Michael Gove says he wants to force councils to accelerate brownfield development. I wish him well. Having spent a career trying to assemble brownfield sites in high demand areas like the Thames Valley, for both residential and commercial redevelopment, ie. regeneration of brownfield land, my opinion is that he will discover this solution to the housing deficit is a fantasy. There are a lot of reasons. Obtaining planning permission more easily may help, but planning is rarely the main issue that stops redevelopment of brownfield land.
Ask first why the site remains brownfield land, despite the development potential. Usually there will be several reasons. Above all, the land owners are not interested. This can be for a hundred unique reasons. Simply the timing does not suit the owners. . I tracked sites for twenty years, ideal in every regard for redevelopment without success. Or they might be tempted, but their price to sell stopped the project being viable. Of course if the council changed their local plan policies and unexpectedly doubled the density, thereby enhancing the viability, attitudes of owners would immediately change. Will this happen, when councils are run by councillors who represent residents highly suspicious of urban change near them? And compelling councils to do things they dislike is not the way to win local support, which is another government policy.
In each town and city there is an army of agents, residential or commercial estate agents, land buyers and land scouts for developers, all diligently searching for building sites, both urban regeneration sites and suburban brownfield sites. These people know their areas in depth. What makes Gove think his tinkering with planning policy of reluctant local councils will release a tsunami of new brownfield sites? The market for sites is unique. This is normal. Until he shows little understanding of this reality he will fail. Here is one example which shows why.
Many brownfield sites with obvious redevelopment potential a have owners in the pubic sector or charity owners not motivated by commercial policies. So as a result the diligent army above ignores them. They know the barriers to change of use are far higher for these sites irrespective of local plan policies. The starting point with these owners may be relocation nearby. That can take years, doubles the workload and increases the risk of failure. In short, these sites are normally a waste of time. They are undeliverable brownfield sites. Two examples spring to mind. The airspace behind South Kensington underground station remains prime space in a very high value location. More than 40 years ago I tried and failed to secure an conditional contract to buy it. Nothing has changed. What a lost opportunity for the local community and the public sector land owner. And above Richmond upon Thames railway station there is a large, centrally located site, or volume of airspace above the train tracks and platforms. The site remains untouched despite decades of growing land values. It could accommodate a lot of residential homes, without occupiers needing cars and become a significant enhancement of the town centre offer too. To obtain the support of nearby local residents suitable in compensation will be needed.
There are in these popular locations in the south dozens of potential brownfield sites. Turning them into building sites does not depend on tweaks to planning policy, helpful though they be. Surprising a Conservative government does not understand how the market for building land works. Do they seriously want to solve the housing supply shortfall?
Ian Campbell
14 February 2024
.
