Unlocking Britain's Industrial Potential: A New Era in Planning Policy

While the changes were largely billed as part of a drive to increase housebuilding, it also looks like Government recognises that housing alone will not stimulate economic growth and we must also address some of the key challenges in delivering the UK’s industrial infrastructure. 

Industrial and logistics space enables goods to be moved efficiently around the country and supports businesses of all shapes and sizes across all parts of the economy. However, there’s a long-term undersupply of modern space which is restricting the growth of some of the UK's high-productivity sectors.

This is an argument SEGRO has been making for some time. Our 2017 publication "Keep London Working" showed that between 2011 and 2016 an average of 106 hectares of industrial land were released for other uses every year, almost three times the policy target. 
This is an argument that SEGRO made as a member of the Industrial Land Commission, convened by Centre for London to review.  Building on our Keep London Working report of 2017, the Commission raised the concern of the loss of industrial land across London. It’s final report found that between 2001 – 2021, London lost six million square metres of its industrial floorspace – the equivalent of 840 football pitches.

More recently, research we commissioned with DEMOS found that a lack of industrial space is holding back investment in technology and innovation in the UK and restricting the growth of up to 350,000 businesses.

The changes proposed to the NPPF suggest that the message has been received by the new Government and policymakers are now prepared to be bold in unlocking development to meet the need for industrial and logistics space.

It's clear to us that the Government is keen to relax the protection of poor-quality green belt, which is long overdue. Grey belt, as it's being termed, will include spaces such as old petrol stations, former car parks and disused scrubland that deliver little benefit to communities, nature or the environment. Where appropriate, these sites in the future could accommodate new homes or the industrial infrastructure needed to provide employment and business growth.

The consultation proposes a sequential approach whereby brownfield land is prioritised, followed by the loosely-defined 'grey belt', before the green belt is considered. We need to recognise that not all brownfield sites will be suitable for all development types. For example, a lot of land around major motorway junctions is protected but is potentially a better location for logistics hubs than many brownfield sites due to the connectivity to the road network which helps to reduce vehicular miles, delivery times and ultimately the environmental impact. It is right that developers shouldn't go straight to green belt if there are suitable brownfield and grey belt options available, but we would caution about being too prescriptive about 'brownfield and grey belt first' and following a rigid sequence.

If the purpose of these planning reforms is to drive economic growth, and quickly, waiting until all the brownfield sites have been worked through before even considering grey and green belt locations will slow the delivery of much needed homes and employment space. 
We're also encouraged that the consultation proposes a strategic approach to planning. Strategically located sites for large scale logistics distribution hubs need to be planned for if we are to move goods and freight quickly, efficiently and more sustainably. The decision on where to locate these sites is considered 'larger than local'. The (re)introduction of strategic planning should mean that decisions are made at the appropriate regional or national level, but the question is, how will this be implemented?

Regional planning was abolished in 2011 and subsequently the legal duty for councils to co-operate on Local Plans was ended in 2023 as it was causing delays and meaning fewer authorities were able to put plans in place, which in turn was holding back development. 

Ultimately, if the legal duty route is not a realistic option, we believe the solution could be a two-tier plan-making system as we have in London where the London Plan serves as a strategic overlay to the individual plans put in place at a Borough level which set out the detail of how much and where employment space and housing should be delivered. Under this type of system, we think it's easier to plan for and deliver critical infrastructure, such as industrial and logistics, that serves a wider area or region.

The changes proposed should go some way to creating a planning system that supports the growth of the industrial and logistics sector – but only if we also introduce a more forward-looking and strategic approach to land allocation.

Currently, planning authorities use historic leasing data to project future demand for industrial space, however, when there are rapid changes in the economy impacting and accelerating the growth of the sector past data is not a reliable indicator. Furthermore, in chronically under-supplied markets 'real' demand is often far higher than the numbers suggest as some businesses simply cannot access the additional industrial space they need.

Overall, we view this consultation as a positive first step in modernising the planning system – not just for the delivery of much-needed housing but also for the industrial and logistics infrastructure that is essential for a modern economy.