What does the new NPPF mean for the Senior Living Sector?

As we explored in an earlier briefing, in recognition of the chronic housing shortage affecting England, the Government has committed to building 1.5 million new homes by the end of this parliamentary cycle as one of its core manifesto commitments and has regularly repeated this ambitious commitment since taking office. To be on track for that, an average of 300,000 new homes would need to be built annually, meaning roughly 800 home completions daily. Current housing delivery is projected to fall well short of this mark. This Herculean target provides the key backdrop for the updates made to the NPPF by the Government as part of a broader raft of anticipated measures to "unlock" the planning system, which the Government hopes will help to alleviate the housing crisis in England and stimulate economic growth.

It is often assumed that the 300,000 new homes to be built each year will be comprised almost entirely of the large new-build estates we have become familiar with on the outskirts of English towns and cities, which tend to be developed with first-time buyers and young families in mind. However, given England's rapidly ageing population, it is also crucial for appropriate housing and facilities to be constructed for the senior living sector to meet the growing demand from this demographic. This aligns with the recent report issued by the Older People's Housing Taskforce (the "OPHT") on 26 November 2024 (the "OPHT Report"), which we discussed here.

The updated NPPF indicates that the Government is alive to this issue and is conscious that 300,000 uniform dwellinghouses per year will not adequately address society's needs. 

The appeal of mixed tenure sites is obvious, given the opportunity they provide for multiple generations of families to live within a short distance of each other. This proximity to other generations would likely be appealing across the spectrum of senior members of society – from the newly-retired through to the elderly who require specialised housing and support and could allow old people to live more independently whilst living within close proximity to family and friends. The Housing and Ageing Alliance ("HAA") recently wrote to the Government to emphasise the potential societal benefits of "supporting older people to live independently for longer" as this "helps wider families and communities" in order to help society tackle the rapidly ageing population.

Although the updated NPPF was only published a couple of weeks after the OPHT Report, it is apparent that the Government is taking the issues facing the senior living sector seriously and is committed to providing a broad spectrum of housing options to support the rising demand in this sector. The narrow temporal gap between the publication of the OPHT Report and the updated NPPF suggests that the OPHT's recommendations for the planning sector were taken into account but there is probably more change to come in this area as part of the Government's pipeline of legislative and policy changes.

One of the most heavily publicised amendments to the NPPF was the introduction of the concept of "Grey Belt" land.

You may recall that in the build up to the General Election, Grey Belt was simply referred to as a means of developing under-utilised brownfield sites within the Green Belt which cannot be developed on solely as a result of their location within the Green Belt e.g. petrol stations and hard standing, as discussed in our briefing here. This was likely a deliberate attempt to play down its significance, given the adverse publicity expected in response. However, the definition of the Grey Belt provided for in the NPPF is much broader than the limited examples provided by the Government last year, and its effects are also potentially more significant that what appeared in the consultation draft previously published.

Paragraph 143 of the NPPF sets out the purposes of the Green Belt as follows:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

The fact that the definition of Grey Belt land does not take into account the purpose set out at paragraph 143(c) is particularly noteworthy. Rather than protecting the countryside from encroachment, the key consideration is whether the identified land within the Grey Belt contributes towards preventing urban sprawl/the merging of towns and the preservation of their character. Furthermore, even if the identified land does contribute towards preventing such encroachment, the land must "strongly contribute" to this purpose to avoid potentially being classified as Grey Belt. It is also important to bear in mind that individual sites will be assessed against this broad definition of Grey Belt as part of individual planning applications. For example, if a planning application identifies a single field for development which forms part of a group of much larger fields which will not be affected by the application, it would seem difficult to argue that the single field identified in the application strongly contributes to any of the purposes in paragraph 143 of the NPPF.

So, what does it mean if land within the Green Belt can be classified as Grey Belt? Crucially, there is a general presumption that development within the Green Belt is inappropriate whereas paragraph 155 of the NPPF now provides that:

For the purposes of limb (a), if it can be successfully argued that the relevant land is Grey Belt and therefore does not strongly contribute to the specified purposes of the Green Belt, it would seem difficult to argue that developing on such land would "fundamentally undermine" the purposes of the remaining Green Belt. Limb (b) appears to be similarly straightforward for housing/senior living sector developers to argue, given the demand for housing and the recently increased housing targets for almost all local authorities. Developers will, of course, need to demonstrate that the development is sustainable and in a sustainable location, with emphasis being placed on transport considerations for the proposed development.

Therefore, developers will need to be willing to provide greater contributions and potentially a greater proportion of affordable housing than would be provided as part of an equivalent development located outside the Green Belt. This is the trade-off for 'releasing' land which previously had been notoriously difficult to bring forward for development. If development within the Green Belt is being considered, developers will need to bear the increased contributions in mind as part of their assessment of viability. Developers should also consider as part of their assessments that paragraph 158 of the NPPF provides that "significant weight in favour of the grant of permission" will be given to developments which comply with the Golden Rules, providing a potentially enticing trade-off for developers who are not deterred by increased contributions in exchange for the green light from the LPA. It will be interesting to see how LPAs grapple with applications for development on sites which are put forward as Grey Belt land, and the extent to which viability considerations play into decision-making and, ultimately, infrastructure provision.

