By

The London Plan Review and what it means for brownfield sites, SMEs and housebuilding

It is finally here – the much anticipated London Plan Review Report of Expert Advisers was sent to the Secretary of State on the 15th January and published with a response from Michael Gove along with a couple of consultations on the 13th February 2024.   

The aim of the report was to consider whether there are specific changes that could be made to policies in the London Plan to facilitate the increased delivery of new homes on brownfield sites in the capital. And quite the team was brought together to discuss, sense check and analyse this conundrum over the festive break; comprising Christopher Katkowski KC, Cllr. James Jamieson, Dr. Paul Monaghan and Dr. Wei Yang.

The London housing crisis

It isn’t a revelation to be told that London is experiencing a significant housing crisis,  although the report does provide useful context for this. Indeed, it made sobering reading to see just how significant the undersupply of homes has been:

  • HDT results show that only six LPAs met their target up to 21/22 and more recent GLA data to 2022/23 suggests only four are in credit.  
  • There has also been a downward trend in housebuilding, which, if it continues, would result in a shortfall of more than 150,000 homes, equivalent to 29% of the total target by 2028/29. 
  • There has also been a reduction in the number of residential units approved, with GLA data showing a reduction from over 89,000 in 2018/19 to 68,000 in 2021/22 and now down to 40,200 in 2022/23. 

(Points 3, 4, and 5 of the Executive Summary).

The report also makes clear that the London Plan is not the sole source of the problem. When you consider fire safety; infrastructure constraints; viability issues; planning resourcing pressures; statutory consultees; wider economic conditions; it all adds to the complexities of getting a planning decision.  From our own experiences of working on development projects within the London Boroughs, we have seen significant delays to decision making for all of these reasons.  Furthermore, we agree with the report and have experienced ourselves that London Plan policies are, on occasion, being incorrectly applied as ‘musts’ rather than ‘shoulds’.  

We also heartily agree that the planning process within the London Boroughs is expensive and time-consuming for SMEs, for all of the reasons listed above and more.  With such overstretched planning departments having to make their way through so many necessary policy considerations and processes, projects have often received requests for extensions of time from the LPAs or we have found pretty straightforward applications being unnecessarily decided at planning committee, which adds further delays. 

An overarching presumption in favour of residential development on brownfield land – but will it facilitate appropriate development?

The key finding of the report is at point 10 of the Executive Summary: 

What is missing from the London Plan is a policy mechanism to assist applicants and decision makers in navigating a path that aligns with the intended goal of boosting housing supply to the level outlined in the London Plan strategy.

As such the Expert Panel considered 3 main options to provide this policy mechanism: 

  • Leave things as are and await the London Plan review – good in as much that it would be a considered and comprehensive approach but negative due to time constraints. 
  • Identify the individual policy requirements which are most often cited as inhibiting the timely delivery of new homes on brownfield sites and then suggest specific alterations to these – it was felt this could not be recommended due to the complex and interlinking nature of many of these issues.
  • The recommended option – introduce an overarching policy which will seek to bring together all the overarching problems. This would apply in LPA areas where there has been a cumulative under-supply against the Plan’s ten-year targets.  

The report proposes to introduce an overarching presumption in favour of residential development on brownfield land. DLUHC has responded with a consultation seeking exactly that.  However, DLUHC also wants it to apply to EVERY council in England, not just the London Boroughs.  The consultation proposes that all LPAs will be told that they need to prioritise brownfield developments, and will be instructed to be less bureaucratic and more flexible in applying policies that halt house building on brownfield land.    

The London Plan Review findings suggest that the new brownfield presumption could potentially result in up to 11,500 additional homes per year within Greater London and by extending this across the country, DLUHC believe that more homes will be unlocked than if action had been taken in London alone. 

Consultation on strengthening planning policy for brownfield development

The DLUHC consultation which is open until 26 March 2024 seeks views on changes to national policy to strengthen planning support for brownfield development. The document consults on 3 proposals:

  • Changes to national planning policy to give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible and take a flexible approach in applying planning policies or guidance relating to the internal layout of development.
  • Changes to the way the Housing Delivery Test operates in the 20 towns and cities subject to the uplift in the standard method. This would introduce an additional presumption trigger where their Housing Delivery Test score falls below 95%. In these circumstances the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply to applications on previously developed land.
  • Reviewing the threshold for referral of applications to the Mayor of London

The key change, in regards to the presumption in favour of development on previously developed land, is proposed to be made by additional wording to paragraph 129c of the NPPF. The proposed additions are in bold.

local planning authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make efficient use of land, taking into account the policies in this Framework, especially where this involves land which is previously developed. In this context, when considering applications for housing, authorities should give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible and take a flexible approach in applying planning policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight and  internal layouts of development, where they would otherwise inhibit making the most efficient use of a site(as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards).

