The consultation on changes proposed to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ended on 24^th September 2024. LSH has previously reviewed and commented on the proposed revisions to the ‘standard method’ for assessing housing need, and the regional and local impacts of this on plan-making; identifying significant increases in housing need through the revised method.This was one of the many planning reforms expected from the new Government, in line with their medium to long-term housing strategy to provide 1.5 million homes over the next five years.

This article considers this previous commentary, whilst specifically reflecting on a recent Centre for Cities seminar ‘In the Zone: What can the UK learn from planning reforms abroad?’ which explored the advantages and disadvantages of a zonal planning system.

In the UK our discretionary planning system strongly emphasises the role of the decision-maker to determine whether an application accords with local and national policy.

In contrast, the zonal system is based on a set of predefined rules, effectively removing professional judgement on whether a proposal is acceptable. Whilst many countries have adopted the zonal planning system (including the USA and New Zealand), the implementation of this varies from country to country.

The pros and cons of adopting a zoning system as a way of reforming the current planning system in England was debated at the Centre for Cities seminar, with a specific focus on how this could increase the housing delivery. There is an argument that in some scenarios, zoning can provide greater certainty and direction during the decision-making process allowing reform to be implemented efficiently at a local level. This has been key in addressing housing shortages in Auckland, New Zealand for example.

The transparency and certainty for both developers and residents is a significant benefit of the zoned system, replacing the discretion and subjectivities associated with the UK planning system.

The speed in which places change through cycles of growth and political shifts must not be underestimated, however. There is a considerable risk to the UK adopting a zoned system in that imposing any zoning rules could automatically constrain growth in existing cities, reinforcing current development patterns instead of planning for the future. To mitigate this, zones must be updated periodically; not dissimilar to the Local Plan process experienced in England.

Furthermore, the determination of zones locally can lead to a disjointed approach across local authorities, as seen across the USA in instances where localities have not consulted at a strategic level to collaborate on development plans. This potentially risks fragmenting societies and may eventually deter developers from pursuing large-scale regenerative projects.

We have also looked at the zoning system operating in Australia, which includes specific zones for matters of State, regional and local environmental planning significance, and State-significant development sites. In New South Wales, for example, this includes the Central Business District, the coast, and Fox Studios. In these zones applications are submitted directly to the Minister who then consults the local authority for their views on the application before making a final decision. This effectively speeds up the process and allows for Ministerial decisions to be made without having to submit an appeal.

Zoning is not totally unfamiliar in the English planning system.

Whilst the Government has not directly discussed approaches to implement zoning in the UK, other recent publications (the ‘grey belt’ development concept, for example) could point to the planning system being reformed in this manner.

The launch of the ‘Brownfield Passport’ consultation on 22^nd September 2024 also introduced the Government's proposals to speed-up the planning application process for development on brownfield sites. The Planning Reform Working Paper states that the Passport aims to “make the default answer to suitable proposals a straightforward yes.”

This is a bid to lower the risk, cost and uncertainty associated with gaining planning permission on brownfield land. The consultation is explicit that development on brownfield land within urban settlements would be acceptable unless specified exclusions apply, including flood risk or access that cannot be mitigated.

Although the Brownfield Passport appears to propose significant changes to the planning process, the consultation is in the initial stages and does not currently hold any weight. For the concept to progress and to incentivise the development of brownfield land, the Government must also consider the wider practical issues associated with brownfield delivery, including significant issues of viability stemming from ground remediation issues, and the mandatory requirements of the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) legislation.

Initial feedback on the consultation questions the similarities between Permission in Principle and the core concept of the Brownfield Passport, both of which aim to streamline the planning process.

We will provide further commentary on Brownfield Passports once consultation has progressed.

Our Planning, Regeneration, + Infrastructure (PR+I) team has a wide range of experience in brownfield redevelopment projects. Our specialist team provides advice at all stages of the planning, development and regeneration lifecycle. Works we undertake include: