When is a government consultation on helping builders – particularly smaller ones – not a consultation?
Maybe when it’s Whitehall’s latest idea to try and develop more brownfield land. The government has certainly taken an unusual approach here by proposing ‘brownfield passports’ in an exercise that it says “is not a formal consultation“ and has no deadline nor any obvious way to respond.
Brownfield passports have therefore been proposed in a rather tentative and non-committal way. But could they work?
The idea is that certain brownfield land would be earmarked for building with particular types of development – usually residential – being regarded as acceptable.
This article was first published in the November 2024 issue of The Construction Index Magazine. Sign up online.
Sites would possess a ‘passport’ “with the default answer to suitable proposals being a straightforward Yes” from planners.
This would take some of the risk out of developing such sites for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), since the planning process would be less complex than usual.
It might also sound oddly familiar to anybody who has previously tangled with ‘zoning’, ’local development orders’ and some of the other government measures to simplify planning that never quite took off.
The reason for proposing brownfield passports now is that the new Labour administration is desperate to increase house-building and the more of this that can be delivered on brownfield sites the less there will be that has to go on greenfield land. And that means the less likely it is to antagonise local voters.
In its paper, the government says: “Planning is of course only part of the picture when it comes to brownfield development – viability and remediation play key roles in determining whether a site can be taken forward.
“But planning is a vital element, and while the existing policy position is already supportive of brownfield development – and will become more so if the government takes forward the changes on which it has just consulted – anything that reduces uncertainty and hence risk to developers will help to encourage and underpin better use of urban land.”
And there you have the crux of the argument about brownfield passports: even if planning restrictions vanished would an awkwardly-shaped, contaminated multi-ownership site suddenly become viable?
This article was first published in the November 2024 issue of The Construction Index Magazine. Sign up online.
Rico Wojtulewicz, head of policy and market insight at the National Federation of Builders, sees some advantages for SMEs in the sector from this proposal.
He explains: “Due to the cost and complexity of remediation, plus the extra time taken to clear a site or redesign existing buildings, residential projects on brownfield sites are typically delivered by SMEs.
“Brownfield passports should help remove some of those delivery barriers and ensure planning is less of a viability challenge and delay-ridden exercise.”
Passports build on local development orders, a similar concept allowing permitted development rights – simplified planning – for specified types of development in defined locations.
Wojtulewicz points out that these have been “wasted for fifteen years”, with minimal use and it’s possible the passports could become equally dormant.
There is also a catch. He adds: “In our biggest cities, where land and house prices are highest, there is a chance that planning certainty will see investors and big builders outbid SMEs vying for brownfield land.
“This will mean the greatest benefits to SMEs will be as contractors or sub-contractors; however, brownfield passports may have high design or planning expectations, and this will favour SMEs delivering their own projects as they are more used to meeting such preconditions.”
The Home Builders Federation (HBF) has pointed out that while passports could provide another way of trying to deliver development, existing methods could already do this but are little used.
A spokesperson said: ”Brownfield passports are as yet undefined, but Brownfield Land Registers and the ‘permission in principle’ regime already exist.
“Whilst HBF welcomes any initiative that aims to bring forward more land for development more quickly, we suggest that understanding and removing impediments to the use of existing tools for establishing the principle of development on brownfield land will be more efficient and effective than developing new ones.”
This article was first published in the November 2024 issue of The Construction Index Magazine. Sign up online.
Brownfield land registers are supposed to provide “consistent information on sites that local authorities consider to be appropriate for residential development”, while the rarely used ‘permission in principle’ for housing-led development means a site can be developed and only the technical detail of the actual application needs to go to planners.
And it’s the planners who would have to make passports work. Dan Slade, head of policy and research at the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), is sceptical about whether passports even address the main impediments to developing brownfield sites.
He says: “The issue is to look at why brownfield sites are classed as brownfield, and in most cases the reason they are not being developed is an economic one rather than to do with planning policy.
“These sites tend to be contaminated, difficult to work, constrained and just don’t stack up, no matter what the planning policy is.”
Slade says there would be a considerable difference – and this is not yet clear – between passports simply being a planning tool available for local authorities to use if they chose and a blanket national policy.
“The risk with brownfield passports is that if it’s national it’s then a poor fit in some areas.”
He recalls the saga of permitted development rights to change office space to residential without full planning consent, and fears passports could deliver similar problems.
