Plenty of room in here for housing

The Government’s focus on housing growth at all costs is undermining efforts to regenerate existing urban areas. At the same time as major urban extensions and growth corridors are being planned, vast areas of vacant and derelict land remain undeveloped close to town centres. This land has the potential to address multiple pillars of government policy, including sustainability aspirations, rejuvenating ailing town centres and also the economists’ concern: major housing shortages.

However, the impetus to realise the vast potential of urban brownfield land is lacking, particularly at local level. Furthermore, there is a danger that changing government planning policy and Treasury-led shifts back to market-based thinking will undermine some recent success in developing brownfield land. These are some of the key findings from a research study produced by Llewelyn Davies Yeang for the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

Previously developed land can accommodate more than just new homes; a commitment to delivering brownfield housing can stimulate the renaissance of metropolitan and district centres. Increasing population levels in established centres can expand and create new markets for local services and facilities. At the same time, travel demand can be reduced, with less distance between local population and employment, shops and public services. Crucially, local centres can be brought back to life through the introduction of a critical mass of people and their spending power.

Although government policy officially supports this agenda, conflicting messages have emerged in recent months. First, the good news: recent changes to planning policy have reinforced the government’s commitment to creating mixed sustainable communities. Importantly, Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) on housing retains the target for at least 60% of new residential development to be delivered on previously developed land. However, at the same time, PPS3 has re-opened the door to exploring opportunities on greenfield land, and, like its predecessor PPG3, avoids explicit reference to small sites, many of which lie derelict or vacant in sustainable locations close to town centres.

Unfortunately, the Treasury’s view is all too clear. The influential Barker review could well become a cornerstone of policy if Gordon Brown becomes prime minister. The review’s focus is on creating a more efficient, development-focused response to addressing economic growth concerns arising from housing shortages. The danger is that coherent spatial planning, regeneration and sustainable development aspirations will be effectively sacrificed.

Failing to identify potential at local level

Examination of local housing capacity studies suggests that most authorities do not appear to have sufficient previously developed land to meet regional housing targets – most capacity studies demonstrate a shortfall of a few thousand units or so, and no doubt the shortfall fuels the Barker-led greenfield agenda. However, when analysed in more detail, there appears to be a discrepancy. The same authorities that claim to lack brownfield capacity are in fact meeting or even comfortably outstripping previously developed land targets despite their own capacity study findings. This exceeding of targets explains why recent government statistics indicate that as much as 77% of new development is being realised on previously developed land, commendably higher than the 60% target.

Where does all of this extra capacity come from? The answer is windfall sites. These are sites that have not been specifically identified by capacity assessments or in development plans. Discussions with local authorities reveal that significantly more windfall sites are coming forward than had been anticipated in local capacity assessments.

This underestimate of capacity has serious long-term consequences; as regional housing requirements are based on local capacity estimates, any local underestimate of windfall potential may result in the unnecessary allocation of greenfield land for residential development. This was a problem even before PPS3; but the government’s new approach (that windfall should not normally be included in the first 10 years of land supply) is likely to cast an even darker shadow over countryside at the urban fringe.

The rationale behind the new approach to windfall appears to have been to prevent local authorities from allocating too few sites for housing development and then relying on (potentially non-existent) windfall for the top-up. However, even local authorities with a proactive approach to brownfield land and with a rigorous brownfield site monitoring regime in place, such as Plymouth, remain surprised by the levels of brownfield windfall they experience on a regular basis. The constant urban change experienced in any settlement means that brownfield land is less of a finite resource than might be supposed.

Small urban sites less than one hectare in extent constitute another missed opportunity. Cumulatively, they offer potential both to meet housing targets and to contribute to sustainable patterns of development. Small raindrops make big puddles; in some parts of the country, up to 90% of new residential development is being achieved through smaller schemes (typically defined as 10 dwellings or less).

The issue here is one of identification. Small sites are often defined as windfall development, as they are not identified in the capacity survey. This is because most local authorities set a minimum size threshold and only consider sites above this level. This helps explain why, even in parts of London experiencing extremely high housing demand, as many as 45% of small town centre sites identified 10 years ago as vacant remain undeveloped. Extrapolating the potential capacity from these sites suggests that an additional 60,000 dwellings could be delivered immediately in town centres across London, the equivalent of six Barking Riverside developments.

Robust capacity assessments are key to local regeneration strategies

The potential that remains untapped demonstrates that relying on past trends or on outdated information sources is no longer excusable. A comprehensive fieldwork-driven approach provides a robust base for the assessment process, allows local planners better to understand the physical locations where extra capacity could be achieved and must be prioritised even by those local authorities claiming that resources are insufficient for such an approach; it will pay later in time and money at public inquiry.

A more assiduous approach to the identification of urban capacity can lead in turn to the regeneration of ailing central areas. Such an approach has reaped benefits in towns like Gravesend. Gravesham council has introduced new housing in central locations as part of a proactive strategy to increase the number of people living in and using the town centre and to avoid development at less sustainable greenfield locations.

It all sounds like common sense, and those impressed by the sustainable regeneration witnessed in Gravesend and Plymouth may well be asking why every town and city is not doing the same thing. A crucial part of the answer is that only a stringent monitoring regime across all brownfield sites can provide the evidence base required for such change to be delivered. Any capacity study is out of date almost as soon as it is completed, and even the most comprehensive, accurate capacity estimate will not necessarily stimulate brownfield development unless the sites surveyed are constantly monitored and brought forward. Although there are still too many authorities who do not see a full-time regime of geographic information systems monitoring as a “need to have”, an effective brownfield monitoring regime would allow them to create sustainable, market-responsive development – and isn’t that what we’re all trying to achieve?

The message to Gordon Brown from the research is clear. The approach to densities and previously developed land taken at national level in PPG3 was a major contributory factor to the amazing 77% of residential development on brownfield land witnessed in 2005, and capacity underestimates in overly conservative local studies should fool nobody into thinking that there is not enough brownfield to go around. The prime minister-in-waiting needs to acknowledge the untapped potential existing in our towns and cities in the face of those who would seek to release less sustainable greenfield sites. If Mr Brown wants to confirm his sustainability credentials, this would be a good place to start.