration for failing to take advantage of advisory housing targets imposed by the previous Tory Government.
“One day, I would like to be able to write something for the St Albans Times which detailed a scenario where the Lib Dem administration looked beyond its enormous majority on the district council and listened to residents and/or opposition councillors to make a considered decision for our district. Alas, today is not that day.
“Local Plans are incredibly important. They are our opportunity to shape the future of our district. Where people will live and work, where they will go to school, where the roads and GP surgeries and all the other vital infrastructure we all use every day will go.
“St Albans has one of the oldest Local Plans in the country. In fact, the St Albans Local Plan is older than me and older than one in every three residents in our district. That is a stain on our district and it leaves the future of our Green Belt and the places we call home in the hands of speculative developers.
“Fixing this should be the first priority of any administration at the district council. But time and again, where local residents have needed fast and decisive leadership, they’ve received only dither and delay from this current Lib Dem administration.
“Those delays mean that the administration failed to get a Local Plan done and dusted under the previous Conservative Government’s regime – where housing targets were reduced to advisory status – despite it being apparent for some time that a General Election was coming prior to the planned submission of the Local Plan.
“Have the administration shown any contrition at its failure to take advantage of advisory targets? Of course not. Instead, the Lib Dem council leader has been touring a greatest hits of excuses.
“Perhaps, then, they didn’t think a General Election would bring higher housing targets? Well, if they didn’t they are incredibly naïve. Not least, because they spent the run-up to the General Election campaigning for higher housing targets of the kind we are seeing now.
“Campaigning for a policy nationally whilst making no attempt to anticipate what it might mean for their residents. Is that really the kind of grown-up, forward-thinking politics our district delivers?
“However they try to spin it, it has been obvious for some time that we needed to move much faster to deliver a Local Plan before the General Election.
“But since the election, they have managed to find yet more ways to let our residents down. Despite having spent years telling residents they would campaign for lower housing targets – a target of 7,000 was floated when they narrowly beat me in 2023’s elections – they have now admitted that ‘no specific alternative housing target has been proposed by SADC’ in their representations to the Government.
“They are happy to make the case to you that they think we need fewer houses; but they won’t make that case to the Government.
“Despite it becoming very obvious that the new Government – which wants them to build nearly 25,000 houses – was never going to be satisfied for very long with a Local Plan that delivered nearly half that number, the Lib Dems finally discovered that they could show some urgency in rushing through a Local Plan. But now we see the true cost.
“Because despite dismissing my warnings and the warnings of my Conservative colleagues that we could get a new Local Plan in place and then find ourselves back at square one, having wasted a year on a Local Plan that does very little to protect our residents, that is now where we find ourselves.
“The new Government have made it very clear that whether our Local Plan passes or not, we have to begin a new Plan as soon as the new regime comes into effect next year. And because our Local Plan is so far from Labour’s required housing numbers, from mid-2026 we will have to meet a much tougher housing delivery target – one I think is out of reach based on the Local Plan we are submitting – to have any real protections for our Green Belt.
“That means, in short, that the Lib Dems will spend thousands of pounds of your taxpayer money defending a Local Plan that won’t be worth the paper it is written on. And then immediately have to spend thousands more going all the way back to the start and doing it again.
“What a mess.
“But it didn’t have to be this way. They could have gone quicker. Invested more in the short term back in 2022 and 2023 to get the Local Plan done earlier.
“After the election, they could have taken a step back and considered whether rushing the Local Plan into force under threat of higher targets would achieve anything meaningful for our residents. Indeed, if they had taken a step back and sought to meet the new, much higher targets in the current Plan, they could have accessed new Government support to get a strong Plan adopted at a lower cost to you.
“Instead, they’ve managed the worst of both worlds. Slow planning when it should have been fast, fast planning when it should have been slow and considered.
And who will pay the price for this failure of planning? You. Through your tax money. Through unchecked development on our Green Belt. Through yet more development that comes without the infrastructure our area so desperately needs.
“If you think that they should pay instead, remember that when they next come to your door with big promises and ask for your vote.”
Campaign groups fighting against housing developments on Green Belt land across the district said SADC had failed to protect this valuable space.
Paul King, on behalf of campaign group Greenbelt, which has been battling against proposals for homes in Park Street, said: “Cllr De Kort made it his mission to force through the Local Plan to examination prior to the publication of the new NPPF, in the belief that this would avoid the council having to adopt the increased housing targets dictated by central Government.
“In doing so, the council and planning officers ignored feedback from the two consultations, which led to a poor Plan being submitted for examination. The publication of the new NPPF last week has shown that this was pointless.
“Paragraph 236 states that those councils such as St Albans that have, or will be submitting, a Local Plan that falls significantly short of the Government’s new housing targets will need to start formulating a new one that does conform to them. Thus, probably by March, the council will be forced to start the whole process again.
“The new NPPF does not just render the council’s actions pointless, it more fundamentally signals the death knell of the Green Belt as we have known it for the past 80 years.
“The basis of this is rooted in three new requirements. Firstly, housing targets for councils in the south-east of the country are being unreasonably increased based on a formula that assumes that if more houses are built prices will fall, or at least not rise. This is simply not the reality in the housing market in high demand area.
“This formula also ignores the fact that many commuters earn higher salaries in London. These targets are significantly higher than previous ones and cannot be met without a major re-think on housing policy.
“Secondly, paragraph 155 of the new NPPF states that building on ‘grey belt’ land will not be considered ‘inappropriate’ where there is a housing supply shortfall (based on the new targets). This will certainly include SADC, as well as most other council districts in commuter areas.
“Thirdly, ‘grey belt’ has now been defined as any Green Belt that does not strongly contribute to the avoidance of towns coalescing. So this will pull in most Green Belt land apart from the large parcels separating communities.
“Purpose ‘c’ of the Green Belt, ‘safeguarding the countryside from encroachment’ will be disregarded when assessing whether land is ‘grey belt. What will now take place is the wholesale elimination of large chunks of the Green Belt, supported by the new NPPF.
“Most Green Belt parcels in isolation cannot be said to ‘strongly’ contribute to avoiding coalescence, since coalescence will be avoided as long as some Green Belt land remains.
“This will give rise to an increase in speculative planning applications, whether the current plan makes it through examination or not.
“In years to come, this new NPPF will likely be seen as the singular cause of the destruction of the Green Belt, on a par with the Beeching Report which caused the demise of the rail network in the country, maybe it will be termed ‘Rayner’s reign of terror on the countryside’. This is a sad time for those that would like our green space preserved.”
Gee Smedley from Team CLASH, opposing massive developments in north St Albans, said: “We see this as very much as a ‘developers’ charter’, with the so called ‘golden rules’ effectively laying out a road map for extensive Green Belt release and very little enforcement of brownfield delivery.
“The new method to calculate housing need is even worse than the last one, which was at least advisory. It is not actually based on need at all. There is now an uplift factor linked to current property prices, which bears no need-based calculation and again tilts more intensive development to the most expensive areas regardless of constraints like protected countryside.
“We cannot understand this attack on protected countryside, because that is what Green Belt is; not all countryside is protected, Green Belt has been protected for nearly 100 years and should continue to be protected in the face of unprecedented climate change.
“The main issues in north St Albans are flooding and lack of viable options for infrastructure delivery improvements to aid sustainability which remains at the core of the NPPF.
“This council should be working on rationalising and optimising its own extensive property portfolio to deliver the social housing needed in the district, we have seen limited progress on this in the last three years.
“The NPPF also offers an opt out to delivering the affordable/social housing desperately needed so there has been no improvement in the current situation. All in all, a very different situation to this time last year when the outgoing Conservative Government further protected Green Belt by directing development to key strategic growth areas.
“Local planning authorities such as St Albans are now supposed to deliver development on a strategic basis, ie in partnership with neighbouring authorities, and we are unsure what that means in the current political environment.”