“Permitted development rights are an example of a national policy being applied without local conditions,” Slade says.
“It meant planners could not look at their local plans and this led to perverse outcomes like office blocks in the middle of industrial estates being converted to residential. That is an illustration of what can go wrong.”
This article was first published in the November 2024 issue of The Construction Index Magazine. Sign up online.
There is more enthusiasm for passports from Tom Stanley, national head of development and planning at property firm BNP Paribas Real Estate, who says they could be “a game-changer in tackling the UK’s housing shortage”.
He says: “Urban brownfield sites are sitting there waiting to be revitalised, and the passport aims to streamline planning processes so that developers, particularly smaller ones, can take on these projects with more certainty and less red tape. It’s a win-win: more homes, less strain on green belt land and a boost to local economies.”
Developing these sites “gives a leg up to small and medium-sized builders which often struggle to compete with big developers,” Stanley says.
“By reducing the planning risks and uncertainties, the brownfield passport could open up more opportunities for these smaller firms to get involved. That could lead to more locally focused developments that better reflect the needs and character of their communities.”
Despite this endorsement, Stanley cautions: ”We don’t want to see a situation where planning decisions are rushed through without considering the unique needs of each area. Striking the right balance between speeding up the process and keeping local input will be crucial.”
He also thinks the government should look at support for remediation and infrastructure as “these spaces often come with a whole host of problems, from contamination to tricky ownership issues.
“Developers need to know that their investment won’t be derailed by expensive remediation work. This is where the government can play a bigger role – providing financial incentives or support to help make these sites viable for development.”
Like Slade, Stanley is concerned by any prospect of a blanket approach and says: “National guidelines should provide clarity, but we can’t overlook the importance of tailoring development to fit local needs. Design codes and community engagement will be key in ensuring new developments aren’t just quick fixes but add real value to the areas they serve.”
This article was first published in the November 2024 issue of The Construction Index Magazine. Sign up online.
Passports have met some scepticism from prominent planning lawyers. Nicola Gooch, a partner at law firm Irwin Mitchell, thinks practical issues must be resolved before passports have a chance of benefiting SME builders, or indeed anyone else.
She says: “The reasons more brownfield sites don’t come forward for development are rarely down to a lack of [planning] policy support.”
Development is more likely to be prevented by complex site assembly issues, high remediation costs, flood mitigation works where relevant, viability concerns resulting from higher build costs and expensive upfront infrastructure investment.
Gooch says: “If brownfield passports are to really unleash the potential of brownfield sites in England, they need to focus a little less on policy support and an awful lot more on the practicalities of bringing these sites forward.
“After all, a site will not get developed unless it is both viable and deliverable. Until those hurdles are crossed, it doesn’t matter how much policy support it has.”
Simon Ricketts, a partner at law firm Town Legal, points out that changes proposed to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) would anyway reinforce the presumption in favour of granting planning permission for development proposals on brownfield land.
The draft revised NPPF says planners should: “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.”
Ricketts notes that the passports would not in themselves bring automatic planning consent: ”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.”
Speaking for industry clients, Melanie Leech, chief executive the British Property Federation, says: “Brownfield development is complex and the ‘passports’ concept represents a huge opportunity to support the government’s ambitions for more housing and growth, whilst at the same time breathing new life into our towns and cities.
“Making use of existing land and infrastructure also makes perfect sense in a world where sustainability is vital.”
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is usually no great friend of the developers but it favours building on brownfield sites as an alternative to greenfield ones.
It says there is sufficient brownfield capacity to deliver 1.2m homes on ‘shovel-ready’ sites, according to its research.
Passports could be “a process that helps to reduce the risk of development” but CPRE says it opposes a presumption in favour of brownfield land development if that resulted in building in isolated, unsustainable locations in the countryside.
Previous attempts by governments of all kinds to encourage brownfield development by SME builders have delivered rather mixed results.
In the case of housing they have always come up against the fact that building on greenfield sites is cheaper and gives at least some of the public what it wants in terms of large houses on new urban fringe estates.
Most brownfield land is found in busy urban environments or, even more problematically, in isolated former industrial areas with limited infrastructure and transport links.
For some people, the government’s proposal to introduce brownfield passports is little more than a declaration that “something must be done, so let’s do this”. But for others it is at least a sign that the government is thinking hard and creatively about how to deliver sustainably on its house-building promises.
This article was first published in the November 2024 issue of The Construction Index Magazine. Sign up online.
