Brownfield Passports: Getting to Yes for urban development
On 22 September, the Government released a Planning Reform Working Paper on so-called “Brownfield Passports” (see here). The idea is that in urban areas / brownfield sites, the default position should be to allow certain “acceptable” types of development to come forward. The paper suggests a number of methods as to how a “brownfield passport” could be used to ensure the answer to whether development should be permitted on brownfield sites is “yes”, thereby reducing delays which can be caused by the existing planning system.
In summary, the proposals are as follows:
- Principle of development: The Working Paper considers whether national policy could be strengthened such that development on brownfield land is acceptable unless specified exclusions (e.g. flood risk) apply.
- Densification: The Working Paper identifies that compared to other European cities, cities in the UK have been developed at low densities. It suggests that national policy could specify expectations for types of development for specific locations – such as a minimum of 4 storey buildings fronting principal streets / specific density ranges. Alternatively, expectations could be set through local plans.
- Design Codes: The Working Paper suggests that design guides and codes could be used to provide clarity on the types of development viewed as acceptable for a given area. Such codes could be deployed at national or local level and allow for faster decision making.
- Area-wide permissions: Local Development Orders (LDOs) could be used to a greater extent than currently. LDOs are not new: local authorities already have the power to grant LDOs which authorise specific types of development within the area specified by the order, without the need for a developer to apply for planning permission.
The Working Paper then welcomes views on the various proposals.
Developers will likely welcome the Government’s attempts to reduce the delays caused by the current planning system. However, the effectiveness of some of the proposals above may be hampered by local authorities’ appetite for development and resourcing. In addition, the costs of brownfield development can affect the viability of schemes, and local authorities may need to be flexible on section 106 obligations including on affordable housing. While the Government is looking for a “straightforward ‘yes’” to urban development, achieving that through planning reform may prove far more complicated than it might wish.
the government wants to consider whether there are opportunities to go further still in terms of providing faster and more certain routes to permission for urban brownfield land, and in particular whether we could introduce a ‘brownfield passport’ to ensure that the default answer to brownfield development is “yes”
