RTPI response to the Brownfield Passports Working Paper by MHCLG

About the RTPI

The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) champions the power of planning in creating sustainable, prosperous places and vibrant communities. We have over 27,000 members in the private, public, academic and voluntary sectors. Using our expertise and research we bring evidence and thought leadership to shape planning policies and thinking, putting the profession at the heart of society's big debates. We set the standards of planning education and professional behaviour that give our members, wherever they work in the world, a unique ability to meet complex economic, social environmental and cultural challenges.

(a)  Could national policy be clearer if it were explicit that development on brownfield land within urban settlements is acceptable unless certain exclusions apply?

The RTPI recognises that whilst there is potentially some scope to strengthen the presumption in favour of development on brownfield sites, it is unclear whether this would materially improve the rates of redevelopment of urban brownfield. This is particularly pertinent given the strengthened presumption in favour of development on previously developed land set out in the recently published NPPF. We note that the effective use of land PPG has been recently updated to explain how to apply paragraph 125c (substantial weight to brownfield land proposals) of the NPPF to decision making.

Care needs to be taken to ensure that a proposed set of exclusions in themselves do not prove overly complicated to implement when factoring in different contexts for sites and different development proposals. Furthermore, issues relating to the redevelopment of brownfield land is not implicitly an urban issue and should be also considered in as rural context. This is recognised in the NPPF, which has a supportive policy framing for the reuse of previously developed land in rural areas on sites that are physically well-related to existing settlements.

(b)  What caveats should accompany any general expectation that development on brownfield land within urban settlements is acceptable?

As set out in response to Q(a), a series of caveats and exclusions could be extensive, in order to capture the nuances across different sites. Caveats would depend on the development type proposed but would include for example managing flood risk, transport connectivity and capacity, amenity considerations such a noise, appropriate levels of density and massing and relating to heritage matters.

(c)  How best can urban areas be identified and defined if this approach is pursued?

The RTPI believes that local plans should be the key mechanism to set out a strategy for allocating appropriate development on brownfield sites. We therefore strongly support the Government’s initiatives to improve local plan coverage across England.

To inform local plan preparation, MHCLG should improve funding for LPAs across England to review and update their brownfield land registers to identify additional capacity within authority areas. There is evidence that many registers are out of date or contain poor-quality data[1]. Reviewing and updating the data contained in brownfield registers would be of particular benefit for small sites: both LPAs and SMEs can find it difficult to identify viable and available small sites, and the former can then find it harder to include such sites in their brownfield registers.

(d)  Could national policy play a role in setting expectations about the minimum scale of development which should be regarded as acceptable in accessible urban locations?

In the most well-connected and accessible urban areas, there is scope for national policy to set minimum standards for density of the urban form, through emerging National Development Management Policies. If properly limited in scope, NDMPs could help Government to deal more effectively with planning issues regarding to national regulations, universal principles, fixed land constraints or technical matters; provide businesses with greater consistency and predictability across the country, and; would help local councils to focus on more appropriately local strategic and economic priorities in their local plans[2].

This could help prioritise development in the most sustainable locations and would encourage an urban form that is less car-dependent, better suited to public transport and active travel, and one that makes the best use of the existing space within urban areas. This will help overcome the issues the RTPI has identified in our Location of Development research[3], which shows a decade of missed opportunities to improve transport connectivity through planning.

The RTPI believe that NDMPs should set a floor – not a ceiling – for planning standards, including density, and take full advantage of the plan-making experience in local authorities.

(e)  What parameters could be set for both the scale of development and accessibility?

Given the very different context of brownfield sites in urban areas, the RTPI believes that parameters should be set locally through the preparation of local plans, master planning, development frameworks and Local Development Orders. Parameters would have to take account of different proposed development types such as employment land uses.

(f)   Could more use be made of design guidance and codes to identify specific forms of development that are acceptable in particular types of urban area?

Yes. We support a greater role for national and local design codes, which can improve the quality and sustainability of new development by supporting early engagement and the flow of information between local authorities, developers and infrastructure providers. In order for the code to deliver positive outcomes for brownfield development, these will also need to include reference to matters beyond design such as meeting economic, social, environmental and health objectives in the future. Furthermore, design codes should be cognisant of viability issues on brownfield development. MHCLG should fund planning authorities to produce design codes to cover areas with significant amounts of brownfield sites in sustainable locations. There is also a strong need to upskill our planning workforce in this regard, with design codes and masterplanning being identified as a significant area of skills requirement in the recently published MHCLG research into capacity and skills[4].

(g)  What sort of areas would be most suited to this approach, and at what geographic scale could such guidance and codes be used?

Not all brownfield land is suitable for residential development and would depend on factors such as transport links and accessibility. As mentioned in response to Q(c) up to date brownfield land registers would help planning authorities and national government to take a targeted approach, focusing on the best locations.

(h)  How could Local Development Orders be best used with these proposals?

The RTPI acknowledges the role that Local Development Orders (LDOs) can play in supporting local authorities to help accelerate the delivery of the right developments in the right place. There are, however, a number of limitations in their use, such as for developments that may involve or affect listed buildings, or in areas that straddle LPA boundaries. There are also significant resourcing requirements to develop and enable LDOs, which may strain LPA policy team’s capacity. This is particularly relevant given the Government’s ambition to improve local plan coverage across the country.

(i)    Are there any other issues that we should consider if any of these approaches were to be taken forward, in particular to ensure they provide benefits as early as possible?

The obstacles to deliver on brownfield land are often multifaceted and interconnected and can manifest before and after planning consent has been granted. This can, for example, be related to land assemblage, off-site highway works, remediation, decision-making timescales, funding issues, construction costs and viability and infrastructure delivery. A comprehensive consideration of viability in particular needs conducted mapping the impacts of existing requirements such as Biodiversity Net Gain and affordable housing contributions alongside emerging requirements such as the Building Safety Levy. It is critical that the Government continues to explore means of  underpinning the delivery schemes through infrastructure and remediation funding, finance guarantees, under-written loans and other public sector tools. We note the important role of the recently established National Brownfield Institute in supporting such work.

It is crucial that consideration is made on how to bring brownfield sites that have significant constraints, such as flood risk, back in to productive use. For example, the RTPI would welcome the exploration of how the Nature Restoration Fund could be targeted to flood prone sites for the purposes of ecological restoration.

(j)    In addition to streamlining permissions on urban brownfield sites, where else do you consider this type of policy could be explored to support economic growth?

No comment.

[1] ‘Banking on Brownfield’ Lichfields (2022)

[2] Research on National Development Management Policies, RTPI (2023)

[3] ‘The Location of Development 4’, RTPI (2024)

[4] Local Authority Planning Capacity and Skills Survey, MHCLG (2023)