Brownfield Passports: A Genuine Planning Reform or Just Another Pop at the Planning System?

The UK government’s "Brownfield Passport" initiative is being touted as a major step towards unlocking urban land to deliver much-needed housing. A central pillar of the government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes within this parliamentary term, the policy aims to accelerate development on brownfield sites by granting an effective "pre-approval" for housing in suitable locations.

But is this truly a game-changing reform, or is it yet another example of government rhetoric blaming the planning system for housing supply issues? Is it the delivery of sites that will generate the homes we need? ...or should we be focusing on whether we actually have the workforce to build them? And if the shortage of skilled tradespeople is as dire as many in the industry claim, how long before we start redefining "essential workers" to include bricklayers, plumbers, and plasterers?

What is the Brownfield Passport?

The "Brownfield Passport" proposal, as outlined in a government working paper from September last year, seeks to streamline planning approvals on previously developed land. The idea is to set clear parameters for acceptable development—type, scale, and design—so that developers can proceed with greater certainty. Local Development Orders (LDOs) could also be expanded to provide pre-approved area-wide permissions, further cutting through red tape.

The plan is to inject certainty into the planning system, reduce delays, and boost housing supply. But as Simon Ricketts points out in his insightful blog, Simonicity, many of the details remain vague, and the real-world impact of this initiative depends on how it interacts with existing policies, local authority resourcing, and market conditions.

Does Planning Delay Housing Delivery?

A fundamental assumption behind the Brownfield Passport is that planning is the main bottleneck to development. This has been a long-running political narrative: that if we could just get councils to say "yes" more quickly, homes would be built at the pace we need.

But is that actually true?

The reality is more complicated. Research from the Local Government Association (LGA) has repeatedly shown that there are hundreds of thousands of unbuilt homes already granted planning permission. In 2023, the LGA reported that over 1.1 million consented homes had yet to be delivered.

If planning permission were the primary obstacle, these homes would already be built. Instead, developers face a range of other challenges: infrastructure constraints, financing issues, landowner reluctance, and—perhaps most critically—a lack of skilled labour.

A Workforce Crisis: Who Will Build These Homes?

Let’s assume for a moment that the Brownfield Passport works perfectly. A wave of planning approvals sweeps across the country. Former industrial sites and derelict plots suddenly have the green light for development. Does that mean we will hit the 1.5 million homes target?

Not necessarily. Because a planning consent doesn’t lay bricks, install plumbing, or plaster walls. People do. And right now, we don’t have enough of them.

The construction industry is facing a severe skills shortage.

The Federation of Master Builders (FMB) has consistently warned that the UK lacks the number of skilled tradespeople needed to meet housing demand. Brexit and an ageing workforce have exacerbated the problem, with many experienced workers retiring and fewer young people entering the industry.

A 2023 report from the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) estimated that the UK needs 225,000 additional construction workers by 2027 to meet demand. This isn’t just about quantity—it’s also about expertise. Major housebuilders have raised concerns that even where workers are available, they often lack the skills needed to deliver homes to a high standard.

At what point, then, do we start treating construction workers as "essential workers"? The pandemic changed the way we define key workers, recognising the importance of supermarket staff, delivery drivers, and logistics workers in keeping the country running. If our housing crisis is as severe as the government claims, should we not extend that thinking to bricklayers, electricians, and plumbers?

Brownfield Challenges: Not Just Red Tape

Even if we had the workforce, brownfield sites come with their own challenges. Many require costly remediation to address contamination, while others lack the infrastructure—roads, utilities, public services—needed to make large-scale housing viable.

Developers inevitably favour greenfield sites precisely because they are simpler and cheaper to develop. Brownfield land is often fragmented, constrained, and expensive to prepare. Without significant financial incentives or support, the risk is that the Brownfield Passport simply leads to more planning approvals that never translate into actual development.

A Smokescreen for Housing Failure?

The government’s focus on streamlining planning has been framed as a way to deliver more homes, but is it also a convenient distraction from deeper structural issues?

Rather than addressing land banking, infrastructure funding gaps, or the declining number of small and medium-sized developers, the Brownfield Passport shifts the blame onto the planning system.

And let’s not ignore the political context. The 1.5 million homes target is a major election pledge. With all of the other issues that have been generated in the last six months, the government is under pressure to demonstrate progress on housing. Announcing a policy that "cuts red tape" plays well in headlines, even if its practical impact is uncertain.

What Should Planners and Developers Do?

With the consultation closing on 28 February, planning professionals and developers should take the opportunity to shape this policy. Constructive feedback could help ensure that:

• Brownfield Passports are genuinely workable, with clear guidelines and incentives that encourage development, rather than just adding another layer of bureaucracy.
• The workforce challenge is addressed, with measures to invest in skills training, apprenticeships, and visa policies that ensure we have the people needed to build new homes.
• Infrastructure funding is prioritised, recognising that unlocking brownfield land requires more than just faster planning decisions.

Conclusion: Real Reform or Just More Rhetoric?

The Brownfield Passport has potential. If designed well, it could provide certainty for developers and unlock much-needed urban land. But it is not a silver bullet.

Without a workforce to deliver the homes, without the infrastructure to support new communities, and without incentives that make brownfield sites viable, this initiative risks being just another repackaging of old policies that have failed to deliver in the past.

And if we really want to solve the housing crisis, perhaps it’s time to stop treating planning as the enemy—and start recognising the vital role of those who actually build the homes we need.

What do you think? Will the Brownfield Passport make a meaningful difference, or is it just political window dressing?

Should we be doing more to address the skills shortage in construction?

And if you haven’t already, don’t forget to submit your consultation response before the 28 February deadline!

#brownfield #housingcrisis