LGA’s response to the DLUHC consultation on strengthening planning policy for brownfield development

The LGA is the national voice of local government. We are a politically-led, cross party membership organisation, representing councils from England and Wales.

Our role is to support, promote and improve local government, and raise national awareness of the work of councils. Our ultimate ambition is to support councils to deliver local solutions to national problems. 

• We do not believe that the proposed changes to paragraph 129 of the National Planning Policy Framework will have a significant difference on the number of homes brought forward on brownfield land, as councils must already seek to optimise housing on all developments and many urban councils across the country have been maximising their brownfield sites for decades. What is more likely to happen with this proposed change is that other uses on site or infrastructure will be squeezed or minimised in order to achieve a higher density of homes, resulting in a poorer quality development. 
• It is remiss for Government to conclude that the planning system is the barrier to developing on brownfield sites; a sentiment made clear through the proposals and statements in this consultation. Local authorities grant 9 in 10 planning applications. The planning system and local authorities, with democratically elected members making decisions for their communities and Local Plans in place to deliver on local priorities, act as stewards of their localities – ensuring that any brownfield development that comes forward is high quality and thoroughly considered. 
• We urge the Government to give clarity to councils on how this proposal, to give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible, coincides with the statement made by the Secretary of State to Government in December 2023 which states that “It is important that the character of an existing area is respected by new development, particularly in the historic suburbs of our great towns and cities. The new NPPF therefore recognises that there may be situations where significant uplifts in residential densities would be inappropriate as they would be wholly out of character with the existing area, and that this may in turn affect how much development can be planned for in the area concerned. This will apply where there is a design code which is adopted or will be adopted as part of the local plan”.
• The LGA has long raised concerns about how the Housing Delivery Test penalises councils and communities for non-delivery of permitted homes, which is out of their control, when they have few levers to incentivise the build-out of sites by developers once sites have been allocated and granted permission.
• We have significant concerns that the proposal to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development on previously developed land where local planning authorities do not meet 95 per cent of their Housing Delivery Test result could establish, in conjunction with other proposals in this consultation to grant flexibility in the application of internal design policies, a new generation of poor quality and potentially poorly located dwellings on previously developed land. 
• We support the letter drafted by the councils subject to the urban uplift and urge the Government to address the concerns they have articulated.

Giving significant weight to the benefits of delivering homes on brownfield land

No – we do not agree with the proposed change to national planning policy. 

We do not disagree with the Government’s underlying intention behind the narrative of the proposed changes to national policy, to optimise the number of homes brought forward in sustainable locations, however we do not believe the proposed change to paragraph 129 will achieve this. 

Previously developed land (PDL) can and does provide sustainable and accessible opportunities to develop new homes as well as other key uses such as commercial space, local infrastructure such as schools and leisure facilities and new open spaces for the public. There must however always be careful consideration, and a balance, of the mix of uses on site, particularly dependent on the location of the PDL and the specific constraints and characteristics of the site. 

The proposed changes to national planning policy would result in local planning authorities giving significant weight in all decisions to the number of homes delivered on PDL sites over and above the other potential uses of the site, and any key place-making ambitions and plans of the council. We must ensure that we bring forward places and communities, not just homes, to deliver on the housing crisis. It is not a numbers game alone. 

What is truly needed to enable the regeneration and re-use of PDL is a resurgence of a holistic and non-competitive funding pot from government, open to local authorities and developers of all sizes, to address the real blockers of brownfield development including land assembly complexities, remediating and securing the safe use of land for habitation and dealing with ensuing viability concerns.  We welcome the positive impact that the Brownfield Land Release Fund has had in bringing forward council-owned brownfield sites and greatly support the work of the One Public Estate Programme, but this is still a competitive and limited funding pot.

