Greenfield Sites
Campaigners angry at plan to build on greenfield sites
TimesOnline, 31/07/03
A MASSIVE London housing plan, annexing 40 miles of the Thames riverbank and stretching into Kent, Essex and Bedfordshire, was announced by John Prescott yesterday.
The £2 billion programme will lead to more than 200,000 new homes on both greenfield and brownfield sites, pushing the capital towards the North Sea. The 12-year scheme aims to create at least 300,000 jobs in the South East. One in four homes will be affordable housing for key workers such as teachers and nurses, including a significant number of prefabricated homes.
The first stage will involve 120,000 houses on five sites along the Thames and on both sides of the estuary in Kent and Essex. But up to a further 100,000 homes will be built in three areas outside London where green fields and farmland will be concreted over.
Rural campaigners were enraged after it emerged that at least 50 per cent of the development outside London will be on green swaths of Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Kent. Other organisations were concerned that the project would not provide enough affordable housing for key workers who are now being priced out of the London market. Housing experts also raised the spectre of satellite towns being isolated outside the City with inadequate transport links into London and on to Europe.
Ministers have repeatedly insisted that more than 80 per cent of the new housing in the Thames Gateway area would be on brownfield urban sites. But yesterday officials from Mr Prescott's office told The Times that in the three other development areas, Milton Keynes, the M11 corridor from London to Stansted and Cambridge, and Ashford, at least half of the homes would be on undeveloped greenfield sites. "We do not know the exact proportions but you could say about 50 per cent greenfield, 50 per cent brownfield," one official said.
Mr Prescott said 120,000 homes would be built in the Thames Gateway area in five priority areas: Stratford, East London; Greenwich/Woolwich; Barking Reach; Thurrock and north Kent-Thameside.
Mr Prescott said: "The money I am allocating will help to kick-start the process of turning Europe's largest collection of brownfield sites into living, breathing communities where people are proud to belong."
Before touring the areas by helicopter with the Prime Minister, he announced that £330 million will be spent over the next three years to kick-start the housing programme. A further £1 billion to £2 billion would be attracted from other public and private partners, he said.
But a further £164 million has been earmarked for developments in areas outside the Thames Gateway. A report published by Mr Prescott yesterday said that 133,000 homes would be built in the Milton Keynes area over the next three years, 44,000 more than planned, with a similar number built in Stansted and Ashford.
Countryside campaigners said that developers in both the Thames Gateway and the three other areas would build first on the more profitable greenfield areas. The Campaign to Protect Rural England said that the report had ducked the issue of density and brownfield targets. Nigel Kersey, director of CPRE London, said: "It will be extremely disappointing if the Government has adopted a 50 per cent target outside London for greenfield sites. Large swaths of the countryside will be ruined and people's quality of life will be damaged. But I fear that developers will encroach on both green belt and greenfield areas as these will be the most profitable sites."
David Davis, the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, said: "Low employment areas with inadequate infrastructure and transport links will not create sustainable communities. It will create high-stress dormitory towns to the detriment of the quality of life of residents."
Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, said: "John Prescott's plans must be backed up with the appropriate social and transport infrastructure. Without schools, hospitals and public transport links, these new communities will struggle to succeed."
Green and pleasant land
Greenfield land values are still on the rise after 2000 planning guidance, says Yolande Barnes
PropertyWeek, 06.05.2005
Since 2001, greenfield land values have been growing at a much faster rate than those for urban or brownfield land.
Part of the reason for the difference can be attributed to the contamination and clean-up costs, increased likelihood of delays and complex infrastructure costs associated with brownfield land.
But the question remains: why have greenfield values grown so quickly? One possible explanation is linked to land availability.
Up until 1999 the amount of greenfield and brownfield land being developed for housing was similar. However all this changed with the introduction of PPG3 in 2000. Restrictions on greenfield sites became tighter, leading developers to look to brownfield. The result was an added scarcity of greenfield land that could be developed, and a subsequent growth in its value.
This quarter, greenfield values across all regions increased by 1%, compared with a 0.3% increase for brownfield land. But it is worth pointing out that the level of growth varies from region to region.
The east of the country has had some of the biggest increases in values for Green and brownfield land. Strong development activity, particularly in the east Midlands, coupled with growth off a low base, is part of the explanation for this.
In other regions the uncertainty associated with brownfield schemes has kept values static, or in the case of the north, actually driven them down. What is surprising in this quarter is the outperformance of brownfield land in the south-east compared with greenfield land.
The decline in greenfield development has also meant that there is less land being developed for housing. Up until 1999, an average of 13,956 acres (5,652 ha) was being developed for housing each year. Between 2000 and 2003 this fell to 12,659 acres (5,127 ha).
But rather than this leading to a drop in housing output, completions since 2001 have steadily increased. This is because developers have been building at higher densities.
The restriction placed on greenfield development in 2000 and the resultant rise in the development of brownfield land for housing forms part of the government's drive to see at least 60% of all future housing developed on this type of land.
A potential threat to this may come from a recent European Court of Justice ruling, which suggests the reclassification of contaminated soil as waste, rendering contaminated sites as landfill. Developers wishing to build on reclassified sites would therefore have to apply for a landfill permit or waste management licence, which would bring a whole range of legal and financial obligations.
Apart from extra development costs, the potential impact for homebuyers on a site of this kind could call into question the viability of brownfield schemes.
