‘Nimbyism’ or a greater local voice?: What weakened Government housing targets mean for Nottinghamshire councils

The existing targets, enforced through Government calculations, will instead be a “starting point”.

Councils will still be required to draw up housing plans setting out where new developments will be built in their areas, in the newly announced changes, but greenbelt protections will be “strengthened” and brownfield land prioritised for development.

Councils could also be allowed to submit plans with reduced housing numbers, if they can prove their target would damage the character of their area.

Most Nottinghamshire councils have already adopted housing plans.

Nottingham, Rushcliffe, Gedling and Broxtowe councils are drawing up a ‘Greater Nottingham’ plan for housing across the four areas, while Bassetlaw Council’s plan, setting out where more than 12,000 homes will be built, examined by Government inspectors.

However, Ashfield Council brought significant changes to its draft plan in response to the Government’s policy changes.

The authority’s housing target requires 8,226 homes to be built between now and 2038, with the Ashfield Independents-led administration proposing 3,000 homes on Hucknall’s greenbelt at Whyburn Farm and 1,000 at Cauldwell Road, Sutton, to fulfil part of this number – just 1,100 homes were available for development on former industrial brownfield land across the district.

However, public backlash to both major settlements led to a rethink of the plan and the council will now submit a reduced plan without the two developments and will only outline sites for a 10-year period.

Coun Sarah Madigan, cabinet member for strategic planning, said: “The Government’s reforms validate our decision to put forward a draft plan with a reduced housing number.

“The previous approach would have significantly changed the character of Ashfield.

“As a result of our actions, we’re increasingly confident our amended plan will be accepted by the Government.”

But Coun Toby Neal, Nottingham Council portfolio holder for housing, believes the reforms pose a “real problem” moving forwards.

“It’s NIMBY-ism at its worst,” he said. “We need to be building houses both private and affordable.

“If that means targets have to be put in place then so be it. We’re not going to be hitting the numbers needed, if there aren’t targets.”

He also believes more money is needed, so authorities can build more council-owned social houses and bring down huge waiting lists.

The authority has a waiting list of more than 8,000 people, despite being able to provide just hundreds of new homes each year.

Mansfield has a similar picture, with 6,125 people on Mansfield Council’s waiting list, despite just 286 homes being advertised since April.

However, extra support to help councils build new social housing was not included in the reforms and Coun Neal says solving the issue “all comes back to money”.

The Government said nearly 600,000 affordable homes have been built since 2010, including 157,000 for social rent.

It says the changes reflect the need to build more homes and meet rising demand, but only “in the right places with the right infrastructure”.

Residents will be given more say on new plans in their neighbourhoods and local politicians will be granted more power to shape their communities.