Brownfield sites developed six months faster than greenfield sites

Research published today (March 21st) by CPRE shows that brownfield sites are being developed more than half a year faster than greenfield sites. [1] This follows on from CPRE research carried out in late 2014, which found that there are enough suitable brownfield sites for at least 1 million new homes. [2]

It is estimated that Kent has 1,600 hectares of brownfield sites which could accommodate at least 70,000 homes. Much of this is in North Kent – in particular Dartford and the Medway Towns, but also Dover and Tonbridge and Malling have a lot of sites.

The new research covered 15 local authorities across England between March 2012 and December 2015. [3] Carried out by construction consultants Glenigan, the data reveals that the time between planning permission being granted and construction work starting is generally the same for brownfield and greenfield sites, but that work on brownfield sites is completed more than six months quicker.

While the Government has pledged to invest more than £2 billion in brownfield regeneration and establish a brownfield register, many of its proposed changes to planning policy are aimed at making it easier to build on greenfield land. [4] These proposals include developing small sites in the Green Belt and a ‘housing delivery test’ that would force councils to release more land for development if housebuilders do not meet high housing targets.

This new research illustrates that prioritising investment in brownfield sites is a highly effective way of building the homes we need. The research undermines claims that brownfield is either too slow or inconvenient to develop in comparison to greenfield.

Shaun Spiers, chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), comments:

“This Government has strongly supported brownfield development. Now it must show it has the courage of its convictions and usher in a brownfield revolution to tackle the housing crisis, benefit England’s towns and cities, and save the countryside from inappropriate development.

“This new research shows that brownfield sites are developed more quickly than greenfield sites, giving the lie to the idea that developing a brownfield site must be difficult or unprofitable. What is needed now is for the Government to put all its energy behind getting houses built on derelict and vacant sites.

“Crucially, it must drop the idea that the way to get houses built is simply to make more countryside available. The evidence is that this will slow down house building, rather than speed it up.”

CPRE is calling on the Government to:

• Amend the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to make the intentions of Ministers clear and prioritise the use of suitable brownfield sites in urban areas over greenfield – including empowering councils not to allocate greenfield sites in local plans and to refuse planning permission on greenfield sites where these would compete with suitable brownfield sites
• Commit to seeing development started on 90% of suitable brownfield sites by 2020, rather than just aiming for planning permission on 90% of suitable sites by 2020
• Make suitable brownfield sites the first priority for any public funding, and prevent public funding for greenfield sites where these would make competing demands. The Government should reform the New Homes Bonus to invest billions in regenerating brownfield sites [5]
• Make clear that planning and fiscal policies promoting brownfield development are focused on existing towns and cities, and damage to brownfield of high environmental or heritage value should be avoided

Notes: 

[1] CPRE with Glenigan, Brownfield comes first, report March 2016 (embarg. 21 March 2016).

[2] CPRE, From Wasted Space to Living Spaces, report November 2014.

[3] The research examined 12 urban and urban-rural fringe areas covering 15 local authority areas. These were: Cheshire East; Corby; County Durham; Coventry; Fylde; Leeds; Leicester, Blaby, and Oadby & Wigston; Salford; Southampton and Eastleigh; Stoke on Trent; Swindon; and York.

[4] A consultation on the NPPF published on 1 December 2015 proposes that local councils are made to allocate more land for development if housebuilding targets are not met (paragraph 33). This land could often be greenfield land.

[5] The Government has recently (up to 10 March 2016) consulted on reforms to the New Homes Bonus. CPRE has provided a response to this consultation.

March 21st 2016.

• A number of important documents have yet to emerge. For example, a rigorous transport plan and a finalised air-quality assessment. The latter is critical given that allocations at Teynham will feed extra traffic into AQMAs.
• There seems to be no coherent plan for infrastructure delivery – a key component of the plan given the allocations being proposed near the already crowded Junction 7.
• There seems to have been little or no cooperation with neighbouring boroughs or even parish councils within Swale itself.

The removal of a second consultation might have been understandable if this final version of the plan were similar to that being talked about at the beginning of the consultation process. It is, however, radically different in the following ways:

• There has been a major shift in the balance of housing allocations, away from the west of the borough over to the east, especially around the historic town of Faversham. This is a move that raises many concerns.
• A new large allocation, with accompanying A2 bypass, has appeared around Teynham and Lynsted, to which we are objecting.
• Housing allocations in the AONB around Neames Forstal that were judged “unsuitable” by the council’s own officers have now appeared as part of the housing numbers.
• Most of the housing allocations being proposed are on greenfield sites, many of them on Grade 1 agricultural land – a point to which we are strongly objecting.

Concerns about the rush to submit the plan

The haste with which the plan is being prepared is especially worrying given the concentration of housing in Faversham. If the town is to take a large amount of new housing, it is imperative that the policies concerning the area are carefully worked out to preserve, as far as possible, the unique nature of the town. The rush to submit the plan is likely to prove detrimental.

As Swale does not have a five-year land housing supply, it is open to speculative development proposals, many of which would run counter to the ideas contained in the current plan. Some are already appearing. This is a common situation, and one that, doubtless, is a reason behind Swale’s haste.

Our overriding fear, however, is that this emphasis on haste is ultimately going to prove counterproductive. This is because it is our view that the plan, in its current form, is unlikely to pass independent examination. We are urging Swale to listen to and act upon the comments being made about the plan and to return the plan to the council with appropriate modifications before submitting it to the Secretary of State.

Essentially, this means treating the current consultation not as the final one but as the ‘lost’ second consultation.

The consultation ends on Friday 30 April and we strongly urge residents to make their opinions known if they have not already done so.

Further information

• Read more on the Swale Local Plan
• Read CPRE Kent’s detailed comments on the plan
• View the council’s consultation document