There is undoubtedly a lot to unpick here.  Suggesting a relaxation of the imposition of residential amenity space standards but then saying ‘as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards’ – this would need defining.  Any ambiguity here would surely be another cause of delay with LPAs making their own qualitative judgement which will likely result in uncertainty. 

Brownfield development consultation – is it a silver bullet?

The DLUHC press release which was released on the 13th February highlights that their aim as part of this consultation is to ensure that the bar for refusing brownfield plans will be much higher for big city councils who do not hit their local agreed housebuilding targets.  Their intention is that LPAs in England’s 20 largest cities and towns will be made to follow a ‘brownfield presumption’, if housebuilding drops below expected levels. DLUHC claims that this will make it easier to get permission to build on previously developed brownfield sites, helping more young families to find a home. 

So what do we think – is it all smoke and mirrors, a last ditch attempt of a government who has seen 16 housing ministers, seemingly endless consultations, white papers and tweaks to policy and yet still a constant lack of housing delivery under their tenure.  In our ample project experience, developers want certainty about how planning applications will be assessed. In some ways, it would be helpful to have explicit policy dictating the requirements rather than leaving it to the qualitative judgements of ill-resourced local authorities.

However, despite the claims, we fear this isn’t going to ‘turbocharge’ anything.  As it stands, our fear is that the proposed changes are too wishy-washy to provide decision makers with certainty and the proposals might in fact increase delays. We also have our reservations about what will constitute brownfield land, the cost of remediation efforts needed on many brownfield sites which often make further development unviable, and most importantly, will this push for brownfield developments at any cost allow house building in the right locations. On the one hand, yes – typically urban areas are more sustainable/have existing facilities etc. But on the other, should there be a blanket approach of developing brownfield land when pockets of green space in high density areas would give more bang for the buck.

Given the rhetoric surrounding this, both in the DLUHC press release and Rishi Sunak’s piece in The Times on the 13th February, it does seem that this whole brownfield first drive is nothing more than the Tory’s obsession of protecting greenfield land and the (ever misunderstood and misrepresented) Green Belt, as this appeals to their political constituency. We think this preoccupation is central to this brownfield policy drive, but it is being dressed up as an initiative from the party that wants to be perceived as delivering much needed housing. There are other policy initiatives that could achieve that aim.

But that said, something needs to be done, greater clarity is needed to assist decision makers, a more streamlined process could help.  We have experienced first hand that whilst brownfield land development alone won’t solve the housing crisis, it can result in positive developments and the current proposals may help unlock certain sites. We would certainly welcome changes to help and support appropriate developments in sustainable locations, and to help and support SME developers who often bring these sites forward. 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and how long any proposed / actioned changes hang around after the General Election, especially if Labour come to power.  Will we be writing about a ‘Grey Belt’ consultation this time next year?   In the meantime we will be submitting our thoughts to this consultation and strongly encourage you to do so too.

SME developer, brownfield sites? We can help

In the meantime, if you are a landowner or SME developer and are interested to know how these proposed changes will affect future development or indeed have a brownfield site that you are interested in pursuing planning on, then don’t hesitate to contact our planning team.  We have extensive experience in unlocking these types of sites and bringing forward appropriate development on previously developed land.  From an eye-catching pink Passivhaus development in Newham, 9 flats in Ealing close to the iconic Hoover Building, a self-build in Barnet; 8 residential flats and commercial space in Waltham Forest, the list goes on and the key thread is inspiring, beautiful, appropriate developments on brownfield sites. 

About us

We are Plainview Planning – a solutions orientated, experienced and knowledgeable team of planning consultants.  If you need professional and informed planning support with your development project, then contact our team via enquiries@plainview.co.uk, to see how we can best assist you, providing the site address and a brief overview of your project. We value your privacy and any information which you provide will not be shared outside of our company and will only be used in relation to your enquiry.

Resources