Brownfield Passports: Can They Unlock Urban Development?

The Government’s recently proposed Brownfield Passport policy paper marks a notable evolution in the ongoing conversation around planning reform. Positioned as a practical tool to simplify the route to redevelopment of underused land, the concept is still in its early stages but could, if designed well, help unlock many constrained sites across the UK and respond more effectively to our growing need for homes and employment space within urban centres.

The policy’s ambition is clear: to bring clarity and consistency to the process of bringing brownfield land forward for development. The current discretionary planning regime often creates uncertainty for both developers and local authorities, particularly when dealing with technically complex, low-margin sites. The Brownfield Passport aims to address this by introducing a presumption in favour of development for eligible brownfield plots, provided schemes meet certain design, density, and compliance benchmarks. In theory, this could significantly reduce the delays and cost burdens that often stifle regeneration schemes before they get off the ground.

Key components of the Brownfield Passport proposal include:

• Presumption in favour of development – Planning applications for designated brownfield sites would benefit from an upfront ‘yes’, unless there are strong grounds for refusal. This is a fundamental shift away from the current system of assessing each case individually.
• Use of Local Development Orders (LDOs) – The Government is encouraging wider adoption of LDOs, which can grant automatic planning consent for predefined forms of development across specified zones. When paired with the Passport, this could give developers a far more predictable and streamlined pathway to planning approval.
• Standardised parameters – Development would be guided by a set of national and local rules around design, density, and environmental standards. These parameters are intended to provide guardrails without becoming overly prescriptive, although how this balance will be struck remains to be seen.
• Integration with Brownfield Land Registers – Local authorities will be expected to identify suitable sites through existing brownfield registers, which would act as the foundation for where passports might apply. However, the quality and consistency of these registers vary widely at present.
• Fast-tracked development routes – For schemes that align with the criteria, planning timelines could be significantly reduced, particularly in urban areas with high housing need or economic redevelopment potential.

On paper, this appears both pragmatic and positive – especially for our sector, where land remediation, enabling works and marginal viability often go hand-in-hand. The ability to take a more certain proposition to investors and joint venture partners could help to de-risk otherwise difficult sites. For landowners and developers, the value lies in being able to assess feasibility without being caught in months (or years) of costly planning limbo.

Yet we’ve seen similar attempts at reform before. Prior initiatives such as Permission in Principle, Zonal Planning, and Planning Delivery Grants have often failed to deliver the scale of change promised. The challenge lies in implementation – not just at policy level but on the ground, within under-resourced planning departments and across diverse local authority geographies.

There are also valid questions around the practicality of a blanket policy approach. Brownfield land is not homogenous. Legacy contamination, ground conditions, infrastructure deficits and proximity to sensitive receptors vary dramatically between sites. A poorly calibrated presumption in favour could result in poorly located or under-supported development. It’s essential that any new model retains sufficient flexibility to reflect this complexity.

We must not bypass the importance of meaningful public engagement. The streamlined approach should not come at the expense of democratic input. Communities must still have a say – and, crucially, must understand and trust the process if the policy is to carry social legitimacy.

Infrastructure remains a critical enabler. Development density will only be successful if transport, utilities, schools, healthcare and green space provision are planned in tandem. Brownfield Passports will need to be integrated with funding mechanisms and local infrastructure strategies to ensure long-term sustainability, rather than short-term wins.

Nonetheless, the policy represents a step in the right direction. If refined and supported properly, Brownfield Passports could accelerate delivery on sites that have stalled for years. They may also support the Government’s stated aim to protect the green belt by channelling development towards already disturbed or vacant land.

As ever, the devil will be in the detail – and in the execution. It’s one thing to shift policy; it’s another to shift outcomes. If we’re serious about revitalising our towns and cities, we must ensure that Brownfield Passports become more than just another good idea lost in translation.