The government is set to reveal its finalised National Planning Policy Framework later today

Housing secretary Angela Rayner set out Labour’s proposed reforms to the rules in July shortly after her party was elected in a landslide.

Source: MHCLG / Flickr

Housing secretary Angela Rayner on a recent television appearance

They included the reintroduction of mandatory targets for local authorities, underpinned by a new standard method for calculating targets, which would result in an annual national target of 370,000 homes. 

The goernment has proposed removing references to beauty from the NPPF and reviewing so-called “grey belt” land.

Labour’s grey belt policy consisted of releasing selected “low quality” sites within the green belt for developing. 

But the government’s grey belt reference came in for criticism from witnesses at the House of Lords built environment committee’s inquiry into the matter.

It was suggested that the definition of grey belt lacked clarity and would lead to ‘confusion’ among planners and a surge in legal challenges.

>> See also: The ins and outs of Labour’s new National Planning Policy Framework

>> Read more: A boost for housebuilding or an ill-defined gimmick?: Labour’s ‘grey belt’ plans explained

>> Read more: Grey belt, green belt and the curious case of Labour’s benchmark land value 

According to reports in The Times newspaper, the finalised version of the NPPF is likely to include a wider definition of what constitutes “low quality” green belt, which it said could result in about 100,000 homes a year being built on previously protected land.

The draft NPPF was widely supported across the industry, though there were nevertheless calls for greater support for small and medium sized businesses, as well as clearer and more precise language to ensure the NPPF is easily interpreted in planning decisions. 

But a number of local authorities have come out against Labour’s attempt to increase targets for their areas, suggesting they are being “set up to fail”.

Arun District Council in West Sussex said the NPPF changes would be “catastrophic” for its largely rural, local area if implemented.