Brownfield register regulations

Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Grŵp agored | Wedi dechrau - Gorffenaf 2012 | Gweithgaredd diwethaf - Ddoe

Richard Crawley, Addaswyd 7 Years yn ôl.

Brownfield register regulations

Expert Postiadau: 254 Dyddiad Ymuno: 07/12/2011 Bostiadau diweddar

Were published today

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/403/contents/made

Comes into force in April, but

"Each local planning authority must publish their register by 31st December 2017. "

brownfield land register

Jonathan Pheasant, Addaswyd 7 Years yn ôl.

RE: Brownfield register regulations

Advocate Postiadau: 158 Dyddiad Ymuno: 23/05/2011 Bostiadau diweddar

Has anyone noticed that in the Regs for Brownfield Registers there is a requirement to include in the Register whether or not the land/site is 'deliverable'. When I first read tis I thought, well that's easy, it will just be whether you have/are putting it in your 5 years supply.

There appears to be a subtle difference. Footnote 11 of the NPPF sets out what 'deliverable' means and says that there should be a 'realistic' prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within 5 years.

Scheule 2 Part 5 of the Regs specifcally defines 'deliverable' for the purposes of the Regs as that there is a 'reasonable' prospect that housing will be delivered within 5 years.

It might not seem much but there is a subtle difference and 5YS calculatins are still argued over and over at Examinations and Appeals in terms of methodology. The term 'reasonable' is used in footnote 12 of the Framework to define 'developable' sites and my reading is that when drafted there was a difference in 5 year sites needign to be 'realistic' and longer term ones needing to be 'reasonable'.

Less subtle is the fact that the Regs simply say there should be a reasonable prospect that development will take place within 5 years but footnote 11 of the Framework says that deliverable sites must be 'available now'. It's often argued that if the site is in use it is not 'available now' and is therefore not deliverable but it could still be 'deliverable' for the purposes of the BLR.

I might be being picky here but the Government is trying to streamline the system and make it clear and expedient. We all go round and round in circles arguing about this definitions and inconsistencies and it causes costs and delays. It all needs to be CLEARER.

I am hoping that when the new NPPF is published it really brings these definitions into line and clarifies things and brings constency. I doubt it though.

Anyway...enough of this..I've now got to go and work out exactly what 'persistent under delivery' means.

Former Member, Addaswyd 7 Years yn ôl.

RE: Brownfield register regulations

We're just starting to look at our register. I note the required information that should be included on the register. Is that a minima and can it be incorporate with other criteria,

particularly as part of a call for sites pro-forma etc?

Richard Crawley, Addaswyd 7 Years yn ôl.

RE: Brownfield register regulations

Expert Postiadau: 254 Dyddiad Ymuno: 07/12/2011 Bostiadau diweddar

This is such an important point.

I haven't got my teeth into the new regs yet, and there are technical regs still in the works. BUT it is clear to me that the risk for councils is that they treat the brownfield register as a stand-alone thing that is used to monitor a manifesto commitment [.. that 90% of brownfield sites will have ..]

Instead it makes much more sense to incorporate the register into a more general part of monitoring and promoting land.

So, I'm working on the assumption that a sensible approach is to have a Small Sites Register - a subset of which is the brownfield register.

Otherwise you'll have several separate but similar datasets all doing similar but separate things. And that is how to increase costs and make mistakes.

Maybe you should have a land register, a subset of which is the small sites register, a subset of which is the brownfield register.

Former Member, Addaswyd 7 Years yn ôl.

RE: Brownfield register regulations

My thoughts exactly. Why create a separate dataset, with different criteria, when the data already exists. The criteria required as part of the BR is, on the face of it,less than that required for a SHLAA, so in theory the SHLAA could/should be used to extract the relevant data. However, a call for sites is required for the BR and a call for sites is required for a SHLAA. Will/do the regs allow the BR call for sites to be combined with the SHLAA call for sites?

It seems sensible to use existing data and process, rather than re-invent the wheel, particulalry if stage 2 of the BR, the PIP, will require even more information to enable a site to be selected, which is likely to require the additional data, currently in a SHLAA.