Say no to ‘brownfield first’
A couple of months ago John Elliott, Managing Director of Millwood Designer Homes, spoke about the positive aspects of the new National Planning Policy Framework, which is due to commence in April 2012.
Since the NPPF draft went out to consultation, the Government has received huge criticism from certain groups who have been lobbying hard to try to get changes to the draft framework, which has now finished its consultation. However, John Elliott believes that the Government should stand firm and not give in to their demands, as he explains.
“There are a number of groups that want to dilute the NPPF, including the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and the National Trust. One thing they are asking the Government to introduce is a ‘brownfield first’ policy which they believe would mean that greenbelt land is less likely to be overdeveloped. But this concept is flawed as it makes no distinction between derelict, contaminated land and regenerated, bio-diverse recreational land.
“It was the previous target of at least 60% of homes being built on previously developed brownfield land that led to so-called ‘garden grabbing’ and ‘town cramming’. How could the authorities refuse development on brownfield gardens, which under the ‘brownfield first’ policy would be developed before any greenfield release? A ‘brownfield first’ policy does not encourage local authorities to better prioritise the types of land to be built on in their areas.
“However, the NPPF clearly states that local plans should allocate ‘land with the least environmental or amenity value’, addressing both the protection of the environment whilst encouraging the development of more homes which our nation desperately needs. More importantly, green belt protection is maintained along with that for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, SSSIs and protected wildlife habitats. The government also proposes to introduce a new local green space designation with equivalent status to the green belt.
“Let’s not also forget that some brownfield land – for example, contaminated sites – simply has too many costs involved to make it economically viable to construct the homes and businesses needed in an area. A ‘brownfild first’ policy would prevent local authorities from considering wider options when needed, preventing them from meeting housing needs and creating economic growth, which are detrimental to sustainable development. Add to this the delay from determining what brownfield land actually is deliverable and sustainable for development, and you have a process that is flawed through and through.
“Some bodies have also asked for clarity on the definition of sustainable development in order to strengthen its requirements, but it is impossible to come up with something that could easily be applied to the very different circumstances throughout the country.
“Specifically, a number of organisations are requesting the adoption of the Sustainable Developemnt Commission’s 2005 definition of sustainable development. However, this is incredibly detailed and would create a complex system that goes against the efficiency and clarity that the NPPF supports, making the entire planning procedure unnecessarily time consuming.
“These are just some of the reasons why I think that the NPPF should not be diluted and that you should not be listening to the mass hysteria created by the CPRE and others, as most of it is untrue. It is all about ‘not in my backyard’ and the huge misinformed element that for some reason think that the NPPF will actually allow housebuilders to build over greenbelt, which it won’t. The protection is still there in a big way, and as a housebuilder I am in complete support of that.
“The NPPF puts power in the hands of local authorities and communities, allowing them more scope and flexibility to determine the most sustainable locations for development, planning their areas in line with local needs, circumstances and preferences. It balances environmental, social and economic requirements in a way that works for everyone.
“Let’s not forget that a massive percentage of the country’s GDP is produced from the construction industry when it is running at normal speed. Housebuilding has a huge effect on everybody’s lives and the longer the housing market is stalled, the longer the recession will go on.
“Okay, I’m a housebuilder and you may think that I am biased but let’s get down to the nitty gritty. We have a growing population but we are currently not building enough new homes to meet the needs of that growth. In 2010, England saw the lowest peacetime housebuilding rate since 1923. We now have a shortfall approaching 1million homes and a current need for at least 230,000 homes a year. So where are our children supposed to live? The NPPF will begin to enable us to meet the housing need and encourage economic growth in a positive way, helping us to build a better future.”
Given the track record of local authorities in producing their plans (some still not done so today after many years), it is not unreasonable that they should be given a time limit to put new plans in place. If they do, then the plans will reflect all of the safeguards I refer to above as well as the needs and opinions of local people. Only if they do not meet the reasonable time limit will development be allowed with no right to objection from the local authorities – but even this scenario would be under the overall guidance of the NPPF.
Millwood currently has a range of properties in locations throughout Kent, Surrey and Sussex. For more information, visit millwooddesignerhomes.co.uk.