It is very difficult to think of a “one size fits all” policy intervention that would achieve what the government is looking for, namely “further action that we could take through the planning system to support the development of brownfield land in urban areas.” The paper “proposes options for a form of ‘brownfield passport’, which would be more specific about the development that should be regarded as acceptable, with the default answer to suitable proposals being a straightforward “yes”. It seeks views in particular on the following questions:
“Could national policy be clearer if it were explicit that development on brownfield land within urban settlements is acceptable unless certain exclusions apply?
What caveats should accompany any general expectation that development on brownfield land within urban settlements is acceptable?
How best can urban areas be identified and defined if this approach is pursued?
Could national policy play a role in setting expectations about the minimum scale of development which should be regarded as acceptable in accessible urban locations?
What parameters could be set for both the scale of development and accessibility?
Could more use be made of design guidance and codes to identify specific forms of development that are acceptable in particular types of urban area?
What sort of areas would be most suited to this approach, and at what geographic scale could such guidance and codes be used?
How could Local Development Orders be best used with these proposals?
Are there any other issues that we should consider if any of these approaches were to be taken forward, in particular to ensure they provide benefits as early as possible?
In addition to streamlining permissions on urban brownfield sites, where else do you consider this type of policy could be explored to support economic growth?”
“Passport” is undoubtedly over-optimistic branding, but I suppose even one of those Easyjet speedy boarding passes would be helpful.
Published after the paper, on 12 December 2024, the final revised version of the NPPF does of course contain a strengthened presumption in favour of brownfield development in paragraph 125 (c):
“Planning policies and decisions should:
(c) give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land”
“Substantial weight”; approval “unless substantial harm would be caused”: a strong signal one might think. However, it is interesting to see how the policy has been taken into account by appeal inspectors. Perhaps to state the obvious, it is not a “get out of jail free” card and in any event you do need to make sure you fit within the definition. We have found four examples but you may be aware of others:
Appeal reference APP/L1765/W/24/3344776 – decision letter dated 31 December 2024 dismissing an appeal for the demolition of existing office and ancillary buildings on site, conversion of an existing industrial warehouse and the construction of 9 residential properties in Denmead, Winchester. “…whilst the site comprises previously developed land, I do not find conflict with the substantial weight given within the Framework to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs (Paragraph 125 c)) given the countryside location of the site and the market housing nature of the residential development proposed.”
Appeal reference APP/N5090/W/24/3345445 – decision letter dated 15 January 2025 dismissing an appeal for a proposed care home in Barnet. “In addition to outlining the […] benefits of the proposed development, the appellant has drawn my attention to NPPF paragraph 125 c) which states that planning decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land. Furthermore, the appellant has highlighted the removal from the NPPF of what was paragraph 130 in the 2023 NPPF, which made reference to the possibility that significant uplifts in the average density of residential development may be inappropriate if the resulting built form would be wholly out of character with the existing area.” However, the inspector “found that there would be harm to the character and appearance of the area resulting from the proposed development. That harm stems from both the bulk and massing of the proposed development in a sensitive context, but also in relation to the retention of trees along the site’s frontage.”
Appeal reference APP/F2605/W/24/3344783 – decision letter dated 30 January 2025 dismissing an appeal for a single detached dwelling in Breckland. “The appellant has identified that the site, as part of the garden of 1 Sandfield Lane, constitutes brownfield land. The Framework, at paragraph 125 c) states that planning decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved. The site, as identified above, lies outside of any defined development boundary. It does, however, lie within a grouping of buildings focussed around the pedestrian level crossing. However, I have identified that the proposal would rely almost totally on the private car for transport. Thus, the site is not suitable, as it would, through the generation of greenhouse gasses, have an adverse effect on the natural environment.”
Appeal reference APP/W3520/W/24/3352607 – decision letter dated 4 February 2025 dismissing an appeal for 11 dwellings and a commercial unit in Mid Suffolk. “In line with paragraph 125c of the Framework I give the housing, in this context, substantial weight. Although not in a settlement, it is in an accessible location.” However, the “proposal would be contrary to the Council’s spatial strategy with houses of an unacceptable mix, would fail to secure 10% BNG together with appropriate affordable housing, infrastructure requirements, habitat mitigation and has not demonstrated that it would not increase or cause flooding elsewhere. Consequently, it conflicts with the development plan as a whole.”
Given the range of questions raised by MHCLG, what might be additional appropriate interventions look like? Because I’m sure there will need to be various interventions. This is the part where I can plug last week’s Homes for Britain publication, Brownfield Planning Passports: The Fast Track To Growth, sponsored by Berkeley Group, which contains 14 essays with practical ideas from a wide range of public and private sector people (including me, returning to some of the themes of my 5 January 2025 blog post, How About A Five Yearly Review Of The Use Classes Order & GPDO, Starting This Year?). As you prepare your responses by 28 February, do have a read and it may spark some additional, or perhaps better, ideas.
PS I couldn’t mention blue sky without mentioning Blue Sky again. If you’re still looking for a replacement for whatever the present unpleasant tense of Twitter may be, come join. Link here.
Obviously, synchronised with the Labour party conference in Liverpool last weekend – Sir Keir Starmer’s speech there promised: “‘we are introducing new planning passports that will turbo-charge housebuilding in our inner cities.” In more general terms Rachel Reeves there: “What you will see in your town, your city, is a sight that we have not seen often enough in our country – shovels in the ground, cranes in the sky, the sounds and the sights of the future arriving. We will make that a reality.”
Coincidentally, synchronised with a presentation starting, also starting at 9.30 am last Sunday, by the first of that day’s Oxford Joint Planning Law Conference speakers, Ant Breach of Centre for Cities: “BOLDER: A Zoning System for England”. In some ways, the idea of passporting particular types of development is nothing if not zoning.
“We have been clear that development must look to brownfield first, prioritising the development of previously used land wherever possible. To support this, we will make the targeted changes set out below, including making clear that the default answer to brownfield development should be “yes”, as the first step on the way to delivering brownfield passports.”
If the work had been done in time, it would obviously have made more sense for the proposals in the latest working paper to have been part of the July 2024 consultation, both so that those responding had a better understanding of the intended policy end-point and so that the changes could be introduced at the same time that the revised NPPF itself is published (still, we hope, before the end of this year – maybe keep 20 or 23 December free of meetings folks…).
We are where we are. What do we learn from this latest policy paper? I hesitate to be hyper-critical as we all know that a new government is moving at pace, that these issues are difficult and that the objective is to be applauded (in my view at least) but…
It is a bit of a “throw ideas at the wall and see what sticks” piece of work isn’t it? “Brownfield passport” is nice branding, up there with “grey belt”, but what rights would this “passport” actually bring?
Its purpose is to be “more specific about the development that should be regarded as acceptable, with the default answer to suitable proposals being a straightforward “yes”.”
This needs to be viewed against the changes to the NPPF that are already proposed that would reinforce the presumption in favour of granting planning permission for development proposals on brownfield land. Paragraph 122 of the draft revised NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should, amongst other things: “give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be regarded as acceptable in principle, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land” (the underlined text is what is proposed to be inserted into what is already within the current NPPF at paragraph 123 (c)).
So how is the “brownfield passport” concept intended to move the dial still further in favour of brownfield development?
Well first of all, it’s not the equivalent of planning permission: “while we are not considering the granting of automatic planning permission on suitable brownfield sites or removing appropriate local oversight of the development control process, we do want to explore ways in which providing more explicit expectations for development could lower the risk, cost, and uncertainty associated with securing planning permissions on brownfield land.”
