Planning reform is welcome – but the detail will determine whether SME housebuilders can deliver

By Danny BallPublished On: July 29th, 2026Categories: News, Top Stories

By Jonathan Witter, Development Monitoring Director, Assetz Capital

The Government’s proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) represent one of the most significant planning reforms for housebuilding in recent years.

If a housing scheme is located within walking distance of a well-connected rail or tram station, the starting point for planning decisions should be a default “yes”, even where Green Belt land is involved, provided the relevant conditions are met.

Estimates suggest the reforms could unlock land capable of delivering more than 630,000 homes[1], making a meaningful contribution towards the Government’s target of building 1.5 million homes during this Parliament. Better connecting new housing with existing public transport infrastructure is also a sensible planning objective that supports more sustainable communities.

However, as with many planning reforms, the headline announcement is only part of the story. The success of these proposals will depend on how they are interpreted and applied in practice.

One of the biggest questions is what actually constitutes “walking distance”. The Government has indicated this is likely to mean around 800 metres from a station, but measuring that isn’t always straightforward. Is it based on a straight-line distance or an accessible walking route?

What happens where topography, major roads or physical barriers make an 800-metre journey significantly less practical? These are precisely the kinds of issues that can become points of disagreement between developers, planning authorities and consultees.

The same applies to the definition of a “well-connected” station. Current proposals focus on stations served by at least four departures per hour throughout the day, although other iterations have suggested two services per hour in one direction.

Either way, frequency could become a new planning battleground. It may also be interesting for developers to look at stations that have planned upgrades including train frequency which could unlock planning potential.

Ironically, many of the stations with the greatest potential for supporting new communities are those with relatively modest passenger numbers today because there simply isn’t enough surrounding development. Restricting eligibility to stations meeting a strict frequency threshold risks excluding exactly the locations where additional housing could justify future service improvements.

In fact, if Government were prepared to relax the four-trains-per-hour requirement, the number of homes that could potentially be unlocked increases significantly. That illustrates just how influential one technical criterion could become.

For SME housebuilders, these definitions matter because every area of uncertainty adds cost, time and risk.

Smaller developers don’t have the luxury of carrying prolonged planning uncertainty across large land portfolios.

Before submitting an application, they’ll increasingly need to commission additional evidence demonstrating that sites satisfy the distance, accessibility and transport criteria. That means more surveys, more technical reports and more professional advice at the earliest stages of a project.

Those costs may seem relatively small in isolation, but collectively they affect viability, particularly on smaller schemes where development margins are already under pressure from inflation, regulation and funding costs.

Green Belt sites present another layer of complexity. While the proposed reforms introduce a stronger presumption in favour of development near qualifying stations, they don’t remove the evidential burden placed on applicants. Major developments will still need to demonstrate compliance with the Government’s “Golden Rules”, including requirements around affordable housing, infrastructure and community benefits.

These are entirely reasonable objectives, but they require detailed evidence, negotiation and assessment before planning permission can be secured. For developers, that means the planning process is unlikely to become significantly simpler, even if the policy direction is more supportive.

From a development monitoring perspective, this is where careful preparation becomes increasingly important. Early due diligence has always been critical, but these reforms make it even more so. Developers, lenders and professional advisers will need to establish at the outset whether sites genuinely meet the transport criteria and whether the wider planning evidence supports the assumptions underpinning viability.

None of this should detract from the opportunity these reforms present. Better use of land around transport infrastructure has long been recognised as one of the most effective ways to increase housing delivery while encouraging sustainable patterns of development. There are undoubtedly opportunities here for SME housebuilders to bring forward well-designed schemes in locations that may previously have struggled to gain planning support.

For these proposals to achieve their full potential, the supporting guidance needs to provide certainty rather than ambiguity. Clear definitions, proportionate evidence requirements and pragmatic implementation will ultimately determine whether the reforms accelerate delivery or simply create a new set of planning debates.

[1] https://lichfields.uk/blog/2025/december/16/all-aboard-or-stuck-between-stations-how-the-new-nppf-might-unlock-growth-around-rail-stations