Michael Gove ‘capitulating’ to nimbys with moves to block new homes, say developers
‘Capitulation to a nimby faction of the Conservative party’, say housebuilders on changes to planning system
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Cabinet minister Michael Gove was accused of “capitulating” to nimby Tory MPs and campaigners after a fresh move to let councils reject housebuilding targets.
Local authorities will no longer have to earmark greenfield land for housing, under new changes to the planning system said to have been made by Mr Gove’s levelling up department.
Mr Gove will allow councils to slash the number of planned homes if development would significantly change the character of an area, according to The Times.
And local authorities are reportedly set to be allowed an exemption from sanctioning homes on prime agricultural land, as the government looks to keep Tory MPs in countryside constituencies happy.
In unusually fierce criticism, the Home Builders Federation’s spokesman said: “No matter how ministers try to package this, it is a capitulation to a nimby faction of the Conservative party.”
The developers’ lobbying group added: “Removing the requirement for local housing needs assessments and allowing councils to build as few homes as they wish will see housebuilding in some areas collapse.
“The overriding outcome of these measures will be fewer new homes, worsening housing affordability and a huge loss of investment in jobs.”
Labour also condemned the “reckless decision” that would hold back the economy. Shadow planning minister Matthew Pennycook said it would “further deepen the housing crisis and hammer economic growth”.
The Labour frontbencher added: “This government’s weakness has seen the collapse in local plan development, with planning consents and housebuilding set to fall off a cliff.”
The changes are part of a long-delayed national planning policy framework, after Mr Gove made clear last year that Tory annual house-building targets – a manifesto promise of 300,000 a year – would be dropped.
Under the current planning system, councils must earmark land that meets housing requirements for five years. Local authorities can have building forced upon them under a “presumption” in favour of development, if they fail to come up with realistic plans.
Government figures said the changes to be set out would let local communities “take back control of housing” from centralised planning, and shift the focus to building on already built-up areas of brownfield land.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said he would “bulldoze” local opposition to housing and would stand up to his own MPs if they side with so-called nimbys – those who say “not in my back yard”.
Senior Tory MP Theresa Villiers, who has been pushing for watered down targets to protect the green belt, said: “The government has a longstanding commitment to ensure the voice of local communities continues to be heard in relation to what is built in their neighbourhood.”
A government source told The Times: “We are reforming the planning system to put local plan-making at its heart. This will allow communities to take back control of housing in their area, while supporting much-needed development in brownfield and inner-city sites.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments