Episode 159:

Hello and Welcome to the Part3 with me podcast. 

The show that helps part 3 students jump-start into their careers as qualified architects and also provides refresher episodes for practising architects. If you would like to show your support for the podcast and help us continue making amazing content, click on the link in the episode notes to sign up to our subscription. I also offer one to one mentoring services to help you with your submissions, exams and interview, head over to our website to learn more or reach out to me on LinkedIn through the Part3 With Me page, or instagram my handle is @part3withme or email me at part3withme@outlook.com. 

I am your host Maria Skoutari and this week we will be talking about the current Government’s anticipated Planning Reforms. Todays episode meets PC3 of the Part 3 Criteria.

In addition to the NPPF updates made by the current UK Government, they have also established a series of working papers on different aspects of planning reform, designed to inform further policy development in collaboration with the wider sector and support the changes outlined within the updated NPPF which seeks to raise housing targets and make them mandatory, thus enabling more homes to be built on ‘grey belt’ land, and require local authorities to review their Green Belt to meet housing needs. 

The working papers are intended to support discussions with the sector, to determine whether and how to take proposals forward, as opposed to formal consultations on specific proposals. The government will consider the responses and seek to publish an updated NPPF again before the end of the year. 

The Working Papers published last month, February 2025, by the Government intended to start discussions with the sector to determine whether these proposal should be taken forward. The working papers they have published to date they seek opinions on:

• Brownfield Passports
• Development and Nature Recovery
• Planning Committees
• Streamlining Infrastructure Planning

Lets look at each Working Paper in more detail, starting with Brownfield Passports:

Through this paper, the Government is seeking views on development of brownfield land in urban areas. It proposes options for a form of ‘brownfield passport’, which would be more specific about the development that should be regarded as acceptable in principle. 

The government has been clear that the first pro of call for development should be brownfield land. 

Meaning, making the most of previously developed urban land by:

• bringing derelict and under-used brownfield sites back into use, 
• taking forward small sites which have been overlooked for too long,
• seizing suitable opportunities to make better use of existing land and buildings that would benefit from redevelopment, intensification or a change of use,
• Have clear policies in place to communicate opportunities, with plans and development proposals informed by the views of local communities,
• ensuring such development contributes to making great places supporting healthy, resilient communities using design guidance and codes as well as masterplanning to be clear about the quality expected locally, supported by the right infrastructure.

As such, the Working Paper proposes that while the existing policy position is already supportive of brownfield development, and will become more so if the government takes forward the changes on which it has just consulted, anything that reduces uncertainty and hence risk to developers will help to encourage and underpin better use of urban land. Therefore, while they are not considering granting automatic planning permission on suitable brownfield sites or removing appropriate local oversight of the development control process, they do want to explore ways in which providing more explicit expectations for development could lower the risk, cost, and uncertainty associated with securing planning permissions on brownfield land.

In order to maximise clarity and certainty about the opportunities to make best use of urban land, the paper suggests there is scope to make further policy changes, at both a national and local level, relating to the principle, scale, and form of development in different types of locations. These potential changes are seen as a form of ‘brownfield passport’: setting clear parameters which, if met, serve as accepted markers of suitability, with approval becoming the default and a swifter outcome.

The working paper is therefore seeking views on whether national policy could take this ‘in principle’  of development acceptance support further. This would mean being explicit that development on brownfield land within urban settlements is acceptable unless specified exclusions apply. Those exclusions could, for example, include that there is no adverse impact in relation to flood risk and access that cannot be mitigated. Although local authority approval would still be required under any scenario, policy changes of this kind would carry significant weight in decision making and would create a clear expectation that compliant schemes be approved.

One approach could be to use national policy to set minimum expectations for certain types of location where a particular scale of development may be appropriate. As an alternative to setting expectations at a national level, policy could be amended to encourage such parameters to be set through local development plans, which could also be articulated through design codes for appropriate locations.

Another approach would be looking at the character of urban areas with differing opportunities to identify small sites, regenerate vacant brownfield land and redevelop existing plots at higher densities. Here, the working paper suggest seeking views about the potential to use design guides and codes that draw on the existing character of places, to identify opportunities and provide clarity on the types of development that are regarded as acceptable in particular locations.

And lastly, the working paper suggests that an additional approach would be to combine the options for the scale and form of development with Local Development Orders (LDOs), in order to provide upfront consent to developments that meet the specified criteria. Local Development Orders are an existing tool, prepared by local planning authorities, which give upfront planning permission for specified forms of development across all or part of an authority’s area. Combining them with criteria on the scale and/or form of development would allow a local planning authority to effectively establish one or more zones in which particular types of development had planning permission without the need for individual applications.

From this working paper, as mentioned, the government is seeking views on Brownfield passports and if the approached mentioned should be adopted in the upcoming NPPF updates. 