Instead:
“In order to maximise clarity and certainty about the opportunities to make best use of urban land, we think there is scope to make further policy changes, at both a national and local level, relating to the principle, scale, and form of development in different types of location.
We see these potential changes as a form of ‘brownfield passport’: setting clear parameters which, if met, serve as accepted markers of suitability, with approval becoming the default and a swifter outcome.”
Hmm.
MHLG floats a number of options:
First, tightening the NPPF further, by “being explicit that development on brownfield land within urban settlements is acceptable unless specified exclusions apply. Those exclusions could, for example, include that there is no adverse impact in relation to flood risk and access that cannot be mitigated.”
Secondly, by using the proposed National Development Management Policies system “to set minimum expectations for certain types of location where a particular scale of development may be appropriate.
Policy could, for example, say that development should be of at least four storeys fronting principal streets in settlements which have a high level of accessibility, and/or set acceptable density ranges that allow for suitable forms of intensification. A similar approach has been used successfully in some other countries where efforts have been made to densify urban areas through ‘upzoning’. While it would still require approval from the local planning authority, it would establish a very strong starting position which would carry significant weight in making decisions and create an expectation that compliant schemes are approved.
The policy parameters, such as height and what conferred a high degree of accessibility, would need to be set carefully, both to make the most of suitable opportunities and to avoid inappropriate development.”
It would surely be difficult to do this on a blanket, national, basis. MHCLG recognises this, so a less exciting variant is that “policy could be amended to encourage such parameters to be set through local development plans, which could also be articulated through design codes for appropriate locations – whether across whole urban areas or at a more local scale.”
Thirdly, “the potential to use design guides and codes that draw on the existing character of places, to identify these opportunities and provide clarity on the types of development that are regarded as acceptable in particular locations.”
Fourthly, for local planning authorities to make local development orders “in order to provide upfront consent to developments that meet the specified criteria…Combining them with criteria on the scale and/or form of development as suggested above would allow a local planning authority to effectively establish one or more zones in which particular types of development had planning permission without the need for individual applications.”
Fifthly, whether any of these proposals “could be supported by linking them to the national scheme of delegation, which [the government has] committed to provide for through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.” Now there’s an idea!
The paper ends with this paragraph:
“As part of wider action to support the development of small sites, we will also consider whether any of these proposals could apply to non-brownfield land in urban areas, with suitable safeguards to retain land which should be kept open or has important environmental benefits.”
So, having established that we are not really talking about “passports” – rather, various ways in which the planning system might further assist in the promotion for development of particular categories of schemes, and we aren’t really just talking about “brownfield” either.
There will in due course be a call for evidence.
“Brownfield land“ in planning-speak is “previously developed land”, or PDL. I’m beginning to wonder whether there should be another specific terms that we might all find helpful: Previously Developed Policy Interventions, or PDPI. Nicola Gooch wrote a great blog post last Sunday, Brownfield Passports: building on old foundations? reflecting some of the PDPIs which have sought in recent years to encourage brownfield development and the promote the ‘gentle densification’ of urban areas, e.g.:
Street votes
Permissions in principle
Zoning (as per the 2020 white paper)
To this I would add the various waves of changes to the General Permitted Development Order including Part 20 of Schedule 2 – construction of new dwellinghouses. Or indeed, what about this for déjà vu, the previous government’s 13 February 2024 consultation paper Strengthening planning policy for brownfield development (13 February 2024)?
Someone quipped to me this week that a brownfield passport is all well and good but that the big question will be how easy it will be to get the visa that allows us actually to get anywhere. Mind you that wording on the inside cover of your passport does always sound good:
“His Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of His Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.”
Maybe even this will be more than you or I can chew but for this blog post I am only going to focus on the proposed changes to green belt policy. Much of the text which follows is by my Town Legal colleagues Susannah Herbert and Aline Hyde to whom much thanks…
Green Belt – Plan Making
Local planning authorities will be required “to undertake a review where an authority cannot meet its identified housing, commercial or other need without altering Green Belt boundaries.” (This is in addition to removing the December 2023 additions which set out the circumstances in which local planning authorities would not be required to undertake a Green Belt review). The amendment defines “exceptional circumstances” to “include instances where an authority cannot meet its identified need for housing, commercial or other development through other means”.
A sequential test is proposed, to guide changes to Green Belt boundaries through local plans – “This will ask authorities to give first consideration to PDL [previously developed land] within the Green Belt, before moving on to other grey belt sites, and finally to higher performing Green Belt sites where these can be made sustainable. …, land that is safeguarded by existing environmental designations, for example National Parks, National Landscapes and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, will maintain its protections.
18. The aim of this approach is to ensure that low quality Green Belt is identified first, while not restricting development of specific opportunities which could be made more sustainable (for example, on land around train stations). This is in recognition that not all PDL or ‘Grey Belt’ will be in the most suitable or sustainable location for development. As such, it is right that local planning authorities are empowered to make decisions that best support the development needs and sustainability objectives of their area through the plan-making process. There is clear expectation that local planning authorities should seek to meet their development needs in full. However, we remain clear that the release of land should not be supported where doing so would fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole. We propose changes to paragraph 147 of the NPPF to achieve this approach.”
The proposed wording is as follows:
142 (previously 144) (comparison to Sept 2023) Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to, instances where an authority cannot meet its identified need for housing, commercial or other development through other means. In these circumstances authorities should review Green Belt boundaries and propose alterations to meet these needs in full, unless the review provides clear evidence that such alterations would fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole. Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period. Where a need for changes to Green Belt boundaries has been established through strategic policies, detailed amendments to those boundaries may be made through non- strategic policies, including neighbourhood plans.
144.(previously 146) When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policy- making authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded thatit is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to previously-developed land in sustainable locations, then considergrey belt land in sustainable locations which is not already previously-developed, and only then consider other sustainable Green Belt locations. They should alsoset out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.
Grey belt
Grey belt will be defined (in the glossary at Annex 2 to the NPPF) as follows:
“Grey belt: For the purposes of Plan-making and decision-making, grey belt is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising Previously Developed Land and any other parcels and/or areas of Green Belt land that make a limited contribution to the five Green Belt purposes (as defined in para 140 of this Framework) but excluding those areas or assets of particular importance listed in footnote 7 of this Framework (other than land designated as Green Belt).”
The Government is “interested in whether further support is needed to assist authorities in judging whether land makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt purposes. They propose incorporating the following into the glossary appended to the NPPF:
Land which makes a limited contribution to the Green Belt purposes will:
Not strongly perform against any Green Belt purpose; and
Have at least one of the following features: i. Land containing substantial built development or which is fully enclosed by built form ii. Land which makes no or very little contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another iii. Land which is dominated by urban land uses, including physical developments iv. Land which contributes little to preserving the setting and special character of historic towns”
Many local planning authorities will have evidence base documents which assess the effectiveness of parcels of land against the purposes of designating land as Green Belt but these documents do not necessarily observe this draft methodology. The extent to which they will be useful in guiding decision-making, at least in the short term until they can be revisited, is then unclear.
[Comment from me – “limited contribution”: huge room for debate!]
Green Belt Decision Making
The definition of “inappropriate development” is to be significantly restricted. At present in order for development on previously developed land not to be “inappropriate development” (and therefore be subject to the “very special circumstances” test) then (unless it would contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need) it “must not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development”. Draft revised paragraph 151 waters down this test to “would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt”.
[Another comment from me – “substantial harm”: huge room for debate, as it is already in the case of proposed development that would contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need.]
