The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Governments (MHCLG) consultation on the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) has now closed (the ‘consultation’). Time will tell whether the proposed changes have been well received and what the responses are. In the meantime, we review some of the proposals relating to brownfield passports and the new grey belt designation in more detail.
Brownfield Passports
As many will know, ‘Brownfield Land’ includes land which has previously been developed or has previously been occupied by a permanent structure. The consultation makes clear development over brownfield land should be prioritised and proposes to amend the NPPF to ensure such proposals are regarded as acceptable in principle and given a default yes.
The term brownfield passport is mentioned both within the consultation and by the Prime Minister Keir Starmer during his recent speech at the 2024 Labour Party Conference. On the 22nd of September 2024, MHCLG released a policy paper entitled “Brownfield Passport: Making the Most of Urban Land” (the ‘paper’). The paper seeks views on how the government could support development of brownfield sites in urban areas. The focus of the paper is on sustainable development, growth and affordability. If introduced, the brownfield passport would put in place a set of parameters which, if met, would form acceptable markers of suitability which would lead to approval being the default position for brownfield development although not an automatic grant.
The government’s proposals include policy changes both locally and nationally to the principle, scale and form of development. The goal, to provide more clarity for developers looking to develop on brownfield sites.
- Principle of development: the paper takes the recent NPPF consultation further looking to make it explicit that development of brownfield land which sits within urban settlements, will be regarded as acceptable unless specified exclusions apply. There is no doubt local authority approval and decision making will still be needed and it is not an automatic grant, but it is hoped that the changes would carry substantial decision-making weight and smooth the way for brownfield development.
- Scale: the paper notes population density in England is relatively low compared to towns and cities in continental Europe. The paper identifies scope to increase density in areas where appropriate taking into account the character of an area but, that in itself, should not be used as a blocker for sensible proposals which make the most of an areas potential. The changes proposed include setting minimum expectations for example relating to development height and accessibility for certain types of location. The alternative to national parameters being set would be for these to be set at a local level.
- Form: there are proposals to use local design guides and codes to provide more clarity on the types of development which may be acceptable in certain locations. As with the principle in favour of development of brownfield land it would not provide automatic consent, but it would reduce ambiguity and provide a framework for future planning proposals.
- Area-wide permissions: the final proposal considers combining criteria on scale and the form of development with Local Development Orders to provide wider upfront consent to developments which meet certain criteria. One key concern is whether area-wide permissions may take away from local decision making and the paper looks to address this by confirming any Local Development Orders could be prepared alongside local community engagement.
The paper seeks views on the proposals and sets out clearly MHCLG’s agenda to free up brownfield development by making the planning process simpler and easier to navigate. SMEs in particular have struggled in recent times and the government has marked brownfield passports as an opportunity for SMEs to grow. We can all agree that over many decades it has become more complex and difficult to navigate the planning system. Therefore, anything to bring down the risk, cost and uncertainty would be welcomed across the sector particularly by SMEs.
Please click here to read the full paper.
The Great Green Belt vs Grey Belt Debate
Despite brownfield land being the first port of call for development, other sites will still be required to meet need. The consultation seeks to amend the NPPF to allow for a relaxation on restrictions for previously developed land and limited infilling in the Green Belt. It seeks to make clear development would not be inappropriate where it would not cause ‘substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt’.
We must go further still to meet need, and this will mean release of some Green Belt land which has not been previously developed will be required. The consultation acknowledges the important role the Green Belt plays in preserving openness and preventing urban sprawl. But to deliver the commercial and residential development that is needed the targeted release of so called ‘grey belt land‘ will be required. Particularly in those areas which are struggling to meet their housing need.
The proposed definition for ‘Grey Belt’ is ‘…land which is 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…but excluding those areas or assets of particular importance…’.
Some of the examples of land which makes a limited contribution are car parks and disused petrol stations. These examples appear to focus the idea of grey belt on unattractive parts of the green belt. These examples pitch the idea of green belt release in a way that would potentially be more palatable to the public. It opens the conversation around greenbelt release in a way that has not been done before. The misconception being that a nice green field equates to quality agricultural land and environmental importance. Is that true in reality? Some areas of green belt are low grade agricultural land and has poor ecological status and could be put to better use. Of course, the green belt has more purposes than that, as the government has made reference to recognising its importance.
Golden Rules for land released from the Green Belt
Of course, there will be safeguards in place to ensure green belt release is supported in the right places and doesn’t undermine the function of it. These safeguards will also be in place when it comes to releasing land in the greenbelt for development in areas where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year land supply or is delivering below requirements. These will also need to follow the ‘golden rules’.
Three golden rules will be introduced to ensure such land benefits nature and communities. The rules in summary are the developments are to provide:
- Schemes providing housing must provide at least 50% affordable housing with an appropriate proportion of Social Rent subject to viability.
- Improvements to both local and national infrastructure including schools, GP Surgeries and transport links; and
- Provision of new or improved local green spaces that are accessible to the public within a short walk of their homes.
Golden rule 1 shows affordable housing is clearly high on the government’s agenda. However, there are difficulties with Section 106 affordable units at present with a general lack of appetite from Registered Providers to bid on them which is affecting developments of all sizes, and will no doubt have a detrimental impact on the supply of housing if it cannot be resolved.
Next steps
The results of the NPPF consultation thought to been released around Christmas time, has now been delayed until into the new year. It will be interesting to see whether some of the proposals discussed above are put into practice and how the national agenda to build more homes will interact with local decision making. And, can the government shoehorn more colours of the rainbow into the NPPF?
If you have a planning related query, please do get in touch with a member of our planning team.
The information provided in this article is provided for general information purposes only, and does not provide definitive advice. It does not amount to legal or other professional advice and so you should not rely on any information contained here as if it were such advice.
Wright Hassall does not accept any responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on any information published here. Definitive advice can only be given with full knowledge of all relevant facts. If you need such advice please contact a member of our professional staff.
The information published across our Knowledge Base is correct at the time of going to press.