Now lets look at the second Working Paper seeking views on Development and Nature Recovery:

Through this paper, the Government is seeking views on how housing and infrastructure development can meet its environmental obligations and contribute to nature recovery. The review will engage with stakeholders across environment and nature, farming, resources, energy, waste and water sectors, working hand in glove with businesses, local authorities and civil society across the country to develop new ambitious plans to save nature.

This new approach is proposed to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements. If taken forward, the government would use the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to make the necessary legislative changes to establish a more efficient and effective way for Habitats Regulations and other environmental obligations to be discharged, pooling individual contributions to deliver the strategic interventions necessary to drive nature recovery. The goal is to create a "win-win" situation where development supports economic growth while enhancing environmental outcomes.

Unlocking this win-win outcome for the economy and for nature must start with addressing pollution and environmental harm at source. This means taking more robust regulatory and policy action on a number of fronts allowing the government to develop a new, statutory plan to protect and restore the natural environment at the scale and pace that is needed. This will focus on cleaning waterways, reducing waste across the economy, planting millions more trees, improving air quality, creating rich habitat and halting the decline in species by 2030. As such, the government is proposing in this working paper that  in order to meet the required aspirations, its necessary to revise environmental legislation to establish the proposed new approach through a new framework of Environmental Outcomes Reports replacing the current systems of environmental assessment. 

They seek to achieve their objectives through a 3 step approach:

• Moving responsibility for identifying actions to address environmental impacts away from multiple project-specific assessments in an area to a single strategic assessment and delivery plan. This will allow action to address environmental impacts from development to be taken strategically, at an appropriate geographic scale, rather than at the level of an individual project, while recognising the importance of protecting local communities’ access to nature and green space.
• Moving more responsibility for planning and implementing these strategic actions onto the state, delivered through organisations with the right expertise and with the necessary flexibility to take actions that most effectively deliver positive outcomes for nature.
• Allowing impacts to be dealt with strategically in exchange for a financial payment that helps fund strategic actions, so development can proceed more quickly. Project-level environmental assessments are then limited only to those harms not dealt with strategically.

From this working paper, as mentioned, the government is seeking views on the approach proposed to prioritising outcomes over process. Shifting to a strategic and more outcomes-focused approach to impact assessment and nature recovery has great potential to support the environment as well as helping deliver the housing and infrastructure required. This shift to focussing on outcomes aligns with the ongoing work to implement Environmental Outcomes Reports. Robust Delivery Plans developed by expert bodies, funded by developers, and implemented in partnership with land managers and other nature service providers can deliver better outcomes for the economy and the environment.

Now lets look at the third Working Paper seeking views on Planning Committees:

Through this paper, the Government is seeking views on models for a national scheme of delegation to better support the decision making in the planning system. It proposes three possible options, designed to facilitate faster delivery of the quality homes and places that our communities need, by bringing greater standardisation over the operation of committees, in turn to give greater certainty to applicants. In addition, the government is interested in views on the creation of smaller targeted planning committees specifically for strategic development, as well as the introduction of a mandatory requirement for training for planning committee members.

As such, the government wants to encourage better quality development that is aligned with local development plans, facilitates fast delivery of homes and places that meets community needs and gives applicants the reassurance that in more instances their application will be considered by professional officers and determined in a timely manner. This allows committees and elected representatives to focus on contentious development not aligned with the development plan. In delivering on that objective, the government seeks to:

• encourage developers to submit good quality applications which are compliant with plan policies;
• allow planning committees to focus their resources on complex or contentious development where local democratic oversight is required and a balanced planning judgement is made;
• ensure planning committee members get the training and support they need to fulfil their duties effectively; and
• empower planning professionals to make sound planning decisions on those cases aligned with the development plan.

So to meet these, the government is proposing three actions:

1. a national scheme of delegation – bringing clarity and consistency to everyone about which applications get decided by officers and which by committees through - Option 1: Delegation for applications compliant with the development plan. Option 2: Delegation by default with exceptions for departures from the plan. Option 3: Delegation with a prescriptive list of exceptions.
2. dedicated committees for strategic development – allowing a dedicated and small group of councillors to dedicate energy to the most significant projects providing consistent oversight and expertise.; and
3. training for committee members – requiring that councillors undertake appropriate training before they can form part of a planning committee. To ensure members are well-informed about planning principles and law, reducing the likelihood of decisions being overturned on appeal.

Following receipt of view on these proposals, if any are taken forward, they will require primary legislation through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. These reforms aim to streamline the planning process, reduce delays, and ensure that committees focus on contentious or strategic developments while empowering planning professionals to handle compliant applications efficiently.

And lastly, lets look at the fourth Working Paper seeking views on Streamlining Infrastructure Planning: 

Through this paper, the Government is seeking views from stakeholders including communities, infrastructure and clean power developers and local authorities on action the government could take through the planning system to streamline the development of critical infrastructure. It focuses specifically on potential legislative changes, principally to the Planning Act 2008 including:

1. reviewing National Policy Statements (NPSs) on a more regular basis and making it easier to update them in the interim;
2. protecting the role of consultation in the consenting process but making it less burdensome;
3. supporting delivery of infrastructure post-consent;
4. allowing for appropriate flexibility in the process applied to projects where this is merited; and
5. strengthening statutory guidance to ensure clarity over what is and is not required.

The objective of these reforms is to deliver a faster, more certain, and less costly Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projec regime. As such, the proposals outlined within the paper relate to 3 areas:

• better, clearer and stronger National Policy Statements to create a more certain system;
• faster decisions under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects system; and
• related improvements to transport specific consenting regimes.

Under the first proposal, better clearer and stronger National Policy Statements, the function of the National Policy Statement is seen to:

• clearly establish the need for a particular type of infrastructure;
• set out any general policies and assessment principles relating to that type of development which are to be considered in the assessment of an application for development consent; and
• identify the approach to consideration of certain generic impacts to ensure that environmental, community, safety and other impacts are properly assessed.

As such, National Policy Statements, will be the primary policy framework within which the Examining Authority makes its recommendations to ministers on individual Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project applications and against which the Secretary of State is required to determine an application. To deliver on this commitment, the government is proposing to use the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to firstly, require each National Policy Statement to be updated at least every 5 years so that they reflect the government’s priorities and ambition and secondly, introduce a more streamlined process for making changes to National Policy Statements. The government will retain its existing power to review and update National Policy Statements in between these 5-year periods where the relevant statutory criteria are met, but this backstop will ensure that no more than five years can pass between updates to ensure that NPSs are kept up to date.

Now under the second proposal, faster decision making under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects system, by introducing a new pre-application service it will strengthen early planning advice to applicants and enable more intensive input and support for those projects that require it. The government therefore wishes to explore whether the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime is sufficiently flexible enough to adapt to the needs of projects and sectors, which may raise unique considerations, in order to continue to deliver robust but swift consenting decisions. The government is, therefore, interested in views on whether the Planning Act 2008, and its associated secondary legislation and guidance, is sufficiently flexible to adapt to the specific requirements of different sectors, unique projects in a given region, or groups of interlinked pieces of infrastructure. As well as introducing a new power for the Secretary of State to make statutory guidance across the whole consenting process under the Planning Act 2008. This will enable greater clarity over expectations for all those involved in the consenting process at all stages including acceptance, pre-examination and examination, and decision, and support implementation of changes to primary legislation and secondary legislation. 

And lastly under the third proposal, updating transport consenting regimes, the government is proposing to introduce a number of different measures via the Planning Infrastructure Bill to support the timely delivery of transport infrastructure projects. These include adding measures under the Highways Act 1980 to streamline and improve the efficiency of delivering road infrastructure scheme and also measures under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to add measures to streamline and improve the efficiency of delivering new transport schemes such as guided transport schemes, railway schemes and tramways. 

The proposals, therefore, under this fourth working paper reflect the government’s commitment to ramping up significantly the delivery of major economic infrastructure, reflecting the Plan for Change’s ambition to determine 150 Development Consent Order applications by the end of the Parliament. 

These four working papers are just the start of the governments initial steps in reforming the planning process and achieving a balanced outcome that delivers both economic growth and environmental recovery. With thoughtful implementation, transparent processes, and strong collaboration among stakeholders, the proposed reforms have the potential to unlock housing delivery while securing meaningful gains for the natural environment. 

I will keep you updated in forthcoming episodes with further proposed changes and updates from the government regarding planning legislation as they progress.

To sum up what I discussed today:

• The current government has published four working papers on different aspects of planning reform, designed to inform further policy development in collaboration with the wider sector and support the changes outlined within the updated NPPF.
• The four current published working papers the government is seeking views on includes, Brownfield Passports, Development and Nature Recovery, Planning Committees and Streamlining Infrastructure Planning. 
• Brownfield Passports: The government is exploring the concept of "brownfield passports" to encourage development on previously used urban land. This involves setting clear parameters for acceptable development, reducing uncertainty and risk for developers, while maintaining local oversight.
• Development and Nature Recovery: The government aims to align housing and infrastructure development with environmental obligations. This includes using development funding to support nature recovery and revising environmental legislation to streamline assessments and focus on strategic outcomes.
• Planning Committees: The government proposes reforms to planning committees, including a national scheme of delegation to standardise decision-making processes. This aims to ensure faster delivery of quality homes by empowering professionals to handle compliant applications and focusing committees on contentious issues.
• Streamlining Infrastructure Planning: The government seeks to streamline the development of critical infrastructure by reviewing and updating National Policy Statements more regularly. This includes making the consenting process less burdensome while maintaining consultation roles.
• Many of these reforms, including changes to planning committees and infrastructure planning, will require legislative changes through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The goal is to create a more efficient and effective planning system that supports economic growth and environmental protection.