When it comes to housing development there seems to be two major presumptions.
Firstly we need to build more houses.
Secondly we need to protect the countryside from development.
This is further underpinned by the mantra that, developing on the green belt or on green field sites is a bad thing. Any such proposals, are usually accompanied by public outrage and protests. A local council granting permission for building on green belt will be vilified as destroyers of the British countryside – a quick glance through the local press would yield many such examples.
Consequently, building on brownfield land has to be a good thing. There are targets of 60% of development on brownfield land. Moreover many organisations are lobbying for a higher percentage and Councils exceeding their Brownfield development target are applauded.
I doubt that many people would disagree with this assessment, but let’s look at things a little closer. There are obviously issues to debate around the need for new housing, however, despite the credit crunch, there is a long term demand for new housing and a commitment to building more homes. As for the second assumption, you don’t have to be an ‘eco warrior’ to know that we need to protect the countryside.
However, looking at things pragmatically the new homes have to go somewhere. Surely therefore it follows that we have to accept, as a matter of course, that the subsequent assumptions are the correct way forward because;- Brownfield land is bad, its dirty, wasted, contaminated, barren, man made etc. Whereas green field land is good, natural, clean, fresh, full of life etc. Therefore when building new homes we have a choice of either regenerating a desolate wasteland or destroying a natural green haven.
Is this really the case? At the risk of causing moral outrage I have to disagree. Yes habitats such as woodland, marsh land, wetland and heathland need protecting. However, much of the land classified as green is former agricultural land, therefore it’s not really natural at all. This land has often been so intensify farmed that landscape is quite bland and there is very little biodiversity. Furthermore as public access to this land is normally restricted, what value are people actually getting from it?
On the other hand some brownfield land, because of its former use, can often support many varied ecosystems and provide habitats which are scarce or declining. Lets look at one of our most iconic British birds as an example; the skylark. Changes in farming methods have seen a rapid decline in numbers, so much so that the skylark now has red list status as an endangered species. Yet wander on to many of the Land Trust’s former brownfield sites and they are quite abundant. Although this is a bit of an oxymoron, the grassland that has colonised these brownfield sites is more natural than is found on the supposed green belt. This land is also managed in a way that protects these habitats.
Perhaps the most extreme example is Avenue Coking Works in Chesterfield, once reckoned to be the most contaminated site in Europe. Even before any work started to remove the contamination nature had taken a hold. So much so, that the site is being restored in two phases in order to protect the existing wildlife. Amongst the many rare species that can now be spotted on the completed first phase are water voles, barn owls, kingfishers and the southern marsh orchid.
Another important other factor is location. Brownfield land is often at the heart or on the fringes of communities. This means that, once the safety issues are taken care of, people can access and use these spaces on a regular basis. Access to open space is proven to bring benefits to health, problems, such as obesity, heart disease and depression are reduced. Contrast that to agricultural or private land, which maybe aesthetically pleasing but because of limited or no access delivers much less benefit. Moreover turning an area from brown to green significantly improves its desirability and therefore lifts property values and attracts investments.
I’m not advocating concreting over the green belt, I just believe we need to use a more strategic approach. Sensitive controlled development on the ‘not so green belt’ can actually enhance and protect the important habitats if we use planning gain or section 106 wisely. We’d also then funding to manage land to ensure it delivers benefit for both people and nature. Additionally this money could be used to convert more brownfield land to useable open space and therefore ensure we have a net gain of green land. We have scope to add to the green belt because estimates suggest that there are between 70,000 to 200,000 hectares of derelict land in England and much of this is unsuitable for development.
Therefore if we need to build more houses, I would suggest the following: -
- The countryside and habitats that need protecting are identified, whether green or brown, and they are protected them at all costs
- Rather than making an arbitrary decision based how land is classified we should look at the specific ecological and amenity value of the land as well as the community’s needs before making an informed decision about which are the best sites to develop and protect.
- Bring more brownfield land back into use as green space to offset the land lost to development.
Tags: brownfield development, green belt, green belt development, house building
Building more houses is important.