Brownfield passports: A path to clarity or a rebranding of old policy?

The UK government have published a policy paper on how the planning system can better deliver brownfield development. Here, Lawrence Turner of Boyer examines its sufficiency.  

Brownfield Passports, which would be introduced as national development management policies (NDMPs) under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA), are intended to simplify the development process on brownfield sites, making it clearer what can and cannot be done in terms of land use, density, and community impact.

The policy paper states, ‘The government has been clear that the first port of call for development should be brownfield land. That means making the most of previously developed urban land – bringing derelict sites back into use, taking forward small sites which have been overlooked for too long, and seizing suitable opportunities to make better use of existing land and buildings, particularly where intensification supports local centres and brings improved accessibility and connectivity.’

The intention is that Brownfield Passports would set parameters about the type and form of development that would be acceptable on urban brownfield land, with default approval unless specified exclusion apply, for example flood risks that cannot be mitigated.

However, while the idea seems promising on paper, there are a number of issues—both practical and political— which should be considered.

The promise of clarity

Brownfield Passports, in theory, are designed to provide certainty and reduce the risk associated with brownfield redevelopment. At present, securing planning permission on previously developed land can be a complex and costly process. The ambiguity surrounding what constitutes an acceptable development often leads to lengthy delays, unexpected costs, and unpredictable outcomes for developers. By providing a clearer framework for what is and isn’t acceptable, the government hopes to streamline the approval process.

One of the most notable aspects of the proposed policy is the introduction of a Minimum Density Expectation for developments on brownfield land. Density and building height have long been contentious issues, often leading to significant pushback from local communities. The hope is that by setting clear expectations for development density through the mechanism of Brownfield Passports, developers will be able to plan their projects with more confidence of success in planning committee, avoiding the time-consuming and costly process of submitting multiple planning applications and appeals.

In addition to addressing density, the government’s consultation proposes the use of Local Development Orders (LDOs) to create area-wide planning permissions that could be applied to brownfield sites. This would allow for greater consistency and speed in the approval of developments, which could be particularly useful for larger-scale projects requiring extensive planning. The use of LDOs in conjunction with Brownfield Passports seems a step in the right direction toward making brownfield development more efficient and predictable.

The risks of diluting local authority powers

However, the introduction of LDOs raises concerns about local governance and the potential dilution of local authority powers. Under the current system of planning applications being determined by planning committees, elected councillors have a direct say in the approval of projects. However, LDOs could bypass planning committees, shifting decision-making power to higher levels of government – the antithesis of the devolution that the government has promised.

This could lead to tension between central government and local councils, particularly in areas where councillors are resistant to top-down planning decisions. Councils may be disincentivised from implementing LDOs due to the perceived erosion of their powers, creating a situation whereby local priorities and community concerns are sidelined in favour of a more streamlined, but less locally accountable, approach.

Moreover, the introduction of LDOs could make it more difficult for councillors to address community opposition to development. Local residents may feel that their concerns are being ignored if planning decisions are being made at a distance, potentially undermining community trust in the planning system.

Potential delays and protracted processes

Another challenge with the proposed Brownfield Passports is the potential for delays associated with the creation and implementation of LDOs. In theory, LDOs are intended to speed up the development process by establishing broad planning permissions for entire areas. However, in practice, the process of creating these orders could take months or even years to complete.

For example, the process typically involves the local planning authority undertaking extensive masterplanning and environmental assessments—steps that can significantly delay the implementation of any development plans. Local Plans often identify brownfield sites for regeneration, but the planning process for these sites can be slow-moving and resource-intensive. LPAs are frequently constrained by limited budgets, and the need for additional expertise or consultants can further extend timelines. The funding challenges faced by many LPAs mean that they are often unable to deliver regeneration projects in a timely manner, leading to delays that discourage private investment.

For developers, these delays can result in significant risk. In a market in which speed and certainty are often key to success, a protracted planning process can result in significant costs. If Brownfield Passports are to achieve their objective of revitalising previously developed land, they will need to ensure that the planning system can deliver results more quickly, rather than simply adding more layers of complexity.

A rebranding of existing policy?

A Brownfield Passport is not a planning permission – it is merely the first stage in the process towards planning consent. Also they’re not as innovative as it may initially appear. The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development is intended to prioritise such sites for development, and the re-use of previously developed land has long been enshrined in national policy – such as in the Permission in Principle, which has seen limited uptake since its introduction in 2018. Furthermore, Brownfield Passports have strong associations with zoning – something which the previous administration tried and failed to deliver in its 2020 white paper Planning for the Future.

Similarly, while Brownfield Passports may offer greater clarity around what can be built on brownfield sites, the fundamental challenges remain the same: under-resourced local authorities, lengthy planning processes, and insufficient funding for brownfield regeneration. For all the talk of streamlining the planning system, the reality is that local authorities are often significantly stretched, facing and struggling to manage an overwhelming volume of planning applications.

The need for greater investment

The success of Brownfield Passports hinges not only on the clarity they provide but also on the resources available to local authorities to implement them. For this policy to be effective, it cannot succeed in isolation. The government, in its recent Budget, has committed to increased funding for local authorities but it is important that these finances find their way to the planning departments.

Without sufficient funding, Brownfield Passports may end up as little more than a cosmetic change to an underperforming system. While developers may welcome the clarity around what can be developed on brownfield sites, the reality is that a piecemeal approach to planning reform is rarely successful. Ensuring that LPAs have the resources, expertise, and staffing levels to process applications efficiently is key to boosting confidence in the planning system and encouraging investment in brownfield sites, and our hopes for a reformed system lie in the imminent publication of a Planning and Infrastructure Bill which, we hope, will have wide-ranging benefits to planning and development.

This article was written by Lawrence Turner, Director of Boyer. 

Other features:

Without intervention the Flood and Water Management Act will sink

Westminster to ditch ‘For Sale’ signs, but is this the best decision?