In terms of the Grey Belt concept, the Government proposes to insert a new paragraph in the NPPF which will make clear that, “in instances where a local planning authority cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply or is delivering less than 75% against the Housing Delivery Test, or where there is unmet commercial or other need, development on the Green Belt will not be considered inappropriate when it is on sustainable ‘grey belt’ land, where golden rules for major development are satisfied, and where development would not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole.”
{Comment from me: “unmet commercial or other need“, “fundamentally undermine” – yes you’re there before me.]
This is set out in the new paragraph 152:
“152. In addition to the above, housing, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where:
a. The development would utilise grey belt land in sustainable locations, the contributions set out in paragraph 155 below are provided, and the development would not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole; and
b. The local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (with a buffer, if applicable, as set out in paragraph 76) or where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years; or there is a demonstrable need for land to be released for development of local, regional or national importance.
c. Development is able to meet the planning policy requirements set out in paragraph 155.”
In terms of development on non-Grey-Belt-Green-Belt, the Government states “Our proposal limits release via this route to grey belt, including PDL — reaffirming our commitment to a plan-led system by maintaining restrictions on the release of wider Green Belt land. It would, as now, be possible for other Green Belt land to be released outside the plan-making process where ‘very special circumstances’ exist, but such cases would remain exceptional.”
Therefore, in theory, the test of “very special circumstances” for Green Belt development remains unchanged but the existence of Grey Belt and the priority given in policy may make it harder to make the case for development on non-Grey-Belt-Green-Belt (although the emphasis on sustainable locations in the sequential test may also benefit some non-Grey-Belt-Green-Belt locations).
Golden Rules and Viability for Green Belt development
The proposed “Golden Rules” for Green Belt development are set out in a new paragraph 155:
“a. In the case of schemes involving the provision of housing, at least 50% affordable housing [with an appropriate proportion being Social Rent], subject to
viability;
b. Necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure; and
c. The provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public. Where residential development is involved, the objective should be for new residents to be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of theirhome, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite spaces.
156. Regarding the provision of green space, development proposals should meet local standards where these exist in local plans, for example local planning policies on access to green space and / or urban greening factors. Where no locally specific standards exist, development proposals should meet national standards relevant to the development. These include Natural England standards on accessible green space and urban greening factor and Green Flag criteria.”
According to paragraph 155, these will apply “Where major development takes place on land which has been released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review, or on sites in the Green Belt permitted through development management”. This refers to major development. However, paragraph 152 in respect of Grey Belt appears to refer to all potential development on Grey Belt needing to meet these Golden Rules.
The Government considers that “Green Belt land can deliver more affordable housing, infrastructure and environmental contributions, as the value of the land in its existing use is generally low and the Green Belt designation reduces the hope value associated with the prospect of securing planning permission.” However, it does acknowledge that contributions that can be secured will vary because of varied house prices, abnormal costs, CIL rates or higher existing use values and therefore, they believe that “it is necessary to allow the limited use of viability assessments, where negotiation is genuinely needed for development to come forward, particularly in relation to affordable housing requirements. However, this cannot be an excuse to inflate landowner or developer profits at the expense of the public good”.
Additional guidance on viability considerations for development in the Green Belt is provided in Annex 4. This is headed “Viability in Relation to Green Belt release”. It proposes to set a specific benchmark land value.
It also provides that:
“- if land released from Green Belt is transacted above the benchmark land value and cannot deliver policy-compliant development, then planning permission should not be granted, subject to other material considerations;
– if policy compliant development can be delivered, viability assessment should not be undertaken, irrespective of the price at which land is transacted, and higher levels of affordable housing should not be sought on the grounds of viability;
-Where land is transacted below the benchmark land value but still cannot deliver policy- compliant development, it is up to the applicant to demonstrate whether particular circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage. The weight to be given to a viability assessment is a matter for the decision maker, having regard to all the circumstances in the case, including whether the plan and the viability evidence underpinning it is up to date, and any change in site circumstances since the plan was brought into force. Where a viability negotiation to reduce policy delivery has been undertaken, a late-stage review should be conducted to assess whether further contributions are required.”
The consultation notes that there is a spectrum of views of appropriate premia above existing use value ranging between 3 times EUV to 10-40 times EUV. The Government is “particularly interested in the impact of setting BLV at the lower end of this spectrum.”
The consultation then immediately goes on to mention the potential for the use of compulsory purchase powers where such land is not brought forward on a voluntary basis. In this case compensation would be assessed under the statutory no-scheme principle rules set out in Part 2 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 so that any increases or decreases in the value of land caused by the proposed scheme would be ruled out. The “hope value” for alternative development would reflect the “Golden Rules” set out above. However, the consultation also states that “Use of compulsory purchase powers may also include use of directions to secure ‘no hope value’ compensation where appropriate and justified in the public interest. A comprehensive justification for a no hope value direction (e.g., which includes a high proportion of vital affordable housing being delivered) will strengthen the argument that a direction is in the public interest. This would align with the Government’s aspiration for high levels of affordable housing to be delivered on these sites.”
Question 43 asks “Do you have a view on whether the golden rules should apply only to ‘new’ Green Belt release, which occurs following these changes to the NPPF? Are there other transitional arrangements we should consider, including, for example, draft plans at the regulation 19 stage?”. As drafted, it is not clear when the Golden Rules, or the provisions of Annex 4 will apply. At present, when land is released from the Green Belt through the plan making system, Green Belt policies no longer apply. However, the proposed provisions are drafted to apply to “land released from Green Belt” so it will be important to have clear transitional provisions.
The Government’s clear intention expressed through the consultation is that development on Green Belt land is to be held to a higher standard and cannot be permitted without delivering a public benefit in the form of affordable housing, mitigating its own infrastructure impacts, and not undermining the overall strategic function of the designation.
“Building homes on brownfield land will be turbocharged under a major shake-up to planning rules to boost housebuilding while protecting the Green Belt. “
For a concise summary of today’s DLUHC announcements and all the links, see my Town Legal colleague Susie Herbert’s post.
I have seen some understandable cynicism about the proposed changes – along the lines of “it’s motivated by the politics” (obviously in part yes); and/or “it’s in dribs and drabs, why couldn’t this have been done as part of the December 2023 NPPF changes?” (well yes, although maybe better late than never?); and/or ”none of it will make a difference” (I’ll declare an interest having assisted British Land and Land Sec in a small way last year with their report More Growth, More Homes, More Jobs: how to reform the planning system to unlock urban regeneration – but I would have said this anyway – I think the announced changes could well make a difference – and in fact there are plenty more within that report that are worthy of consideration!).
There is of course already existing policy encouragement (albeit rather general) in paragraph 124 (c) of the NPPF, which states that planning policies and decisions should “give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs.”
The Government proposes to strengthen that message with the following additional wording within paragraph 129 (c):
“local planning authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make efficient use of land, taking into account the policies in this Framework, especially where this involves land which is previously developed. In this context, when considering applications for housing, authorities should give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible and take a flexible approach in applying planning policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight and internal layouts of development, where they would otherwise inhibit making the most efficient use of a site (as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards).” [new passages underlined]
I do think this does move the dial further with those references to “delivering as many homes as possible” and (particularly in London) the “flexible approach in applying planning policies or guidance relating to … internal layouts of development”.
The dial will then move into full “tilted balance” paragraph 11 (d) territory for those boroughs in London and those other 19 towns and cities subject to the urban uplift, where their Housing Delivery Test results (to be published in May) indicate that their delivery of housing was below 95% of the housing requirement over the previous 3 years.
