At 9.30 am last Sunday out popped an MHCLG policy paper Brownfield Passport: Making the Most of Urban Land and an accompanying press statement New ‘brownfield passports’ to seize the growth opportunities of urban areas (22 September 2024).
The timing was interesting:
- 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.
- Messily, two days before the close of the consultation into the government’s Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system. After all, paragraph 1 of chapter 5 (and question 20) of that consultation paper alludes to brownfield passports without giving any information at that stage as to what they would entail:
“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.”
Let’s not lose sight of that as the objective!
Simon Ricketts, 28 September 2024
Personal views, et cetera
SIMONICITY 