Hot on the heels of the NPPF consultation MHCLG has published a working paper on the introduction of ‘brownfield passports’ to encourage development of brownfield urban land in a way that goes beyond the policy support in the NPPF. This short Insight takes a look at this latest proposal and considers whether it offers something new for developers or whether it is a repurposing of existing tools. 

One of the headline changes proposed by Government in its consultation (which closes on 24 September) on revisions to the NPPF is to Green Belt policy. These proposed changes are worth detailed consideration as they may have significant implications for landowners and those with development interests in land currently allocated as Green Belt. In this insight we take a detailed look at how the proposed new Green Belt NPPF policy would apply in plan making, decision taking and to site assembly and what this means for land values, development viability and CPO compensation.

Labour’s landslide victory marks the end of 14 years of Conservative rule and heralds a new era. But once the champagne corks have stopped popping at Labour HQ, the new Government needs to roll up its sleeves fast and steer a stagflation economy onto a path of dynamic growth. Is it time for developers to be optimistic?

This Insight summarises the Planning aspirations of the Conservative, Labour and the Liberal Democrat manifestos for the UK’s 2024 election. Their shared focus is on housing, energy infrastructure and battling climate change. The Conservatives remain committed to the Green Belt and maximising brownfield and densification. Labour proposes new towns and increased use of compulsory purchase, with release of ‘grey’ belt. The Lib Dems focus on more localised strategies. Labour and the Conservatives both propose increases in offshore wind, nuclear and carbon capture, use and storage. Both resist fracking. Labour proposes new Government energy investment institutions. The Conservatives remain wary of onshore wind. The Lib Dems support nature-based solutions to the energy crisis given the imperative to tackle global warming.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in R(Finch) v Surrey County Council  [2024] UKSC 20 has potentially significant implications on how environmental impacts of major projects are assessed.  The question at the heart of the case was how far ‘downstream’ from a development project the decision-maker has to look when assessing its likely environmental effects.  The answer, according to a slim majority of the Supreme Court, is further than had previously been thought necessary.  However, it’s not panic stations for all EIA development.

Details of how the recently confirmed operational reforms to improve the NSIP planning process will work in practice are beginning to emerge. We have previously reported on which of the proposed operational reforms are confirmed, but following publication in April 2024 of various amendment regulations, new National Infrastructure Planning Guidance and PINS' launch of a new online platform, we now have a clearer understanding of the changes and how they will work in practice. 

Reducing the embodied carbon in the built environment has an important role in mitigating the effects of climate change.  However, there is no national planning policy that incorporates such considerations in the planning process. Whilst a policy shift is on the horizon, the recent High Court challenge brought by M&S following the refusal of its Oxford Street store plans brings welcome clarity on where things currently stand for demolition and rebuild proposals.  

Changes to the DCO consenting process to be introduced this spring have the potential to help applicants navigate this system with more certainty and confidence.  They introduce more flexibility into the process allowing the opportunity for applications to be processed in a way that is more appropriate and proportionate to its particular nature.

Some significant planning changes are proposed in a government consultation on ‘An Accelerated Planning System’ launched on 6 March 2024 alongside the Spring Budget (which closes on 1 May).  These proposed changes cover new processes to speed up planning decisions, details of how the new route to vary planning permissions under s73B TCPA will work and possible solutions to facilitate the operation of overlapping ‘drop-in’ permissions to prevent Hillside risks arising in large schemes.