The body is making the push through its house building division, the House Builders Association (HBA), to replace the current system which has two definitions.

Sites are currently defined as minor, with one to ten homes, or major which is more than ten.

The NFB has labelled this system “arbitrary” and is pushing for more nuance in how sites are defined with regards to planning applications.

To address this, the NFB and HBA are calling for the introduction of five categories:

? minor: One to nine homes
? medium: 10 to 49 homes
? large: 50 to 100 homes
? major: 101 to 249 homes
? strategic: 250+ homes

According to the NFB, this differentiation would reflect different needs in terms of infrastructure construction alongside larger plots.

•   The Finance Professional Show 2024: The Video
•   NFB unveils leadership diploma
•   Government introduces Planning and Infrastructure Bill to parliament

Sites of fifty to one hundred support almost all SMEs and do not greatly impact existing infrastructure, the NFB has argued.

The NFB has added that sites of 100 to 249 and 250+, whether urban or rural, create a threshold which ensures planners can strategically build out their communities or boundaries.

“Different site sizes also allow planning reform to avoid unintended consequences, such as making planning more expensive for SMEs, creating more burdens for non-allocated sites, or to target support, for example streamlining planning for sites creating the lowest levels of local impact,” said Rico Wojtulewicz, head of policy and market insight at the NFB.

“Although redefining site size is not a silver bullet to fix planning, it ensures that from the outset the system and reforms are set up to succeed, so we can achieve a planning system that supports better placemaking and recognises the value of all builders, whether micro, small or large.”