The LGA is calling for, as part of our six-point plan for housing, the roll-out five-year local housing deals to all areas of the country that want them by 2025 – combining funding from multiple national housing programmes into a single pot. This will provide the funding, flexibility, certainty and confidence to stimulate housing supply, and will remove national restrictions which stymie innovation and delivery. This too could help unlock complex brownfield sites. 

It is remiss for Government to conclude that the planning system is the barrier to developing on brownfield sites; a sentiment made clear through the proposals and statements in this consultation. Local authorities grant nine in 10 planning applications. The planning system and local authorities, with democratically elected members making decisions for their communities and Local Plans in place to deliver on local priorities, act as stewards of their localities – ensuring that any brownfield development that comes forward is high quality and thoroughly considered. 

The Planning Advisory Service alongside the University of West of England researched the role that local planning authorities can play in delivering housing-led development on brownfield land. Each case study demonstrates how councils can successfully facilitate the bringing forward of land, work proactively with stakeholders, overcome obstacles and contribute to the delivery of positive outcomes from housing-led developments on brownfield sites. The challenges in each of the case studies vary greatly but the overall picture is one that cannot be understated – brownfield land development can be complex, lengthy and expensive.

We do not believe that the proposed changes to paragraph 129 will have a significant difference on the number of homes brought forward on brownfield land, as councils must already seek to optimise housing on all developments and many urban councils across the country have been maximising their brownfield sites for decades. What is more likely to happen with this proposed change is that other uses on site or infrastructure will be squeezed or minimised in order to achieve a higher density of homes, resulting in a poorer quality development. 

We urge the Government to give clarity to councils on how this proposal, to give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible, coincides with the Statement made by the Secretary of State to Government in December 2023 which states that “It is important that the character of an existing area is respected by new development, particularly in the historic suburbs of our great towns and cities. The new NPPF therefore recognises that there may be situations where significant uplifts in residential densities would be inappropriate as they would be wholly out of character with the existing area, and that this may in turn affect how much development can be planned for in the area concerned. This will apply where there is a design code which is adopted or will be adopted as part of the local plan”.

Finally, if the Government does make the changes proposed to paragraph 129, we would caution against and urge clarity over the specific wording of the policy, including the word “especially”. The word “especially” in the phrase “especially where this involves land which is previously developed” leaves a degree of uncertainty and it should be made clear whether the proposals relate only to PDL or to all developments but with a less significant weight. 

No – whilst we believe that flexibility is an inherent and necessary part of the planning system, we do not agree with the proposed change to national planning policy that local planning authorities should be flexible in applying planning policies or guidance specifically related to the internal layout of development. 

Flexibility is already built into the planning system to give local planning authorities discretion in applying national and local policies, allowing for compromises, making best use of land and seeking to ensure the highest quality development comes forward. 

If national planning policy were to highlight in particular that it is the policies related to the internal layout of development that should be applied flexibly, this could result in the delivery of many poor quality or sub-standard homes which are not desirable or suitable for the needs of individuals, households and communities. 

There is a dichotomy between the proposals in this consultation and the Government narrative and action about housing standards and quality. The National Design Guide states that “well-designed homes and communal areas within buildings provide a good standard and quality of internal space. This includes room sizes, floor-to-ceiling heights, internal and external storage, sunlight, daylight and ventilation. The quality of internal space needs careful consideration in higher-density developments, particularly for family accommodation, where access, privacy, daylight and external amenity space are also important”.

The Government is, rightly, placing a more significant weight on the external design quality of new schemes in national planning policy to ensure they consider the existing area and are attractive. We do not agree that the external beauty of a scheme is more important than the internal design and quality of the homes provided. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions for their communities using the policies in their Local Plans. Local authorities are ambitious and want to deliver the high-quality homes our communities need and desire, not ones which are simply acceptable in planning terms. 

We do not agree that the changes set out in Question 2 should be made. 

Flexibility is already built into the planning system to give local planning authorities discretion in applying national and local policies, allowing for compromises, making best use of land and seeking to ensure the highest quality development comes forward. 

