The Government's on-going consultation for proposed changes to the NPPF delivers a number of very important messages about Labour's planning reform agenda – housing delivery is at the top of it. But perhaps even more important (and reassuring) than that are the changes which recognise the other elements in the housing delivery equation, of which the 'standard method' is just one part. The review of Green Belt policy and strategic infrastructure investment are amongst those other positive indicators.

The changes create a very important shift of emphasis around development of Green Belt and how that becomes 'Grey Belt', but developers will have to be prepared to meet specific criteria to secure those consents. Criteria include the expectation of at least 50% affordable housing (subject to viability) together with infrastructure mitigation and access to nearby green spaces.

This is by no means creating open season on the Green Belt, but given the sensitivity of this topic and the historically high bar imposed by the tests of 'inappropriate development' and 'very special circumstances' we should still recognise this as a bold change in Green Belt policy. As what becomes 'Grey Belt' would be a matter of development control decision-making there will inevitably be disputes about shades of grey in contested 5 year housing supply situations; and developers should be aware of the particular viability assumptions in negotiating 'Grey-Belt' affordable housing levels. The all new Annex 4 to the NPPF would impose the 'EUV+' approach to benchmarking land value – where the '+' represents a 'reasonable and proportionate premium for the landowner'. This would put in even more pressure on the planning conditionality of deals in those locations.

There is no doubt that the NPPF should set the tone for the Government's desire to 'Get Britain Building' and it is certainly the lowest hanging of the ways in which to effect changes in policy-making and decision-taking swiftly. But beyond recognising that its housing ambitions are predicated on strategic infrastructure, the question of how Labour will then secure that investment above existing levels strays into the more complex territory of legislative reform. It is here that we need to understand how far the Government will distance itself from the unimplemented parts of the Conservatives' Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (LURA) – specifically the groundwork for an 'Infrastructure Levy' to replace the existing combination of CIL and planning obligations.

What comes after the NPPF update is therefore going to demonstrate whether Ministers will grapple with the more intricate parts of our planning system – but those must be addressed if Labour's housing delivery ambitions of 370,000 per year can be realised.