Brownfield Sites: Central to UK Housing Plans

Planning is in the news a lot these days as the government lays the foundations for its ambitious target. Having 1.5 million new homes built by 2029. A lot of headlines concern Green Belt land, because of sensitivity over building in the countryside. But the biggest planning proposals are in fact for so-called brownfield sites. 

These are sites in existing built-up areas. The sites might be empty already. Or they might be old or inappropriate buildings that can be demolished to make way for modern homes.

Although any proposal for new homes can trigger quite a controversy at a local level. It’s now the case that 85% of people in the UK live in urban areas.

What is a brownfield site?

Brownfield sites, which are almost always in towns and cities, are usually less contentious than building in the countryside. Because the sites are often surrounded by development already. Sometimes because new homes are seen as being preferable to, say, a derelict and unsightly-looking building. Or a completely empty site that attracts vandalism.

Brownfield First and Brownfield Passport

At the moment the government says 8.7% of land in England is brownfield. However, only 54% of new homes are built on this type of site. Because the government believes the existing planning system is too slow and gives too many opportunities to reject an application.

In turn, the government believes if building on brownfield sites continues to be difficult, house builders and developers will be increasingly tempted to build in countryside areas.

Therefore, the government wants to reverse this trend so has promoted a ‘Brownfield First’ policy and something called a ‘Brownfield Passport.’

Brownfield First means, in the words of the Prime Minister, that when a planning application asks to build housing on a brownfield site, the default answer by the local council should be ‘yes’. Especially if this is backed up by the council’s own local plan. Which should identify these brownfield sites as ripe for development.

The Brownfield Passport is based on local councils identifying brownfield sites in their local plans. Suggesting in advance of any applications that those sites be zoned for new homes. Then when a planning application does come in – let’s say from a house building firm. And if it’s in line with the zoning, it is fast-tracked for planning approval. 

The government is still consulting with pressure groups and local authorities about how Brownfield First and the Brownfield Passport exactly would work in practice. But it’s made clear that these are top priorities if the 1.5m house-building target stands a chance.

The advantages of Brownfield Passport

Property industry players, from estate agents in Propertymark, to house builders themselves, have given a warm welcome to the passport idea. And it’s clear it would offer a number of advantages.

Firstly, it would allow local councils and local communities to ‘get ahead of the game’. Say what sort of development they want on brownfield sites. Instead of waiting for an actual planning application and then having to simply say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to someone else’s idea.

So, specifications on the size, design and materials for a brownfield development could be set out in the local plan. After being discussed between the council and local people.

Secondly, by knowing if a planning application will be fast-tracked. If it conforms with the local plan’s specifications, housebuilders can operate with greater certainty.

Under the old system, many housebuilders complain that they spend time and money submitting an application for a brownfield site with no firm idea what the local council wants to see. Only for it to be turned down.

Having a better idea of what will be approved or rejected would make many brownfield sites more attractive for private developers.

Thirdly – and perhaps most critically – the passport idea would allow each council to specify the type of housing wanted. For example, should the homes be for rent and if so, private renting or social housing? Should they be mostly flats for younger people or houses for families? The answers would be tailored by councils to local needs.

What if councils don’t want new homes?

The government means business and has made clear that a council saying ‘No more new homes’ is not an option. Various proposals have been set out to stop this happening.

The government is introducing a new requirement that, where local plans based on old targets are not revised, from July 2026 councils will face an even stiffer target. And must provide enough land for a six-year pipeline of new homes, instead of the usual five years.

Councils will be given £100m of extra funding in 2025 to hire more staff and consultants to progress their plans. This is on top of announced plans to increase planning fees to cover costs and recruit an additional 300 planning officers.

The government has also threatened that if a local plan continues to reject new targets, it will be taken away from the council and will be written by Whitehall instead.

What’s next?

There are still many details to be thrashed out, including the precise size of the increased housing targets for each local council. There will also be discussions about how other sites on the Green Belt or a newly suggested ‘Grey Belt’ might be used. Because it’s already recognised that brownfields alone will not be sufficient to meet housing targets.

However, the government is determined to use brownfield development as at least the first step on its way to 1.5m new homes. And it appears to mean what it says.

Last Updated: December 24th, 2024