If national planning policy were to highlight in particular that it is the policies related to the internal layout of development that should be applied flexibly, this could result in the delivery of many poor quality or sub-standard homes which are not desirable or suitable for the needs of individuals, households and communities. 

A number of key challenges to developing PDL have been correctly identified in paragraph 13 of this consultation, including the complexity of land ownership and assembly, remediation of land to make it habitable/suitable for re-use and the subsequent viability of delivering schemes. 

There are however a number of other challenges to re-developing PDL. These include but are not limited to access to the site, parking and highways, capacity levels of local infrastructure, flood risk, and biodiversity. Abandoned or brownfield land can be a haven for many species as the nutrient poor soils, exposed and broken-down structures and lack of human intervention allow species to thrive. Whilst this is positive for our natural environment, when PDL is sought to be re-used, the cost of implementing the recently introduced Biodiversity Net Gain tool (which aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was beforehand by requiring a minimum of 10 per cent gain in biodiversity) can be considerable and threaten the deliverability of a scheme. 

We urge the Government to acknowledge that land being previously developed does not necessarily equate it to being in a suitable location for housing – for example, numerous new homes were delivered (through permitted development rights) at business centres and on industrial estates  across the country resulting in poor quality homes which negatively impact residents health and wellbeing. 

It is remiss for Government to conclude that the planning system is the barrier to developing on brownfield sites; a sentiment made clear through the proposals and statements in this consultation. Local authorities grant nine in 10 planning applications. The planning system and local authorities, with democratically elected members making decisions for their communities and Local Plans in place to deliver on local priorities, act as stalwarts of their localities – ensuring that the development that comes forward is high quality and thoroughly considered. 

The Planning Advisory Service alongside the University of West of England researched the role that local planning authorities can play in delivering housing-led development on brownfield land. Each case study demonstrates how councils can successfully facilitate the bringing forward of land, work proactively with stakeholders, overcome obstacles and contribute to the delivery of positive outcomes from housing-led developments on brownfield sites. The challenges in each of the case studies vary greatly but the overall picture is one that cannot be understated – brownfield land development can be complex, lengthy and expensive. 

We have repeatedly called on Government to remove viability as a material consideration in the planning application process. This is because viability pressures remain one of the greatest challenges for local authorities trying to bring forward affordable housing units as well as securing the infrastructure needed to support new homes. 

We welcomed the amendments made by Government in the Planning Practice Guidance for viability in 2019 which stated that the “cost of fully complying with policy requirements should be accounted for in benchmark land value” and that “under no circumstances will the price paid for land be relevant justification for failing to accord with relevant policies in the plan”. However, we are concerned that councils continue to report that the plan-led system is still being undermined by the use of viability arguments from developers to avoid the need to meet local plan policy requirements including the provision of affordable housing and providing infrastructure contributions.

Further, we would urge the Government to urgently review the 2019 amendments to the PPG for viability and assess whether they have achieved their intended objectives.

National planning policy already places weight on a brownfield first approach to plan-making; we do not believe that changes to national planning policy will result in increased delivery of housing on brownfield sites. 

What is truly needed to enable the regeneration and re-use of PDL is a resurgence of a holistic and non-competitive funding pot from government, open to local authorities and developers of all sizes, to address the real blockers of brownfield development including land assembly complexities, remediating and securing the safe use of land for habitation and dealing with ensuing viability concerns. We welcome the positive impact that the Brownfield Land Release Fund has had in bringing forward council-owned brownfield sites and greatly support the work of the One Public Estate Programme, but this is still a competitive and limited funding pot.

The LGA is calling for, as part of our six-point plan for housing, the roll-out five-year local housing deals to all areas of the country that want them by 2025 – combining funding from multiple national housing programmes into a single pot. This will provide the funding, flexibility, certainty and confidence to stimulate housing supply, and will remove national restrictions which stymie innovation and delivery. This too could help unlock complex brownfield sites. 