Developers should also bear in mind that the political landscape in connection with the planning process has changed since the Labour Government took over in July 2024. Angela Rayner has demonstrated that she is keen to exercise her 'calling in' powers to intervene in local decision-making and potentially approve large schemes which appear to meet certain needs but have not been welcomed by LPAs at a local level.

Also, the increased number of applications being referred to the Planning Inspectorate ("PINS") in recent months indicates that 'planning by appeal' may become an increasingly popular method for developers to obtain planning permission where they are unable to convince the LPA to approve their development. It was noted in the OPHT Report that 

and this trend is likely to continue unless LPAs take a more open-minded approach to proposed senior living developments.

'Planning by appeal' may become a more popular (and potentially necessary) tool for developers who are met with refusal at local level, despite the beneficial changes to planning policy at a national level. For example, a recent decision by South Cambridgeshire District Council demonstrates the inevitable tensions between local and national policy (and priorities) and the barriers the Government may face in its efforts to unlock more land for housing. The decision concerned a proposed senior living scheme in the village of Comberton which recently made headlines as the LPA unanimously rejected the proposed scheme for 200 senior residents. A range of objections to the scheme were raised by local residents and councillors including the insufficiency of existing public services infrastructure and that older people's housing should be spread across the district rather than be concentrated in a single development. It is worth noting that this decision was reached in January 2025, after the new NPPF took effect for the purposes of decision making. The objections raised in the reporting appear to overlook the significant contributions which would have been made to public services infrastructure by way of developer contributions and appear to conflict with the 'vision-led' approach emphasised by the NPPF (focusing on current infrastructure rather than the capacity of the infrastructure after contributions are taken into account). The developers in Comberton may now be looking to appeal the decision, in hope that the new NPPF will be interpreted favourably by the PINS for the purposes of their planning application.

However, 'planning by appeal' can be expensive for developers and there is a risk that an increased number of appeals to the PINS could cause this process to become extremely slow unless the Government provides more resourcing. There is , of course, no certainty of a positive outcome if 'planning by appeal' is favoured  by developers. An increase in the volume of appeals to PINS reflects badly on our planning system and the Government will be hoping that the updates to the NPPF in combination with further legislative reforms to the planning system will reduce the number of appeals in the long term. Arguably, an increasing dependence on PINS also risks undermining one of the key tenets of a properly functioning planning system – that it should be plan-led.

Given the pressure on most local authorities to deliver an increased number of homes in order to meet their recently (almost universally) increased housing targets, developers might be able to take the opportunity to submit speculative planning applications which utilise the recently amended provisions of the NPPF discussed above. Currently, LPAs either have local plans which do not factor in the concept of Grey Belt, or they do not have an up-to-date local plan in place, so speculative planning applications may be able to take advantage of this transition period before local plans can be published which specifically allocate Grey Belt land.

The updates to the NPPF in relation to the promotion of mixed tenure sites also present opportunities for developers in the senior living sector and for senior living providers to team up with housebuilders to work towards delivering the Government's vision of large-scale intergenerational mixed tenure sites. The senior living sector may also be able to work with housebuilders to help deliver affordable housing, which will be particularly important for satisfying the Golden Rules to tilt the balance in favour of granting planning permission on Grey Belt land and mixed tenure sites will be particularly appealing to LPAs on the basis of the updated NPPF. Joint ventures between providers may help to improve the viability of schemes whilst still satisfying the Golden Rules in order to help improve the likelihood of securing planning permission. Larger scale housebuilders may also be better equipped to shoulder the burden of contributions in connection with the Golden Rules or otherwise required by LPAs. The OPHT Report noted that a key barrier to the development of older people's housing is the cost of s106 contributions and CIL payments, so it may be in the interests of developers to collaborate to share the burden of such contributions in order to deliver mixed tenure developments in the Grey Belt.

The factors outlined above present a unique opportunity at present for developers to seek planning permission pursuant to the updated NPPF before updated local plans are published by local authorities. The HAA's recent letter to Government argues that the "current planning system actively militates against the provision of a greater choice of specialist housing for older people"; however, it is hoped that the current direction of travel (illustrated by the updated NPPF) is in favour of the development of a wider range of housing options in England and in particular, in the senior living sector. Given that the OPHT's findings are very recent and are likely still being digested by housing ministers and decision makers, it is hoped that further planning reform will be introduced in this area to improve the rate of delivery and viability for developers in the senior living sector.

Developers in England will also be very interested to see how LPAs grapple with their new housing targets and the concept of 'Grey Belt' over the next few years, together with the recent policy nudge to review Green Belt boundaries. Alongside these policy changes, we can also expect a further raft of planning reform measures including new legislation, as promised by the Government. It is also hoped that the updated NPPF will encourage LPAs to allocate more land (whether Grey Belt or other categories of land) specifically for older people's housing, which was another key recommendation recently made by the OPHT.

It will also be interesting to see, in its forthcoming White Paper, how the Government plans to incorporate the various different categories of senior living schemes within its vision of mandating that commonhold should replace leasehold for new-build flats by the end of this Parliament.  We discussed this announcement here.