Builders Use “Swift Bricks” And “Garden-Grabbing”

Labour has disclosed additional sweeping changes to England’s planning rules as ministers scramble to build a promised 1.5 million new homes within five years.

Under what is declared to be the most significant planning shake-up in more than a decade, ministers said thousands more homes will be built faster in every region.

The Government said its latest update to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) would make the planning system ‘clearer’ and ‘more predictable’.

The proposed modifications are in line with earlier Labour-introduced policies from December of last year, and the NPPF outlines how planning regulations should be applied.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government pledged the latest modifications would bring ‘higher-density development’ and ‘simplified biodiversity rules’. 

But the Tories argued Labour was returning ‘garden-grabbing’ tactics and targeting green belt land due to a failure to build on brownfield sites.

Wildlife organisations also reacted negatively to the relaxation of biodiversity regulations.

This is how your neighbourhood might be affected by Labour’s most recent planning revisions:

More homes near train stations in the green belt

High-rise projects in towns and cities, as well as default permits for residences near rail stations, are among the suggested modifications to the NPPF.

Stations will be categorised as well-connected based on the number of train services available and the economic performance of the area.

Development within a 15-minute walk of the station will then be permitted, even if it is within the green belt.

The only prerequisite will be a minimum density of 50 homes per hectare.

Housing minister Matthew Pennycook said the default ‘yes’ approach will apply near stations ‘within existing settlements and around well-connected stations outside settlements’.

The same default ‘yes’ will apply to new homes building upwards in towns and cities.

Additionally, Labour promises to facilitate the construction of higher-density housing, such as contemporary apartments and flats, on smaller plots and, when suitable, underutilised land.

Ministers also promised to support a more varied mix of housing, including accessible homes for the elderly and disabled, as well as inexpensive dwellings in rural areas.

They promised to give special consideration to projects that boost regional economies and offer new services, such as stores, recreational centres, and food production.

Housing Secretary Steve Reed said: ‘Right now we see a planning system that still isn’t working well enough.

‘A system saying ‘no’ more often than it says ‘yes’ and that favours obstructing instead of building.

‘It has real-world consequences for those aspiring to own a home of their own and those hoping to escape so-called temporary accommodation.

‘We owe it to the people of this country to do everything within our power to build the homes they deserve.’

A return to ‘garden-grabbing’?

In response to the NPPF changes, the Tories claimed that Labour was returning to ‘garden-grabbing’ tactics, where new housing is built on existing residential gardens.

Ministers were accused of obliterating planning protections introduced by the Coalition government, including the scrapping of a clause stating that local plans ‘should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens’.

There are concerns that Labour’s changes could encourage developers to buy up swathes of homes and pack more properties into existing plots, including those on former gardens.

Sir James Cleverly, the shadow housing secretary, said: ‘Rather than holding their urban mayors to account, they are returning to John Prescott’s failed regime of garden-grabbing, with quiet suburban neighbourhoods facing the prospect of ugly apartment blocks being erected on their green spaces against their wishes.

‘In desperation at their own failure to build, Labour are now abandoning any pretence of caring about communities.’

‘Swift bricks’ in all new homes

All new homes in England will have to include ‘swift bricks’ to help protect endangered birds under Labour’s shake-up of planning rules.

The cavity bricks cost about £35 each and are installed in homes to provide vital nesting homes for migratory birds.

Swift populations in Britain are estimated to have slumped by 66 per cent between 1995 and 2022, which has been blamed on a reduction in their traditional nesting sites.

There are worries that there could be fewer than 25,000 breeding pairs left in five years without action.

Swifts fly north to Europe each summer, where they frequently make their nests in buildings, but they spend the winters in sub-Saharan Africa.

The nooks and crannies where birds have built their nests for centuries have been eliminated by modern insulation, especially on roofs.

Swift bricks will be considered a prerequisite for new homes under Labour’s plans.

The new planning rules say: ‘New builds to include nature-friendly features, such as installing swift bricks, to support wildlife – adding little to building costs whilst delivering a win-win for nature and housebuilding.’