No - the LGA has long raised concerns about how the Housing Delivery Test penalises councils and communities for non-delivery of permitted homes, which is out of their control, when they have few levers to incentivise the build-out of sites by developers once sites have been allocated and granted permission. 

The proposal to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development on previously developed land in those areas with a HDT score below 95 per cent (and above 85 per cent) fails to consider that not all brownfield land is desirable or suitable to develop, in particular for housing. It is vitally important that the local policies introduced by the local planning authority to manage growth of their areas are used to determine applications – something that would be removed if the authority falls below 95 per cent of housing delivery which is, again, outside of their control. 

We have significant concerns that the proposal to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development on previously developed land where local planning authorities do not meet 95 per cent of their Housing Delivery Test result could establish, in conjunction with other proposals in this consultation to grant flexibility in the application of internal design policies, a new generation of poor quality and potentially poorly located dwellings on PDL. 

No - the LGA has long raised concerns about how the Housing Delivery Test penalises councils and communities for non-delivery of permitted homes, which is out of their control, when they have few levers to incentivise the build-out of sites by developers once sites have been allocated and granted permission. 

We continue to call for greater powers for local authorities to incentivise developers to build-out permitted schemes. We are supportive of proposals in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, including the introduction of commencement notices as a starting point for addressing the ongoing challenges around build-out of schemes following planning permission. It is good that this measure will be introduced alongside powers for councils to deter and tackle non-compliance, including the possibility of a fine.

We also welcome the commitment to bring forward additional measures to tackle slow build-out. Specifically, we would welcome the introduction of powers to allow councils to charge full council tax for every unbuilt development from the point the original planning permission expires. It should also be made easier for councils to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire stalled housing sites or sites where developers do not build out to timescales contractually agreed with a local planning authority.

A 95 per cent threshold level is too high to account for normal fluctuations in housing delivery, which are often driven by macroeconomic factors. With specific relation to urban areas, where a majority of homes delivered are from flatted developments, the number of units delivered are not phased or staggered and often delivered ‘at once’. 

We do not agree with the proposed changes to the Housing Delivery Test. 

While it is welcome that the Government is seeking to locate more homes in sustainable locations and in turn support more sustainable transport options, the urban uplift of 35 per cent over and above the number generated by the standard method for the 20 largest towns and cities in England is contrary to the wider reforms the Government has made towards housing targets, by making them ‘advisory’ and introducing new flexibilities to meeting those targets. The arbitrary uplift figure of 35 per cent has yet to be evidenced both as local housing need as well as being deliverable in those local authority areas by Government, and we urge transparency on why the figure was adopted.

We support the letter drafted by the councils subject to the urban uplift and urge the Government to address the concerns they have articulated.

We do not agree with the proposed changes to the Housing Delivery Test. 

As previously stated in our response to Question 7, we do not agree with the Housing Delivery Test or its consequences which penalise councils and communities for non-delivery of permitted homes, which is out of their control, when they have few levers to incentivise the build-out of sites by developers once sites have been allocated and granted permission.

For the purposes of Housing Delivery Test, the cities and urban centres uplift within the standard method will only apply from the 2022/23 monitoring year (from the 2023 Housing Delivery Test measurement). 

No - should the Government implement the proposed changes to the Housing Delivery Test or its consequences for local authorities then it should not be applied retrospectively and should apply from the Housing Delivery Test 2024 results. 

We support efforts to speed up the planning process and increase capacity of local authority planning staff. As this question pertains to London only, we would urge Government to engage with and seek direction on this topic from the Greater London Authority, London boroughs and London Councils. 

We support efforts to speed up the planning process and increase capacity of local authority planning staff. As this question pertains to London only, we would urge Government to engage with and seek direction on this topic from the Greater London Authority, London boroughs and London Councils. 

Please see our response to Question 13. 

The LGA would urge the Government to undertake and publish a review of the equalities impact that proposals contained in this consultation may have on those with protected characteristics.