NPPF Explainer: House building in Surrey Heath

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): What the changes mean for Surrey Heath

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets the rules that guide how planning decisions are made across England. It determines where homes are built, how development is assessed, and the balance between housing need, infrastructure, and environmental protection.

The Government has introduced significant revisions to the NPPF in 2024, with further reforms proposed in 2025. The implications for Surrey Heath and surrounding areas are substantial.

Why is the NPPF being changed?

The Government has committed to delivering 1.5 million homes nationally. While there is broad recognition that more homes are needed, the key issue is not just how many homes are built, but where they are built, whether they are affordable, and whether infrastructure keeps pace.

What are the key changes?

1. Mandatory housing targets

Housing targets for Surrey Heath and Guildford have effectively doubled. In Surrey Heath, this represents a 113% increase, requiring the delivery of hundreds of homes per year despite significant geographical and environmental constraints.

2. Weakened Local Plan protections

If councils cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, the “presumption in favour of development” applies. In Surrey Heath, land supply has dropped from over seven years to just over three years, making it much harder to resist speculative applications.

3. Introduction of “Grey Belt”

Land previously protected as Green Belt can now be reclassified as “Grey Belt” if it meets certain criteria under the Government’s “Golden Rules”. This has opened up new areas to development and created uncertainty about long-standing protections.

4. Proposed 2025 reforms

Further changes under consideration include:

• A “default yes” to development near railway stations
• New powers for the Secretary of State to overrule local decisions on developments of 150 homes or more
• Removal of statutory consultees such as Sport England, reducing expert scrutiny

Taken together, these changes shift power away from local councils and towards central government.

What are the main concerns?

1. Reduced local control

These reforms risk undermining the role of locally elected councillors. Decisions that were previously shaped by Local Plans and community input may now be overridden by national policy or ministerial intervention.

2. Rise in speculative development

Following the 2024 changes, speculative proposals have already begun to emerge across Surrey Heath, including in Bagshot, Windlesham, Pirbright and Normandy. Developers are increasingly using Grey Belt arguments to justify building on previously protected land.

3. Infrastructure falling behind

There is no credible mechanism to ensure infrastructure is delivered before development. Roads, schools, GP services and drainage systems are already under pressure.

Concerns have been raised in Parliament about major developments proceeding without funding for supporting infrastructure. For example, in relation to Frimley Park Hospital, no funding has been allocated for roads, transport improvements or wider infrastructure, raising serious questions about how growth will be supported.

4. Environmental and local character impact

Surrey Heath is highly constrained, with approximately:

• 44% designated as Green Belt
• 23% within the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area
• significant areas owned by the Ministry of Defence

Once environmental and operational constraints are applied, almost half the borough is effectively unavailable for development. Increased housing targets risk pushing development into sensitive areas, threatening village identity and ecological protections.

What does this mean locally?

The impact is already being felt across the constituency.

Developments are being proposed outside of Local Plans, including a 950-home scheme in Normandy. There is a growing risk that:

• villages could lose their distinct identity
• infrastructure will not keep pace with growth
• communities will have reduced influence over decisions

In some cases, developments are being approved incrementally, preventing strategic planning and placing cumulative pressure on local services.

Parliamentary work and local action

These concerns have been raised directly with Ministers and in Parliament.

23 February 2026: "The Minister has talked about the protections afforded by local plans, but in areas such as Surrey Heath and Guildford, which have experienced a near-doubling of housing targets, those protections have been stripped away according to the tilted balance approach. What protections will the Minister put in place as at least a temporary measure to protect our communities from speculative development?"

22 February 2026: “In my area—perhaps in the hon. Member’s, too—we have had increased housing targets of up to 150% as a consequence of this Government’s decision. I understand their commitment to house building, but such targets open up the floodgates to opportunistic development—development that is unplanned. It requires incredible expertise in planning departments to ensure that such development is appropriate and that there is enforcement where necessary. Those are exactly the kind of services that risk being cut at just the time when we face the greatest pressure. Does he agree that we need some kind of financial resolution to ensure that these services are continued into the future?”

17 December 2025: “In my constituency we have had a 113% increase in our housing targets. A seven-year land supply has now dropped to little over three and a half years, making us susceptible to the very speculative developments that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Does he share my concern that in the circumstances in which speculative developments come forward, we lose the opportunity to plan strategically the infrastructure upgrades that a community needs, and each development brings only a small, incremental increase?”

In addition, formal representations have been made to the Secretary of State outlining the impact of these changes on Surrey Heath. Click here to see letter.

Locally, objections have also been raised to large-scale developments that do not meet infrastructure or environmental requirements. Click here to see Normandy Objection.

Voting record

I have consistently opposed measures that weaken local control and fail to guarantee infrastructure delivery.

• Voted against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill at Second Reading
• Voted against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill at Third Reading

Conclusion

There is clear agreement that more homes are needed. However, the current approach risks prioritising volume over sustainability.

Without proper safeguards, these changes could:

• undermine local democracy
• increase speculative development
• place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• weaken environmental protections

Planning reform must deliver the right homes in the right places, supported by infrastructure, shaped by communities, and aligned with local needs.

Please see the videos I have posted on Facebook explaining these changes: Video 1, Video 2