No – we do not agree with the proposed change to national planning policy.
We do not disagree with the Government’s underlying intention behind the narrative of the proposed changes to national policy, to optimise the number of homes brought forward in sustainable locations, however we do not believe the proposed change to paragraph 129 will achieve this.
Previously developed land (PDL) can and does provide sustainable and accessible opportunities to develop new homes as well as other key uses such as commercial space, local infrastructure such as schools and leisure facilities and new open spaces for the public. There must however always be careful consideration, and a balance, of the mix of uses on site, particularly dependent on the location of the PDL and the specific constraints and characteristics of the site.
The proposed changes to national planning policy would result in local planning authorities giving significant weight in all decisions to the number of homes delivered on PDL sites over and above the other potential uses of the site, and any key place-making ambitions and plans of the council. We must ensure that we bring forward places and communities, not just homes, to deliver on the housing crisis. It is not a numbers game alone.
What is truly needed to enable the regeneration and re-use of PDL 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, but this is still a competitive and limited funding pot.
The LGA is calling for, as part of our six-point plan for housing, the roll-out five-year local housing deals to all areas of the country that want them by 2025 – combining funding from multiple national housing programmes into a single pot. This will provide the funding, flexibility, certainty and confidence to stimulate housing supply, and will remove national restrictions which stymie innovation and delivery. This too could help unlock complex brownfield sites.
It is remiss for Government to conclude that the planning system is the barrier to developing on brownfield sites; a sentiment made clear through the proposals and statements in this consultation. Local authorities grant nine in 10 planning applications. The planning system and local authorities, with democratically elected members making decisions for their communities and Local Plans in place to deliver on local priorities, act as stewards of their localities – ensuring that any brownfield development that comes forward is high quality and thoroughly considered.
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.
We do not believe that the proposed changes to paragraph 129 will have a significant difference on the number of homes brought forward on brownfield land, as councils must already seek to optimise housing on all developments and many urban councils across the country have been maximising their brownfield sites for decades. What is more likely to happen with this proposed change is that other uses on site or infrastructure will be squeezed or minimised in order to achieve a higher density of homes, resulting in a poorer quality development.
We urge the Government to give clarity to councils on how this proposal, to give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible, coincides with the Statement made by the Secretary of State to Government in December 2023 which states that “It is important that the character of an existing area is respected by new development, particularly in the historic suburbs of our great towns and cities. The new NPPF therefore recognises that there may be situations where significant uplifts in residential densities would be inappropriate as they would be wholly out of character with the existing area, and that this may in turn affect how much development can be planned for in the area concerned. This will apply where there is a design code which is adopted or will be adopted as part of the local plan”.
Finally, if the Government does make the changes proposed to paragraph 129, we would caution against and urge clarity over the specific wording of the policy, including the word “especially”. The word “especially” in the phrase “especially where this involves land which is previously developed” leaves a degree of uncertainty and it should be made clear whether the proposals relate only to PDL or to all developments but with a less significant weight.