Gemma Cantelo, head of policy and advocacy for RSPB England, said: ‘The Government’s plans to include nature-friendly design features, like swift bricks, into new build homes must be mandatory and enforced.

‘Guidance that can be ignored is not enough. We need to make nature integral to building new homes, not an afterthought or a corner to be cut.

‘If nature-friendly building design is to become the norm, not just for wifts but for hedgehogs, bats and pollinators, we need firm rules, monitoring and enforcement.

‘And we need an end to the UK Government’s anti-nature rhetoric for good.’ 

A weakening of biodiversity rules

Conservationists warned about new exemptions from England’s ‘biodiversity net gain’ (BNG) rules.

They said this risked hollowing out the emerging market in which developers have to pay not only to replace habitat lost to development, but to deliver a 10 per cent gain for nature.

Labour has frequently targeted bats, newts, snails and other wildlife as it outlines steps to free the planning system in its scramble to build 1.5 million new homes in England over five years.

Under BNG reforms disclosed as part of the planning changes, ministers proposed that smaller developments under 0.2 hectares should be exempt from the rules, with an additional targeted exemption for brownfield housing sites.

In order to support medium-sized projects, the government also promised to make BNG delivery off-site quicker, simpler, and less expensive.

The Wildlife and Countryside Link (WCL) coalition of environment and nature groups warned that exempting so many small sites, which dominate England’s planning system, could wreck the policy.

Richard Benwell, WCL chief executive, said: ‘To meet its electoral promise of halting wildlife decline, Government should strengthen green economy rules, not shrink them.

‘Rapidly applying net gain to all major infrastructure and stopping developers dodging their environmental responsibilities should be clear priorities, not more carve-outs.

‘So far, this has been a Parliament of delay and relentless deregulatory threats to nature.’

Beccy Speight, chief executive of the RSPB, said: ‘The decision to exempt sites under 0.2 hectares from BNG flies in the face of the UK Government’s promise to be ‘the most nature-positive government this nation has ever had’.

‘It’s a blow for nature, for local communities and for business confidence in the future of BNG.

‘BNG was designed as a win-win for nature and development, ensuring more wildlife and green spaces where people live.

‘By diluting this policy, failing to close existing loopholes and signalling its plans to consult on further exemptions, the Government has chosen developers’ profits over public health and wellbeing.

‘People in nature-poor towns and cities will suffer most, with clean water, healthy soils, and flood protection all at risk.

‘It also undermines fair competition for developers committed to doing the right thing.’

Responding to questions in the House of Commons on the planning reforms, Mr Pennycook rejected an accusation that he is ‘pitting nature protection against house building’ from Green Party MP Ellie Chowns.

‘I have never, and I will not pit development against the environment. This Government has sought a win-win for both,’ Mr Pennycook said.

The issue is that we will never be completely satisfied with any party that wins.

They pledge things that they plan to do as part of their campaign, and then go back on it, and do the complete opposite, which means they are breaking a verbal contract that they made with the British people. Their manifesto is more like a PR stunt than anything else, and they should not promise what they cannot deliver.

It’s admirable that they want to construct homes for people, but the problem is that they will fill them with millions of undeserving third-world immigrants.

The number of immigrants is still skyrocketing, and many of them bring their cultures with them. Immigration must cease, and individuals who are eligible for deportation should be returned, along with their large families.

These homes should be for British people! There has been enough of this insanity – England is full, there is no more room at the Inn.

We now live in an extensive urban sprawl, and extremely soon our villages and towns will be completely interlinked by housing estates, with not a blade of grass to be seen, but we need green belts to oxygenate the air that we breathe and to cultivate things – undoubtedly Labour doesn’t think so!

Our government won’t rest until our once beautiful country has been totally paved over and full of migrant people. Gone are the days of surnames like ‘Smith or Jones’, and the British people will be eradicated.

And who will buy these homes? Gen Z don’t have a pot to p*ss in, and most people are on the dole because there are no jobs for them.

We have an immigration crisis, not a housing crisis. We wouldn’t have to damage our countryside if we stopped allowing migrants to enter and sent those who shouldn’t be here back.

If migrants come to our country and they don’t have a job to go to or any financial support, then they should be sent straight back from whence they came.