This strengthening of the tests is likely to make a difference (even during this consultation period): it will influence the way that planning committees are advised when they come to make decisions; it will focus a broader spread of authorities on the potential consequences of not meeting delivery targets (admittedly not fully within their control, but certainly partly), and it will certainly influence how inspectors and the Secretary of State approach appeals and call-ins.
In London there is also much good analysis in the excellent report prepared by Christopher Katkowski KC and his panel. From the executive summary:
“6 The consequences of housing under-delivery have significant economic, societal and personal impacts, not least on those who face no alternative option but homelessness (living in temporary accommodation), or who are forced into poor-quality rental accommodation.
7 Public and private sector stakeholders are clear in their view that the London Plan is not the sole source of the problem: wider macro-economic conditions; fire safety; infrastructure constraints; statutory consultees; viability difficulties; and planning resourcing pressures have all contributed.
8 However, there is persuasive evidence that the combined effect of the multiplicity of policies in the London Plan now works to frustrate rather than facilitate the delivery of new homes, not least in creating very real challenges to the viability of schemes. We heard that policy goals in the Plan are being incorrectly applied mechanistically as absolute requirements: as ‘musts’ rather than ‘shoulds’. There is so much to navigate and negotiate that wending one’s way through the application process is expensive and time-consuming, particularly for SMEs who deliver the majority of London’s homes.
9 This position is exacerbated by the change in context since the London Plan was formulated. The London Plan’s ‘Good Growth’ policies were advanced on the basis of public and private sector investment assumptions that were described in 2019 as being “ambitious but realistic” by the London Plan Inspectors. But planning and housing delivery indicators suggest this strategy has not been sufficiently resilient to the subsequent change in circumstances. Housing schemes (and decision makers on applications) have struggled to reconcile the multiple policy exhortations, which create uncertainty and delay in the preparation, submission and determination of planning applications.”
Many will also welcome the Secretary of State including within his consultation paper the question as to whether the threshold for referral of applications to the Mayor should be raised:
“As part of the large scale development theme, a threshold for large scale residential development was first set in the previous regulations in 2000 as development providing more than 500 houses, flats, or houses and flats or residential development on more than 10 hectares. In 2008, this threshold was reduced to 150 houses, flats or houses and flats.
Through engagement, the government is aware that in some instances this threshold is considered to be too low, requiring what may amount to duplicative interactions by developers with the relevant London Borough and with the Greater London Authority which is not always considered proportionate to the nature of the development in question.
The government wants to make sure that this threshold is set at the right level, in order that it adds value to the process of determining applications for potential strategic importance (especially for residential development), and does not inadvertently slow down or disincentivise developments that could be appropriately determined by the London Borough.”
In conclusion, will building homes on brownfield land be “turbocharged under a major shake-up to planning rules”? It’s more a ratcheting-up of policy than a “major shake-up to planning rules” (thankfully). And whilst I refuse to engage with that ridiculous, very Boris Johnson, word “turbocharged” and whilst this is a very late initiative for a Government that is fast running out of road, let’s hope there is at least some acceleration as a result.
When, as it will, this current terrible phase of the Covid-19 pandemic passes, what needs to be done to ensure that we catch up on efforts to provide housing and resume economic activity?
The main purpose of this blog post, into which a number of my partners at Town have contributed their thoughts (although all errors and omissions are mine), is to try to answer that question.
But first, what is presently being done to make sure that our system continues to operate, efficiently but fairly?
It is encouraging to see the great efforts being made by many local planning authorities to keep going with decision making, by way of innovative approaches to decision making and greater use of officers’ delegated powers, and the commitment of so many officers and members, continuing to work from home against a background of other domestic pressures and technological constraints. It will be excellent to see proactive moves by authorities to amend their constitutions, with necessary safeguards such as chief executive oversight, where there are specific rules against certain categories of application being dealt with other than by committee. Some of the options are set out in a piece by barrister Jonathan Easton, Local authority decision making in a time of crises, 19 March 2020. The Government has also confirmed that it “will consider bringing forward legislation to allow council committee meetings to be held virtually for a temporary period” (Robert Jenrick reaffirms support for councils in their coronavirus response, MHCLG press release, 16 March 2020); the Association of Democratic Services Officers and Lawyers in Local Government wrote jointly to the Secretary of State on 17 March 2020 setting out the full extent of changes that would be needed for local government decision making to function properly during this period of social distancing. The quicker the better please!
It is frustrating after the resounding success of the Rosewell reforms to see planning appeal inquiries, as well as informal hearings and local plan examinations, postponed as a result of the virus (see Coronavirus (COVID-19) – Planning Inspectorate guidance – updated 18 March 2020) – but of course the reason is plain. So far the postponements only relate to those scheduled up to 23 April but surely this will roll forward in due course. The Bar has made much of discussions with the Planning Inspectorate for greater use of video conferencing – which is the stock in trade for all of us at the moment – microsoft teams, zoom, you name it, we’re all on it! But keeping the professionals communicating with the inspector in a structured way is one thing – what about the “public” element of a public inquiry? [subsequent addition to blog post: see this subsequent excellent Landmark Chambers paper Fairness and public participation in video or telephone hearings for planning appeals during the COVID-19 crisis]. For all but the most controversial or complex appeals (so perhaps not those which have been recovered by the Secretary of State), should appellants be given the option of having their appeals determined by written representations, even if until now the appeal has been identified as appropriate for a hearing or inquiry?
The courts have also been quick to consider how to respond. An update from the Lord Chief Justice on 17 March 2020 spoke of the “urgent need to increase the use of telephone and video technology immediately to hold remote hearings where possible”, the “considerable flexibility” provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules and the courts’ “immediate aim is to maintain a service to the public, ensure as many hearings in all jurisdictions can proceed and continue to deal with all urgent matters”. Indeed, colleagues had an early taste of this on 19 March, with Deputy High Court Judge Alice Robinson handing down judgment from open court in a section 288 challenge (following a hearing earlier in the week), with the advocates and parties at the other end of the telephone. Clause 53 and Schedule 24 of the Coronavirus Bill (introduced into the House of Commons on 19 March 2020) proposes greater flexibility in relation to the use of live video and audio links, with appropriate protections, for a temporary period of two years (whoch period may be shortened or extended). I also recommend this excellent piece, Tim Buley QC shares his thoughts on the Public law courts during the coronavirus crisis, which pulls together much of what is currently being done, or contemplated.
Some ideas, looking ahead
Just a week or so ago seems like an age away. The Secretary of State set out a range of proposals for further reform of the planning system in his Planning for the future document (12 March 2020). He announced:
“In the Spring, we will publish a bold and ambitious Planning White Paper. It will propose measures to accelerate planning. It will maximise the potential of new technologies to modernise the system. It will make it easier for communities to understand the planning system and play a role in decisions that affect them. Together, the measures it puts forward will set out a pathway to a new English planning system which is fit for the future”.
That talk of a “new English planning system” seemed to herald some of the thinking from the Policy Exchange’s paper Rethinking the Planning System for the 21st Century (27 January 2020) and, after all, its co-author Jack Airey is now a 10 Downing Street advisor. I wrote a critique of the paper in the Estates Gazette (Let’s rethink the rethink, 5 March 2020) but perhaps I was being a little premature. Because maybe, once all this subsides, it is time to look at for instance:
⁃ the potential for more of a zoning-style approach, which could begin to be introduced fairly simply by placing a proper duty on authorities to prepare brownfield land registers (as well as making it mandatory for local authorities to import into their registers all sites identified by the Government in its promised national brownfield sites map) and then increasing the scope for use of the ‘permission in principle’ procedure e.g. by allowing it to be used for more than just housing-led development and allowing permission in principle to be established through site allocations in a local plan.
⁃ greater use, this time with better safeguards against abuse, of permitted development rights. After all, setting aside the problems caused by that lack of appropriate safeguards, since the permitted development right to convert offices to residential was initially introduced for a temporary three year period from May 2013 (following an initial announcement in the March 2011 budget), many thousands of new homes have been created at much greater speed than traditional planning application routes would have achieved. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Planning For The Future announces that the Government will introduce “new permitted development rights for building upwards on existing buildings by summer 2020, including to extend residential blocks by up to two storeys and to deliver new and bigger homes. We will also consult on the detail of a new permitted development right to allow vacant commercial buildings, industrial buildings and residential blocks to be demolished and replaced with well-designed new residential units which meet natural light standards.” Devil’s question: if we are to have permitted development rights to demolish and rebuild, why not go further and have permitted rights, with equivalent safeguards, to carry out residential development on already cleared brownfield land (as an alternative to the enhanced brownfield land register/permission in principle proposal above)?
Surely, all these ideas will need to be considered, against the backdrop of months of lost housing delivery and a severe knock to economic confidence.
But I would suggest that, ahead of that promised White Paper, which will surely now slip considerably, there are a number of shorter-term measures to make adjustments in order to make up for the time that has been lost as a result of this crisis. In considering these, I recognise the inevitable tension between on the one hand measures that seek to “put on hold” aspects of our system, particularly time limits, and on the other hand measures to keep the system moving.
We need to learn from recent history. In the wake of the global financial crisis, on 1 October 2009 the Government introduced a temporary measure “to make it easier for developers and local planning authorities to keep planning permissions alive for longer during the economic downturn so that they can more quickly be implemented when economic conditions improve.” Guidance as to the operation of the provisions was set out in Greater flexibility for planning permissions (23 November 2009, amended 1 October 2010 and eventually withdrawn 7 March 2014). (The same document gave guidance as to the operation of the helpful section 96A non-material amendments procedure, introduced at the same time.)
We urgently need an equivalent measure reintroduced or, perhaps more simply, an automatic six months’ extension to all planning permission time limit conditions. After all there is already a year’s automatic extension under section 91 (3A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 where a planning permission is subject to judicial review proceedings. The thinking should extend to other fixed deadlines, for instance in relation to the implementation of compulsory purchase orders and NSIPs.
There are various section 106 obligations which provide for ongoing financial contributions or measures with significant ongoing costs, not linked to progress with stages of development. The Government should surely provide firm guidance to authorities that they must readily agree to the renegotiation of such provisions to take into account the current standstill period if the evidence is, for any specific development, that this is necessary and justified.
In London, there is a particular issue with the early stage viability review mechanism required by the Mayor. The review is triggered if “substantial implementation” (usually development above ground floor level) has not happened within two years of planning permission being issued. Surely we should be avoiding the unnecessary bureaucracy inherent in that process where we can and for most major schemes the 24 months’ deadline is challenging even with a fully deployed design and construction team. Again, boroughs and the Mayor should surely be urged to agree to vary such arrangements so as to allow for an appropriate extension, whether it turns out to be three months, six months, or longer. Flexibility is also urgently needed with agreements that are currently being negotiated and we have been considering various potential drafting options so as to secure that outcome.
Publicity and consultation arrangements for planning applications need to be adapted to fit this world of social distancing and self-isolation: much of this can occur anyway through innovative use social media and other online consultation tools but there should be a temporary lifting of legislative requirements which will currently serve little purpose and may prove difficult to fulfil, such as the deposit of physical copies of Environmental Statements in the community (under Regulation 23 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017) and the erection of site notices under Article 15 of the Development Management Procedure Order.
Any such proposal would need underwriting from the Government but, as part of any planned economic bounce-back, should there be a year’s window within which schemes can commence free from CIL or with a significant deferment of payments (subject to clawback unless the chargeable development is completed within a specified number of years)? Should the three years period for the “in use” exemption be extended (surely the answer is yes)?
Given the disruption and in some cases the reduction in the capability of local authorities to determine planning applications and in light of the current postponement of hearings and inquiries by PINS there must also be a case for easing the burden on the current system and deferring costs for applicants and would-be appellants by introducing a temporary extension of the statutory period for determination of planning applications and the time limit for appealing against refusal or deemed refusal of planning permission under Articles 34 and 37 of the Development Management Procedure Order.
There will surely need to be adjustments to the operation of the housing delivery test so as not to unfairly penalise authorities facing, for no fault of their own, a slow down in housing starts.
Some have called for the Government to suspend litigation deadlines and limitation periods for the duration of the crisis. It is difficult to see how an across the board standstill would not cause substantial injustices, but should the usual judicial review and statutory challenge periods be extended in relation to decisions taken after a specified date, or perhaps for a temporary period to extend the deadline to three months?
Finally, taking into account the consequences of its social distancing measures, the Government has already announced on 17 March 2020 that permitted development rights will be extended for a period of 12 months to allow the temporary change of use of pubs, bars and restaurants to hot-food take aways; one can readily see that further temporary extensions of permitted development rights might be necessary – e.g. change of use of offices, industrial buildings or warehouses to use for the sale of food and other convenience goods and change of use of hotels and hostels to hospitals or healthcare centres. Planning law will need to be nimble.
It’s times like these we learn to live again.
Simon Ricketts, 21 March 2020
Personal views, et cetera
With thanks to my partners and colleagues at Town. If any of these ideas chime with other organisations’ thoughts, please speak to any of us.
“The government’s announcement of its intention to extend even further this permissive ‘shadow’ planning process appears to reflect its model for the future direction of the system; and this has real implications for people and for the nature of both planning and planners. This reflects the tension recorded in evidence presented to the Review as to whether planning is a form of land licensing, which implies one set of skills and outcomes, or the much more complex and creative practice of shaping places with people to achieve sustainable development. The former task is like painting by numbers; the latter is like painting the Sistine Chapel. The difference in outcomes for people is equally stark.”
I’m not sure that sort of language (describing traditional planning applications as equivalent to painting the Sistine Chapel, a spectacularly inapt comparison, or indeed TCPA interim chief executive Hugh Ellis’ language in the accompanying press release: “‘Permitted development is toxic and leads to a type of inequality not seen in the Britain for over a century.“) is helpful to the debate.
It seems to me that the two key issues which need to be addressed in relation to permitted development rights that enable additional residential development (whether by way of conversion or construction) are the need for some control at a national or local level over room sizes and the need to provide a proportion of affordable housing whether on site or by way of financial contribution. Aside from those obvious issues (not addressed in the latest consultation paper), what is wrong with the Government looking to streamline development management processes where appropriate? Surely the question is where is the appropriate dividing line. Surely deemed planning permission should be for types of development where, given the public benefit in seeking to encourage them, the local planning authority should not need to question the principle of what is proposed up to a defined scale at a particular location (with more general powers to restrict rights available by way of Article 4 Direction) and where wider issues do not arise that cannot be resolved within a 56 day period for prior approval of specified aspects which are, as far as possible, not open to differing subjective views? Don’t we need to define some sort of principle along these lines before then considering different common types of development?
“Allow greater change of use to support high streets to adapt and diversify”
The Government proposes that uses in classes A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional services), and A5 (hot food takeaways) (as well as uses as betting shops, pay day loan shops and laundrettes) should be allowed to change to “office use (B1)” (do they mean “office use” or do they mean B1 which also encompasses light industrial and R&D?). Hot food takeaways will be allowed to change to residential use (C1) as is already the case with the other uses referred to. There would be the requirement for prior approval, as with existing change of use permitted development rights.
