The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has launched the consultation which will close on 10th March 2026.

These include default ‘yes’ approaches for applications on brownfield land, as well as those around train stations.

In a bid to improve housing density a default ‘yes’ is also being proposed for more blocks of flats in towns and cities with a new ‘medium site’ category introduced for sites between 10 and 49 homes.

The latter is being introduced to help SME builders face proportionate rules and costs, with the possible exemption from the Building Safety Levy also being considered.

A more diverse mix of housing — such as affordable and accessible homes — will also be encouraged under the proposals, and standards around energy efficiency and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements will also be streamlined.

According to the government, the new rail and densification policies are expected to unlock a potential 1.8 million homes over the coming years and decades.

“For too long our economy has been held back by a housing system that slows growth, frustrates business, and prices the next generation out of a secure home,” said chancellor Rachel Reeves.

“These reforms back the builders not the blockers, unlock investment and make it easier to build the 1.5 million new homes across every region — rebuilding the foundations of our economy and making affordable homes a reality for working people once again.”

Overall, the industry has welcomed these proposals and the government’s ambition to tackle planning permission delays.

“We thank the government for again listening to the industry on calls to review the NPPF and help SME sized housebuilders,” said Richard Beresford, CEO at the National Federation of Builders (NFB).

“Since the first NPPF review, a working paper to define medium sized sites of between 10 and 49 homes was released and policies to assist SMEs have been consulted on.

•   The Finance Professional Show 2025: The Video
•   New towns' role in protecting the Green Belt from 'piecemeal, ad-hoc development'
•   Govt planning reforms to generate up to £7.5bn

“This review is therefore a key moment to bring previous consultations together and embed them in national planning policy.”

“It’s particularly welcome to see explicit recognition of the need to plan for older people’s housing, following on from similar recognition of the valuable contribution that BTR homes could make to housing supply in last year’s NPPF revisions,” added Danny Pinder, director at the British Property Federation (BPF).

“Housing completions have fallen off a cliff this year so measures that increase planning certainty and support a wider range of entrants into the market – whether SMEs or later living providers – have to be a good thing.”

However, there were calls from the industry for these to go further.

Brian Berry, CEO at the Federation of Master Builders (FMB), welcomed the proposals but argued that smaller developers would benefit from better funded and staffed planning teams.

“Technical changes to planning will only ever go so far before funding becomes the main barrier which stalls sign offs,” said Brian.

“This is something the Treasury needs to understand and inject more cash to overcome a crumbling planning system."

“The decision to make national development management policies a non-statutory element of a revised NPPF could undermine that same certainty, and we will need to examine the consultation carefully to assess the potential impact on new development,” added Danny.

In particular, while the government’s attention to biodiversity requirements was appreciated, some wanted a more holistic revisit of these rules.

Rico Wojtulewicz, head of policy and market insight at the NFB, described BNG policy as “still broken”.

“We therefore hope to convince this government to back our five-year campaign to support onsite solutions and strategies which directly support wildlife,” said Rico.

 “It feels perverse that on the one hand the government is saying new builds should include nature friendly elements to support wildlife but on the other have a BNG policy which discounts their benefits for wildlife.

“Some say the UK BNG system is world leading but if it replaces plants, hedges and trees which local birds and bats don’t benefit from, ignores the benefits balancing ponds could deliver for crayfish and has no local wildlife consideration at all, how can it be world leading?”