Surplus of greenfield land with planning permission could render brownfield development unviable, says report

A new report initiated by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) contains a 'ground-breaking study, Brownfield Market Signals: Greenfield housing land supply and the viability of brownfield housing development' demonstrating that an excess of greenfield land with planning permission could render brownfield development unviable and undermine urban regeneration.

Drawing on data on planning consents, housebuilding and construction costs, the CPRE researchers created a model of development viability. This was used to explore how the availability of greenfield land with planning permission affects the economics of brownfield development in nine local authority areas. The research finds that brownfield viability is worst affected in areas which have significantly more greenfield than brownfield land supply.

As the report was published, the All Party Urban Development Group also released a report highlighting the need for cities to have additional financial tools and revenue raising options, and argues that accelerated development zones (ADZs) – a UK variant on tax increment financing (TIF), which forward funds infrastructure taken from future increases in tax revenue caused by new development – should be introduced as a key step towards achieving this objective.

The report further suggests that brownfield viability is less affected by low levels of competing greenfield land supply. The research suggests, especially in North Tyneside and Corby, that high levels of housebuilding in one part of a local authority area sends market signals that make development less viable in other parts of the same authority area.

Kate Gordon, CPRE’s Senior Planner, said: 'These findings have wide significance. Councils are expected to find land to accommodate the national target of 3 million new homes by 2020. Areas that have relied in the past on brownfield sites to meet their housing needs, face pressure to allocate greenfield land for development. As a consequence, areas where brownfield development viability is not at present threatened by competing greenfield land supply, such as Southampton, [5] may find that this situation changes in future.’

Kate Gordon concluded: ‘We urge Councils contemplating large-scale greenfield land releases not to proceed unless they are satisfied these will not harm prospects for redevelopment and regeneration. Tremendous potential still exists to make better use of brownfield opportunities and reap the long term rewards in terms of urban renewal. As this study shows, for this potential to be realised, great care needs to be taken over the scale, location and timing of greenfield land release.’