Michael Gove wants to see councils apply greater priority to the use of brownfield land to deliver housing, but is his ‘tough love’ approach more to do with political posturing than practical policy? Tim Clark reports
It was unveiled as a tough new policy that aims to force “under-performing” councils to build on brownfield land.
Housing secretary Michael Gove has told “big city” councils that they must now prioritise brownfield development as part of plans to protect the Green Belt. The big question, however, is whether the new policy is – to a large amount – political posturing in the run up to the regional mayoral elections.
Described by the government as a raft of policy measures that “will take immediate action on its long-term plan for housing, which will deliver homes in the areas that need and want them the most.”, the reforms will allow changes to planning policy to ensure that local authorities will give “significant weight” to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible, especially where it involves land which is previously developed.
The announcement was accompanied by statements from the large house builders and developers such as Landsec, Barratt Developments, British Land and Vistry.
As befits his role as housing secretary, Gove gave a typically punchy speech announcing the new measures, stating that they “mark another important step forward in our long-term plan for housing, taking a brownfield first approach to deliver thousands of new homes where people want to live and work, without concreting over the countryside”.
Turbocharge regeneration?
However it remains to be seen whether the plans will have much of an impact on house building figures, especially as the country slides into a recession.
The UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) welcomed the renewed focus on brownfield development as a way to help tackle biodiversity and climate issues.
Philip Box, policy advisor at UKGBC, said: “As we tackle the biodiversity and climate crises, it is vital that we maximise the use of previously developed land and turbocharge regeneration.
“As some brownfield sites will have higher value for nature than degraded greenfield, it is vital that policies such as biodiversity net gain ensures any possible loss is fully accounted for and addressed.”
The UKGBC wasn’t the only industry expert to welcome the renewed focus on brownfield, which is almost universally supported within the housing and property sectors.
“Encouraging brownfield development in urban areas is clearly a very good thing, as generally urban areas are better connected and therefore more sustainable places to live,” says Simon Vernon Harcourt, design and planning director at city & country.
“However, there is not nearly enough brownfield land in the areas of greatest housing need. So, it is only a small part of the solution, and will not provide sufficient housing to relieve pressure on green belt land. The government needs to encourage development in sustainable locations.”
Victoria Hills, chief executive of the Royal Town Planning Institute, warned that the plans do not do much to achieve long-term aims, and could actually do more harm than good.
“While we have always welcomed the emphasis of development on brownfield, the minor adjustments to England’s planning system made today will not support the system at large to tackle the challenge of increasing housing supply. We need a long-term solution, including resourcing,” she says.
“Permitted Development Rights (PDR) have had mixed results so far. Many homes created through these routes are of poor quality and have little access to essential amenities like schools, GPs, and playgrounds. This issue is not limited to office blocks, as some of the worst living environments created this way have been on industrial sites.”
The policy removes the remaining barriers for change of use from retail or office to residential.
Space efficiency
Curiously, the consultation also proposes that local planning authorities should take a flexible approach in applying planning policies, or guidance relating to the internal layout of development in these circumstances, where they would otherwise inhibit making the most efficient use of a site.
The proposal is interesting in that it is unclear what the government is looking to achieve; it begs the question that achieving “efficient use” could lead to smaller space standards.
UKGBC’s Box is also concerned over what the impact of watered down regulations on office to resi could mean.
“We are concerned that proposals to streamline the conversion of office buildings into residential accommodation risks generating a new wave of ‘slums’, and poorer quality development.
“The evidence is clear – from the government’s own research to the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission – that PDR of this kind risks poorer quality design, environmental outcomes and quality of life for residents.”
The government has also reignited the debate over the future of the green belt, which has been an argument played out over successive government’s for a generation or more.
As Paul Wakefield, planning partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau says, by playing the brownfield vs green belt card, the government has once again drawn out a priority of one over the other.
“This is a false equivalence, as the numerous brownfield sites within the greenbelt testify,” he says.
”However, the content of the consultation doesn’t quite match the rhetoric, and instead simply focuses on delivering increased density on brownfield sites, and euphemistically invites local planning authorities to ‘take a flexible approach to applying planning policies’.”
Narrow focus?
Gove’s plan has also been criticised for being overly focussed on the big cities of the UK for housing delivery. Brian Berry, chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders says that with flatlining house building rates, there is a lot to be done to raise output that sits apart from simply focussing on large cities such as London, Manchester, or Birmingham.
“Brownfield sites are the mainstay sites of small builders, helping to rejuvenate run-down sites back into high quality housing,” says Berry.
“But we must also look beyond big cities and at the type of homes being delivered. There is a lack of affordable housing in the countryside, where small house builders once thrived. There are a wealth of brownfield sites outside of our major cities, but they are often overlooked in local plans, this must be addressed.”
Impact on delivery
Of course, telling council’s that they need to build more on brownfield land is different to actually getting more brownfield land built on.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) currently provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development to be applied to a local authority where it scores below 75% in the Housing Delivery Test.
Under the new plans, the government is proposing that, for the twenty urban uplift areas, this presumption should be applied for applications on previously developed land (brownfield land) where an area scores below 95%. This should, in theory, put council’s in such areas under more pressure to deliver housing, or approve planning applications.
According to Paul Smith, managing director of The Strategic Land Group, changes to the housing delivery test will have an impact on only eight of the 300-odd local authorities across the country.
“Whilst the benefits of this sort of marginal gain can accumulate, if we really want to begin making headway into our four million-home backlog, we need much bigger changes,” he says.
“Actually planning to build more new homes in the first place, reforming the green belt, and properly resourcing local authority planning departments would be a good start.”
Political overtones
The revamped focus on brownfield also comes with the publication of an independent review of the London Plan, which falls within the remit of the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.
The new review, which was headed by Kings Counsel Christopher Katkowski, acknowledged that there was “poor” house building in cities such as London. However the announcement has political overtones in a year when there are mayoral elections in both London and other cities.
The government hopes that the new proposals will “put rocket boosters under brownfield regeneration projects across the country, and provide the new homes the country needs”.
Realistically, the only hope the government is looking for with the new policy is a boost in its poll numbers. The reality is that any policy without real financial backing may simply be too little, too late.
Image credit: William Barton/Shutterstock
Read next: Modular housebuilder steps up with larger factory
Are you a social housing professional? Sign up for a FREE MEMBERSHIP to upload news stories, post job vacancies, and connect with colleagues on our secure social feed.