Alongside this, the current “pop up” temporary permitted development rights to change the use from shops (A1) financial and professional services (A2), restaurants and cafes (A3), hot food takeaways (A5), offices (B1), non-residential institutions (D1), assembly and leisure uses (D2), betting shops and pay day loan shops to change to shops (A1) financial and professional services (A2), restaurants and cafes (A3) or offices (B1) will be extended from two years to three years. The temporary permitted development rights are proposed now to extend to changes to certain community uses, namely as a public library, exhibition hall, museum, clinic or health centre.
All of these proposals are put forward in the context of “supporting the high street” but no geographical limitation to the proposed changes is indicated that would prevent their application to any building in the relevant use, wherever it is located – shades of the original proposal in relation to the office to residential permitted development right, which was couched in terms of underused and empty office premises, when of course the right turned out not to have any such limitation. There is no indication of any floorspace cap. Might a department store, or supermarket, turn into an office? Nor indeed any cap on the proportion of any shopping area that might be converted to offices.
The document goes on to explore whether changes could also be made to the Use Classes Order, namely to:
⁃“simplify the A1 shops use class to remove the current named uses and allow for a broader definition of uses for the sale, display or service to visiting members of the public.”
⁃ consider whether there is “scope for a new use class that provides for a mix of uses within the A1, A2 and A3 uses beyond that which is considered to be ancillary, which would support the diversification of high street businesses. This would replace the existing A1, A2 and A3 and result in a single use class to cover shops, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes. This would mean that movement between these uses was no longer development and not a matter for the planning system to consider. It would bring greater flexibility but reduce the ability of communities and local planning authorities to distinguish between shops and restaurant uses“.
I agree that these parts of the Use Classes Order potentially need reform (within boundaries – is it really workable for there to be no distinction at all between A1 and A3?) but can’t this be as part of broader reform of the Order? The B, C and D classes all give rise to equivalent issues in that the old distinctions between uses have become increasingly difficult to apply.
“A new permitted development right to support housing delivery by extending buildings upwards to create additional homes”
This idea has been around since February 2016 without civil servants arriving at draft legislation, which is surely going to be the practical test.
The permitted development right would allow additional storeys to be built above buildings in a wide range of uses, including residential, retail and offices. The Government indicates:
“We want to explore whether there may also be other buildings whose use is compatible with the introduction of new homes. Given they are usually located in residential areas or high streets, would premises such as health centres and buildings used for community and leisure purposes be suitable for inclusion in the permitted development right? Out of town retail parks with a mix of shopping and leisure uses may also be suitable for upward extensions to provide additional homes.”
The consultation paper asks for “examples of how this permitted development right might be used in practice, and particularly of how the use of local design codes could help to encourage take up of the proposed right and improve the design quality and acceptability of upward extensions.”
It’s sounding complicated already. Then add the question of how far upwards the permitted development right could allow development to go. The consultation paper offers two alternatives, both of which could lead to significant factual disputes:
⁃ “A permitted development right could apply to the airspace above premises in a terrace of two or more joined properties where there is at least one higher building in the terrace. The roof of the premises extending upward would be no higher than the main roofline of the highest building in the existing terrace.”
⁃ “An alternative approach would be to permit upward extensions more widely to a height no higher than the prevailing roof height in the locality. While this may extend the proposed right to a greater number of properties, it would not be possible to define prevailing roofline in regulations. Therefore it would be a matter to be considered by the local authority as part of the prior approval. In doing so, the local authority would be able to define what it considered to be the prevailing roofline taking account of the local building types and heights and the extent of the area over which it should be determined.”
To add to the complications:
“Where premises are not on level ground the impact of adding additional storeys can be significantly greater on the amenity of neighbouring premises, for example from overlooking and overshadowing and on the character of the area. We would welcome views on how best to take account of the topography of specific areas.”
The consultation paper proposes that there should be a maximum limit of five storeys from ground level for a building once extended (so the extension could be up to four storeys!). But there would be an even broader permitted development right for purpose built, free standing blocks of flats of over five storeys. “The government would also like a permitted development right to apply to such buildings, and is interested in views, including whether there should be a limit on the number of additional storeys that could be added, for example 5”
The permitted development right would allow for the physical works required to construct or install additional storeys on a building. It could also, for instance, allow for “works within the curtilage where it is necessary for access to the additional new homes“.
The prior approval requirements would include appearance, ie “considering whether the proposed development is of good design, adds to the overall quality of the area over its lifetime, is visually attractive as a result of good architecture, responds to the local character and history of the area and maintains a strong sense of place, as set out in paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework. We expect prior approval on design to be granted where the design is in keeping with the existing design of the building.
Prior approval would also consider the impact of the development on the amenity of neighbouring premises, for example, from obscuring existing windows, reducing access to light or resulting in unacceptable impact on neighbours’ privacy from overlooking. It would also consider measures to mitigate these impacts, and enable the neighbours, including owners and occupiers of premises impacted, to comment on the proposal.”
This is asking a lot of the 56 day prior approval process – sounds like a job for a traditional planning application to me.
Finally, yet another extension of the previous proposals: “We are seeking views on whether the proposed right to build upwards to create new homes should additionally allow householders to extend their own homes.”
This all sounds like it’s on a collision course with what the Government has set in train with the establishment of the ‘Building Better, Building Beautiful‘ Commission.
“The permitted development right to install public call boxes and associated advertisement consent”
I may come back in a later blog post to the Government’s proposal to remove permitted development rights for the installation of public call boxes. Since earlier blog posts on the subject, I’m now off-side from commenting in detail due to acting for an electronic communications code operator, but I would briefly note that the need for additional apparatus is about enabling electronic communications both present (3G, 4G and wifi) and future (5G) rather than just being about the old phone box concept and in that respect the terminology in Part 16 and the references in the Control of Advertisements Regulations probably do need updating without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
“Supporting housing delivery by allowing for the demolition of commercial buildings and redevelopment as residential”
Well this proposal dates back to October 2015! As with the upwards extensions proposal, is it simply too difficult to draft in legislative form? The wording in the consultation paper is certainly tentative:
⁃ “It may be that a right focused on smaller sites may be more practical...
⁃ Despite the Government having set its face against affordable housing requirements in relation to the office to residential permitted development right, with this right it is said that the Government “would be interested in views on how developer contributions expected towards affordable housing and other infrastructure could be secured.”
⁃ “We would welcome views as to the design of a right which could operate effectively to bring sites forward for redevelopment. The responses to these questions will inform further thinking and a more detailed consultation would follow.”
To be provocative, if additional storeys of residential development are to have deemed permission, and if new residential developments are to have deemed permission if they replace commercial buildings, what is the logic for not granting deemed permission for residential development on brownfield land more generally – what is inherently more complex or controversial arising from that than from the development that could come forward under these new rights? Why the prior complications with brownfield land, but not with these other rights, of land having to be placed by a local planning authority on a register before there is permission in principle?
The deadline for consultation responses is 14 January 2019.
I last blogged about the new brownfield land regime back in April 2017. Back then, the deadline of 31 December 2017 had been set for local planning authorities to publish their first registers. We were also waiting for the final set of regulations that would set out the procedure by which, if your land is listed in part 1 of the register, you can apply for “permission in principle” (if your land is in part 2 of the register it is automatic).
This blog post takes a quick look at some of the registers that have been published to see the approaches that authorities are taking – after all, whilst authorities had the 31 December deadline for publishing their registers, there was no minimum number of sites to be included, whether on part 1 or part 2 and no procedure for appeal or independent scrutiny if a land owner considers that their land has been wrongly overlooked.
