CIH response to the Planning Reform Working Paper: Brownfield Passports

CIH welcomes the government’s introduction of ‘brownfield passports’ as a method to speed up planning applications and reduce unnecessary obstacles in building the homes we need. The current discretionary planning system brings great uncertainty, and can act as a disincentive for development, as outlined in the Centre for Cities report. Building homes on previously developed land will revitalise communities, and there is more likely to be the necessary infrastructure in existing residential and urban areas to ensure developments can be sustainable and accessible. A report from CPRE previously found that there is space for at least one million homes on suitable brownfield land, with much of this in the Midlands and North of England as well as the highly pressured Southeast. There is great potential to use brownfield land to build the homes we need.

More broadly, it is crucial that development on brownfield land follows the same principles as all planning applications and local plans in meeting local housing needs. It is positive to see the government reflecting affordability in the formula to calculate housing targets in updated NPPF, and determining where housing need is most acute is vital in prioritising development. This particularly means developing more social rent homes, which are often the only truly affordable housing tenure.

It is constructive that the government’s proposals are not granting automatic planning permission for brownfield land, as we must ensure that the necessary and appropriate checks are in place for developments to be safe and suitable for local communities. However, the proposed approach of default approval with clear checks and certain exclusions is an effective and appropriate method. This will lower risk and uncertainty, whilst providing a boost to the development of homes as part of the broader planning reforms implemented. Whilst we refer to planning experts and local authority representatives to determine the most appropriate option for ‘brownfield passports’, outlined in the working paper, it is crucial that all policies adhere to the same level of safety, consistency, effectiveness and holistic thinking across all planning reforms.

Understanding the clear links between health and housing must be at the heart of all developments, particularly within urban areas and in existing communities. CIH supports the TCPA’s healthy homes principles to incorporate health within every new housing development. It is vital that all developments on brownfield land are considered to be safe and without detrimental effects to tenants (outlined further in our response to Question 9), as well as demonstrating positive impacts on health through access to green spaces.

CIH has previously called for all developments, including on brownfield land, to adhere to Natural England’s standards on accessible green space. The proposed approach must ensure that public access to green space is inclusive, especially within cities and existing communities with brownfield land. Research shows that disabled people, and people with long-term health conditions, often face significant barriers trying to access local parks and green spaces, especially in urban areas. For example, Disability Rights UK have highlighted the accessibility issues created by poor design, such as barriers or bollards at park entrances, which impede access to mobility scooters. Research by Natural England has also underlined the multiple barriers to accessing green space faced by people with visual impairments. More widely, there are inequalities in access to existing green space, and the Health Foundation have shown that people living in more deprived areas, minority ethnic groups and younger people are more likely to live in areas with less access to green space.

The government’s approach to brownfield and its associated parameters should therefore have accessibility at its core and ensure that access to green space is based on principles of inclusion by design. This could be based on principles articulated in Natural England’s research on improving the accessibility of green and blue spaces, especially:

• Providing accessible information in various formats, such as audio, large print, and/or braille, tactile mapping and colour schemes.
• Improving transportation options, such as providing accessible public transport and parking or drop-off points.
• Enhancing physical access by ensuring uneven terrain, potholes, overhanging trees, bushes and other barriers are addressed.
• Increasing availability of facilities, such as benches, toilets, cafes or pubs, picnic areas, and bins including dog bins.
• Addressing safety concerns, such as getting lost, falling or becoming a victim of crime or negative attitudes from others by improving signage, lighting and staff presence.
• Offering organised activities, such as walks or tours, and walking groups to provide social interaction and help overcome challenges of visiting alone.

Brownfield developments should protect local communities through National Model Design Codes. In our NPPF response, we outlined our support for the introduction of specific localised design codes, masterplans and guides for the ‘areas of the most change and potential’. However, the benefits of design codes should not be restricted just to areas of intensification, urban extensions or new communities. The restriction of design codes to only the largest extension sites   removes a useful tool of LPAs to protect communities from poorly designed schemes on smaller sites (including on brownfield land) that may only serve to enhance unit numbers, not quality homes and neighbourhoods. Design codes have been shown to be a driver of quality homes, in research undertaken by Place Alliance. Developments that were rated as being either ‘very good’ or ‘good’ were near five times as likely to have used design codes than those rated as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’. That same report found that the design of over three quarters of new housing developments they audited was ‘poor’ or ‘mediocre’. This also links to the response to Question 5 on health, housing, and access to green space. Developments that were rated as being either ‘very good’ or ‘good’ were near five times as likely to have used design codes than those rated as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’. That same report found that the design of over three quarters of new housing developments they audited was ‘poor’ or ‘mediocre’. This also links to the response to Question 5 on health, housing, and access to green space.

Additionally, it is crucial that developments provide safe homes to live in, including where brownfield land is used to increase density. CIH have previously raised concerns around the expanded use of permitted development rights (PDR) under the previous government. This is not mentioned in the government’s proposals on planning reforms, but directly links to density and quality, particularly for brownfield land use. Whilst there is a clear need for expedited development of new homes, the ever-increasing move towards deregulation through the continual expansion of PDR over the last decade has been disastrous.

In 2020, government commissioned research found that homes created through permitted development conversions “create worse quality residential environments than planning permission conversions in relation to a number of factors widely linked to the health, wellbeing and quality of life of future occupiers.” This evidence shows that in its current form, the PDR process does not ensure the necessary standards and safeguards are in place to deliver the new quality homes we need. We encourage the government to review the proposals of the ‘Changes to various permitted development rights: consultation’ in February 2024 and ensure that all homes are built to a high quality and energy efficiency standards. The work of the New Homes Quality Board and New Homes Ombudsman hopes to improve the outcomes and quality of new developments, and it is important that this is not sacrificed in order to increase quantity.

Whilst we support the government’s focus on brownfield land and the opportunities for development, it is important to note the additional complexities and costs which can be associated with developing on brownfield land. The decontamination of land is crucial, as research shows that it may pose potential risks to the health of tenants or nearby communities. The sector has also raised concerns regarding derelict structures, land contamination, poor ground and archaeological features that can complicate or delay development. For example, a report produced by the Auditor General for Wales highlighted that the cost of removing contaminants such as oil, chemicals, and asbestos can make sites unviable, with the decontamination cost greater than the redeveloped value.

As such, it is important that the government review the evidence regarding the contamination of previously developed land, and ensure adequate protections, guidance and support are available to boost development safely and effectively. This has been recently reflected in the government’s announcement of additional funding in the Brownfield Land Release Fund, including for the increased costs of decontaminating brownfield sites. This may require further funding to develop at the scale required to contribute to the government’s 1.5 million new homes target, as explored in Northern Housing Consortium’s report on how specific devolved brownfield funding could develop 320,000 new homes in the North of England, which could be expanded to apply for the rest of England. Additionally, government must confirm a new and ambitious Affordable Homes Programme at the upcoming Spending Review, to encourage development. Members have reflected to us their concerns around different ‘funding pots’ which can be used to redevelop complex brownfield sites, which often come with differing timelines and requirements and cause challenging circumstances for development activity. It is crucial that all government departments and Homes England work in alignment with each other in a streamlined approach, to deliver the 1.5 million homes and provide the necessary investment and support to the sector.

It is crucial that any and all planning reforms are made holistically, with reference to other upcoming and existing legal and regulatory changes. These include updates from the New Towns Taskforce, the Affordable Homes Programme, the upcoming housing strategy and Spending Review, and with a broader understanding of capacity and resource pressures on local authorities.

Visit the government's website for more information on the consultation.

For more information on our response please contact Megan Hinch, senior policy officer, megan.hinch@cih.org