LGA submission to MHCLG’s Planning Reform Working Paper – Brownfield Passport: Making the most of urban land

The LGA welcomes the opportunity to respond to this Planning Reform Working Paper on Brownfield Passports and to help shape emerging Government policy related to planning. 

We propose that if the Government is minded to introduce Brownfield Passports through the proposals as set out in this Planning Working Paper, it should do so through a funded test and learn pilot with a small number of volunteer local authorities to understand any potential challenges and / or opportunities to improve both the existing and proposed mechanisms to bring forward brownfield development.

National policy is clear that development on brownfield land should be supported, re-used and maximised. The LGA agreed with the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in September 2024 which would make clear that the principle of development on brownfield land should be viewed positively. The Government has since revised the NPPF in December 2024 to state that brownfield proposals “should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused”. These changes place considerable weight on the value of redeveloping brownfield, and whilst we do not disagree with this principle, we urge the Government to acknowledge that land being previously developed does not necessarily equate it to being in a suitable location for housing and national planning policy should be suitably flexible to allow local authorities to be able to exercise discretion about site suitability.

To illustrate, numerous new homes have been delivered (through permitted development rights) at business centres and on industrial estates across the country resulting in poor quality homes, with lack of access to green spaces and amenities, which negatively impact residents health and wellbeing. The Government should urgently revoke permitted development rights which allow change of use to residential. We do support the re-use of vacant or under-used buildings for new homes where they are suitably located, built to a high-quality, and in accordance with local planning policies.

However, this must be done through the planning application process, as homes created through permitted development rights are too often lower quality, poorly sited and poorly designed, as highlighted by the Government’s own research. Without the need for full planning permission, there is no mechanism for local authorities to enforce affordable housing or infrastructure contributions from developers, and we estimate that nearly 24,000 affordable homes have been lost as a result of office-to-residential conversions since 2015.

Further challenges to bringing forward brownfield land for new development, combined with challenges relating to how the land is currently used may also mean that redevelopment is not the optimal use of the land. These challenges are well-known and include complexity of land ownership and assembly, remediation of land to make it habitable/suitable for re-use and the subsequent cost and viability of delivering schemes, access to the site, parking and highways, capacity levels of local infrastructure, and potential increases to flood risk for both the site and surrounding areas. Abandoned or brownfield land can also be a haven for many species, and whilst this is positive for our natural environment, when brownfield land is sought to be re-used, the cost of implementing the recently introduced Biodiversity Net Gain tool (which aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was beforehand by requiring a minimum of 10 per cent gain in biodiversity) can be considerable and threaten the deliverability of a scheme.

In 2022, the Planning Advisory Service alongside the University of West of England researched the role that local planning authorities can play in delivering housing-led development on brownfield land. Each case study demonstrates how councils can successfully facilitate the bringing forward of land, work proactively with stakeholders, overcome obstacles and contribute to the delivery of positive outcomes from housing-led developments on brownfield sites. The challenges in each of the case studies vary greatly but the overall picture is one that cannot be understated – brownfield land development can be complex, lengthy and expensive.

It will be important for the Government to bring forward further opportunities to utilise compulsory purchase powers (CPOs) to facilitate land assembly and expedite the delivery of approved regeneration schemes, as well as providing the necessary resources to facilitate a higher pace and volume of CPOs. Scale and form of development

We do not believe that national planning policy should prescribe minimum expectations for certain types of locations and particular scales of development. Decisions on these parameters are best made by local authorities and their communities who know their areas best and can set out, through their local planning policies, appropriate levels of scaling and massing of development in certain locations.

The LGA supports the use of design guides and codes to help steer the appearance of development in a local area, and further empower communities to have input into the design and shape the area in which they live. Delivering these at the local or site-level to give greater confidence and assurance to both developers and communities on what type, form and scale of development deemed acceptable is sensible in principle, however we have concerns over the capacity and resourcing of local planning authorities and the need to upskill staff to deliver these guidance documents to scale.

Local planning authorities are experiencing severe resourcing and capacity constraints – with 25 per cent of planners leaving the public sector between 2013 and 2020. The Government’s first survey of local authority planning departments contains shocking figures illustrating these concerns, with nine out of 10 planning departments reporting some difficulty with recruitment (91 per cent) and seven in 10 (72 per cent) reporting some difficulty with retaining staff. Almost all (97 per cent) planning departments reported some planning skills gaps, with the most commonly reported gaps in ecology and biodiversity (72 per cent) and master-planning and design codes (63 per cent), with over half reporting gaps in urban design and architecture (54 per cent).

We welcome the Government’s capacity-building programmes including the funding of the LGA’s Pathways to Planning to bring graduates and those with distinct skills into council planning departments, but this need to be expanded further if we are to address the specific challenges councils face. The LGA, with the support of MHCLG funding, launched a skills hubs programme targeted at areas with occupational skill shortages which for 2024/2025 includes town planning. The hubs will create the national business case for solutions to address the capacity challenge and disseminate learning and practice.

Local Development Orders (LDOs) provide permitted development rights for specified types of development in defined locations. They are flexible and locally determined tools that councils can use to help accelerate the delivery of appropriate development in the right places. LDOs can help enable growth by positively and proactively shaping sustainable development in their area. They can play an important role in incentivising development by simplifying the planning process and making investment more attractive.

The Planning Advisory Service has created guidance for councils seeking to prepare an LDO, though they caution that it can be a resource-intensive process and navigating the legislative requirements can be challenging. We therefore urge Government to consider that LDOs, whilst an existing and positive planning intervention to help bring forward certain types of development in certain locations, can be difficult to implement at a local level and in particular during these times of significant resourcing challenges in councils. Further guidance and support, as well as sharing of best practice and a programme of upskilling local planning authorities would all support greater use of existing LDO powers.

What is truly needed to enable the regeneration and re-use of brownfield land is a resurgence of a holistic and non-competitive funding pot from Government, open to local authorities and developers of all sizes, to address the real blockers of brownfield development including land assembly complexities, remediating and securing the safe use of land for habitation and dealing with ensuing viability concerns.

We welcome the positive impact that the Brownfield Land Release Fund has had in bringing forward council-owned brownfield sites and greatly support the work of the One Public Estate Programme. In October 2024 the Government announced £68 million of Brownfield Land Release Funding (BLRF) will go directly to 54 councils who will be able to use the money to turn surplus land into new homes. The funding will mean councils can clear empty buildings, former car parks and industrial land to make way for the homes. BLRF funding means councils will be able to cover the cost of decontamination, clearing disused buildings or improving infrastructure such as internet, water and power. As a result, land will be released to enable 5,200 homes to be built across the country.

Given our concerns as outlined above, we propose that if the Government is minded to introduce Brownfield Passports through the proposals as set out in this Planning Working Paper, it should do so through a funded test and learn pilot with a small number of volunteer local authorities to understand any potential challenges and / or opportunities to improve both the existing and proposed mechanisms to bring forward brownfield development. We look forward to working with this Government to help shape and improve the planning system.