In the longer term, I hope that something will be done about authorities that only pay lip service to the process, although it is difficult to see what, without a more prescriptive system, or other sticks and carrots being applied. DCLG’s planning update newsletter published on 21 December 2017 stated: “DCLG will assess progress in January, and it will be important that published registers contain up-to- date information on brownfield land suitable for housing.
In July we published planning guidance, a data standard, and a template , to support local planning authorities in preparing and publishing their registers, and to ensure registers are published in a consistent and open format which can be aggregated by users of the data.”
From a quick google, it seems to me that authorities have met the deadline. However:
– the sites included do not appear to go beyond sites which were already in play by virtue of either having permission, an allocation or having featured in the authority’s strategic housing land availability assessment
– sites have not yet been included in part 2
– whilst the government’s data standard and template have been followed, the supporting information is pretty sparse.
These are three authorities that I chose to look at, by way of a random selection:
Elmbridge Borough Council’s register only contains sites that already have planning permission.
Milton Keynes Council has decided not to include any sites on part 2 of its register. Its part 1 sites all come from its SHLAA as well as unimplemented planning permissions.
The notes to Islington Council’s register set out uncertainties as to the required methodology: “The Regulations and PPG are not clear about whether the 5 dwelling threshold for inclusion on the BLR refers to net or gross dwellings. Regulation 4 of the Regulations merely requires sites to be included if they have an area of at least 0.25 hectares or is capable of supporting at least 5 dwellings. This suggests the threshold is a gross figure.
However, Schedule 2 of the Regulations requires sites on the BLR to set out the minimum net number of dwellings which, in the authority’s opinion, the land is capable of supporting.
This is an important distinction as there are several sites – all extant permissions – which are less than 0.25 hectares, and permit 5 or more dwellings gross but less than 5 dwellings net. Hence the decision to enter these sites onto the BLR hinges on whether we assume the 5 dwelling threshold is net or gross.
Islington have assumed that the Regulations refer to the gross figure in terms of assessing capability under Regulation 4, although a site’s net figure is used for the ‘MinNetDwellings’ column. The council will monitor changes to guidance and other boroughs BLRs for best practice, and may revert to a net figure in future in terms of assessing sites against the Regulations.”
Islington identifies all of the sites on its register as in unknown ownership:
“The BLR identifies all sites as unknown ownership, which reflects the lack of access to up-to-date Land Registry records for these sites. Islington will aim to secure ownership data for sites on future iterations of the BLR.”
These approaches are not untypical and it is underwhelming. DCLG will need to turn the thumbscrews in time for the first annual update of the registers if this process is going to do anything other than round up the usual suspect sites.
The formatting does at least allow for some useful data gathering, such as this map of London brownfield sites.
Barton Willmore have carried out some interesting analysis as to the numbers of homes identified by the Manchester authorities in their register.
Of course one of the benefits of finding your land within part 1 of the register is the idea that you will be able to apply for “permission in principle” as a supposedly quick route to planning approval. However this is only relevant if the site is very small, given that the cap is nine dwellings – and given that the minimum size for inclusion on the register is five dwellings this is all pretty niche. Be that as it may, the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017 was laid before Parliament on 21 December 2017 and will come into force on 1 June 2018. The order sets out the procedure for applying for PiPs. Lichfields’ 2 January 2018 blog post Take a chance on me: what we know about permission in principle on application is a good summary, also covering the fee rates for applications.
On reading my April 2017 blog post again, I was surprisingly optimistic about the brownfield land registers. Nine months on, I suppose at least we now have the initial registers in place but surely now we need to see:
– greater engagement between land owners and LPAs so as to begin to use the process to unlock sites which are not already in play.
– consultation in relation to moving appropriate sites onto part 2 so that they secure automatic permission in principle (and without the nine units cap there is in relation to part 1, although they must be below the threshold for EIA).
– a real incentive for development of sites on the register, including supportive policies in the forthcoming revised NPPF.
Simon Ricketts, 5 January 2018
Personal views, et cetera
“We changed again, and yet again, and it was now too late and too far to go back, and I went on“. (Charles Dickens, Great Expectations)
Permissions in principle will change our planning system significantly, mark my words. In my 11.6.16 blog post I posed a series of questions arising from the legislative skeleton that is sections 150 and 151 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
Victorian part-work style, we now have had the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Permission in Principle etc) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) Regulations 2017 (made 6 March 2017, in force 27 March 2017), the Town and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017 (made 20 March 2017, in force 16 April 2017) and the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (made 20 March 2017, 15 April 2017). The statutory instruments don’t yet give effect to all of what sections 150 and 151 enable, but we now have some answers.
This blog post is not a full summary of how the regime will operate. There are various good summaries but I particularly recommend the Lichfields 27 March 2017 ‘essential guide‘.
A few headlines from the new regime:
1. Local planning authorities will be under a statutory duty to publish their brownfield land registers by 31 December 2017 and then maintain them, reviewing the entries at least annually.
2. The registers will be in two parts:
– Part 1: previously developed land with an area of at least 0.25 hectares that is suitable and available for residential development and where residential development is achievable (all defined terms)
– Part 2: land in Part 1 where the local planning authority has exercised its discretion to enter the land in Part 2 and has decided to allocate the land for residential development having followed defined publicity, notification and consultation procedures.
3. The information that must be recorded for each entry is specified and includes
– “the minimum and maximum net number of dwellings, given as a range, which in the authority’s opinion, the land is capable of supporting”
– “where the development includes non-housing development, the scale of any such development and the use to which it is to be put“.
4. Part 2 will not include sites where the development would require environmental impact assessment. So, if the proposed development falls within Schedule 2 column 1 of the 2011 EIA regulations (for most purposes, more than 150 dwellings or on more than 5 hectares), a negative screening opinion or direction must first be obtained (but remember, indicative screening thresholds as to when significant environmental effects are likely to arise allow for the possibility of projects much larger than 150 dwellings).
5. There are no statutory rights of appeal if the local planning authority refuses to include land on the register (ECHR article 6 compliant?). Judicial review would, as always with any decision of a public body, be available but the decision to include land on Part 2 is at the local planning authority’s discretion so that would not be easy.
6. Once land is on Part 2 it has automatic “permission in principle” for five years. In order to be able to carry out the development, application for technical details consent is required, particularising “all matters necessary to enable planning permission to be granted”. The statutory determination period for technical details consent is ten weeks for major development and otherwise five weeks, so deliberately shorter than the equivalent periods in relation to “traditional” non-EIA planning applications (thirteen and eight weeks respectively). A section 106 agreement may be required if the usual tests are met.
7. There is no defined limit on the extent of non-housing development that can benefit from the procedure, alongside residential development.
8. The procedure applies to conversion and extension of existing buildings as well as development.
For a wider overview of where this mechanism is heading, there are also useful references in DCLG Planning Update Newsletter March 2017, from which it is clear that further regulations will follow to (1) allow applications for permission in principle to be made for minor development (ie basically less than ten homes) for sites on part 1 of a brownfield land register and to (2) allow automatic permission in principle to stem from allocation in defined categories of statutory development plans rather than just from designation on a brownfield land register. Guidance is also in the offing (dovetailed with the revised NPPF? We can but hope).
We also await the Government’s response to its February 2016 technical consultation on implementation of planning changes chapter 2 (permission in principle) and chapter 3 (brownfield register). It was originally promised to be published alongside the regulations. In the meantime, a number of passages in the consultation document are useful in putting flesh on the bones:
“The result of a grant of permission in principle is that the acceptability of the ‘prescribed particulars’ cannot be re-opened when an application for technical details consent is considered by the local planning authority. Local planning authorities will not have the opportunity to impose any conditions when they grant permission in principle. It will therefore be important for the development granted in principle to be described in sufficient detail, to ensure that the parameters within which subsequent application for technical details consent must come forward is absolutely clear.”
“We expect that the parameters of the technical details that need to be agreed, such as essential infrastructure provision, will have been described at the permission in principle stage and will vary from site to site”
“We are proposing that local planning authorities should use existing evidence within an up to date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment as the starting point for identifying suitable sites for local brownfield registers. To support this, we will encourage authorities to consider whether their Assessments are up to date and, if not, to undertake prompt reviews.
While sites contained within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment are a useful starting point, we will encourage local authorities to ensure they have considered any other relevant sources if these are not included in their Assessments. This could include sites with extant planning permission and sites known to the authority that have not previously been considered (for example public sector land).
We will also expect authorities to use the existing call for sites process to ask members of the public and other interested parties to volunteer potentially suitable sites for inclusion in theirregisters. We propose that this would be a short targeted exercise aimed at as wide an audience as is practicable. That will enable windfall sites to be put forward by developers and others for consideration by the authority.
Authorities that have recently undertaken a full Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment may not consider this to be necessary when initially compiling a register. However, in areas without up to date evidence and for all authorities completing subsequent annual reviews of their register, the process of volunteering potentially suitable sites will play an important role in refreshing the evidence base and help ensure all suitable sites, including windfall sites, are included.”
“We intend to introduce measures that will apply where additional action is needed to ensure that sufficient progress is being made. These measures could include a policy based incentive which would mean that local planning authorities that had failed to make sufficient progress against the brownfield objective would be unable to claim the existence of an up-to-date five year housing land supply when considering applications for brownfield development, and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply.
“We propose that the measures we adopt would take effect fully from 2020, and would apply to any local planning authority that had not met the 90% commitment by that date. However, in light of the need for local planning authorities to make continuous progress towards the 90% commitment, we are also interested in views on any intermediate objectives and actions that might apply. “
Be in no doubt, eventually we will have a mechanism that:
– imposes hard statutory deadlines on authorities to publish and regularly update their registers
– whilst light on statutory recourses for developers whose land is not included, will be focused on by Government – woe betide authorities that do not play ball
– will in many cases provide a quicker route to development than the familiar allocation, outline permission, reserved matters approach
– will be potentially relevant for establishing the development credentials of a site even if in due course a traditional planning application is intended
If you have residential development or conversion in mind, the first step is to seek to ensure that your property is on Part 1 of the first round of brownfield land registers, to be published by 31 December 2017. Within the 73 authority pilot areas this process is well underway. Although care is needed to secure reference to an appropriate scale of development, that’s a pretty immediate way to secure acceptance that your site is suitable for residential development!
After so long we have reached the top of the mountain: the white paper and accompanying documents have all been published today, 7 February 2017. However, now we see a series of further peaks on the horizon.
A good way into the white paper itself, Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, is to start at the back end. From page 72 you have the detailed proposals listed, including a series of proposed changes to the NPPF and other policies which are now the subject of a consultation process from today until 2 May 2017. The consultation focuses on a series of 38 questions but some of the questions are potentially very wide-ranging. Further consultation is proposed on various matters, including
– housing requirements of older people and the disabled
– Increasing local authorities’ flexibility to dispose of land at less than best consideration and related powers
– Potentially increasing fees for planning appeals (up to a maximum of £2,000 for the largest schemes, recoverable if the appeal is allowed)
– Changes to section 106 processes (with further consideration being given to dispute resolution “in the context of longer term reform”)
– Requiring housebuilders to provide aggregate information on build-out rates and, for large-scale sites, as to the relevance of the applicant’s track record of delivering similar schemes
– Encouragement of use of CPO powers to support the build out of stalled sites.
– an understandable focus on whether the applicant will proceed to build out any permission and at what rate, although with a worrying reduction of the default time limit for permissions from three to two years
– Homes and Communities Agency to become “Homes England”.
It is also reassuring to see the Government applying real focus to build to rent, reducing its emphasis on starter homes – and also reducing its reliance on permitted development rights.
However, it is surprising how much still remains unresolved. We will apparently have a revised NPPF “later this year” but for much else the start date looks to be April 2018, for example a widened affordable housing definition including watered-down starter homes proposals (no longer a statutory requirement and with reference to a policy target of a minimum of 10% “affordable housing ownership units” rather than the requirement of 20% starter homes previously proposed) and a new methodology for assessing five year housing land supply.
Liz Peace’s CIL review team’s review of CIL: “A new approach to developer contributions” (October 2016 but only now published) remains untackled. The Government’s response will be announced at the time of the Autumn Budget 2017.
Decision-makers will need to grapple very quickly with the question as to the weight they should give to the white paper as a material consideration, given the Government’s clear policy direction now on a range of issues.
Despite its 217 sections and 20 schedules, the Housing and Planning Act 2016 is in places the merest of sketches – nowhere more so than the illusive idea of “permission in principle” in sections 150 and 151. Here are just some of the things we don’t know:
1. What does “housing-led development” mean?
2. What types of land will be able to be included in the new register envisaged, promised by the Act’s explanatory notes to be a register of brownfield land suitable for housing, but without any such constraint in the Act itself?
3. What procedures will govern the process for selecting land for the register, allowing both proponents and opponents a fair hearing? The Act simply refers to “consultation and other procedures”. In which ways will the procedure be any speedier than any development plan process whilst complying with the European Convention on Human Rights and SEA Directive?
4. Categories of land on the register, or designated in other plans, will have automatic permission in principle for development by way of a general development order but what will be the categories and in relation to what categories of land will specific applications for permission in principle be needed? The explanatory notes suggesting that applications will be limited to minor development (ie fewer than ten dwellings) but presumably the general development order will allow for much larger development to have automatic permission in principle (with EIA, where necessary, being carried out at some undetermined stage in the process?)?
5. How detailed will be the development parameters set out in the permission in principle, given that LPAs will only be to take into account limited criteria in determining subsequent applications for technical details consent? The explanatory notes suggest that “the parameters that can be granted permission in principle are limited to location, the uses (which must be housing-led) and the amount of development”. Will that be enough to give developers something bankable in terms of predictable value/cost? The explanatory notes suggest that permission in principle cannot be subject to conditions, so how will the parameters be documented in a way which sufficiently precise?
6. In practice, will LPAs require land owners and developers to make all the running as at present, justifying that development would be acceptable with necessary supporting information and technical work, or will land owners be able to sit back, let the LPA take the local flak and wait for permission in principle to pop out of the sausage machine in place of getting a developer on board to secure planning permission? Will land owners accordingly retain more land value gain?
7. Are matters that go directly to value and viability, such as social and physical infrastructure requirements and affordable housing numbers and tenure, to be determined at permission in principle stage or technical details approval stage? The explanatory notes simply suggest that “the Secretary of State may also specify in the regulations, certain types of information for inclusion into the register alongside the entries …. For example, the site reference, address, size, an estimate of the maximum number of dwellings that the site would be likely to support, and its planning status.”
More generally, is there an Act with such blatant Henry VIII clauses, ie Parliament passing an Act with its fingers crossed behind its back so that it can amend the provisions in the statute without primary legislation? Section 2(10) takes the biscuit (“Regulations under this section may amend this chapter”), giving future Governments carte blanche to mutate the Act’s starter homes provisions in whichever way they choose. (Read “Why Henry VIII clauses should be consigned to the dustbin of history” by Richard Gordon).
SIMONICITY 
