PLANNING
of engLand is ‘deveLoped’ The housing development naysayers use polemic phrases like ‘concreting the Countryside’ and ‘developing the Green Belt’ to galvanise support against development. In reality, less than eight per cent of England is classified as developed land. Between 2005-2009, the average greenfield land take for residential property in England was 1,218 hectares, equating to 0.01 percent of all land in England. 32,000 units of new housing were built on greenfield land last year, 26 per cent of all developed land. The vast majority of this greenfield
Less than eight per cent
development is on agricultural land. Contrary to much of the public debate on this subject, a tiny fraction of greenfield development is comprised of land in what would be described as being in a natural state. This equates to around 36 hectares of land per annum. In short, greenfield development is an important part of the development land mix, but falls well short of the volumes being suggested in the current public debate. This loads development towards previously built- upon brownfield land. Brownfield development represented
80 per cent of all residential development in the UK 2009, compared with 46 per cent in 1994. It is the first port of call for developers and the planning system expressly encourages this principle. The renewed flashpoint in the debate about where development should occur surrounds an overriding principle within the recently published National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that encourages a presumption in favour of development where the principles of sustainable development have been upheld. This is being wrongly interpreted by some as an endorsement of unchecked development. The NPPF condenses 1,000-odd pages
of legislation down to 52 pages. This document is only to be relied upon in the absence of a Local Development Framework (LDF) document. Barely one- third of Local Authorities have adopted an LDF, but all are required to complete one. This new document retains the essence of the existing planning system, but simplifies what previously became a very prescriptive and unwieldy set of documents. The important point here is that the guidelines and thrust of the existing planning system have been broadly retained, but interpretation of which developments are appropriate is for local people to decide.
PROPERTYdrum DECEMBER 2011 45
deveLopment So the debate is centred on whether development can be sustainable if it includes greenfield land. ‘Sustainable development’ is an elusive phrase to define, but it draws from the spheres of economic, social and environmental impacts to take a holistic view of development. The development industry argues for
eLusive sustainabLe
the merits of an industry that creates 1.5 full-time jobs per home constructed and contributes three per cent to GDP, in addition to making inroads into the significant housing deficit itself. On the other side is a land protectionist lobby that views the Green Belt policy created in the first half of the 20th Century as sacrosanct and any encroachment on this land as strictly against the well-meaning principles by which it was created. A third dimension is often lost in the
noise; what are the social costs for and against development? Protection of the countryside is undoubtedly laudable, preserving our natural heritage and biodiversity, not to mention the positive
Concreting the countryside?
In reality, less than 8% of England is classified as ‘developed land’.
enjoyment of landscapes that are a quintessential part of this country. The challenge is that a constrained land supply pushes up the cost of development land and brownfield land is already generally more expensive to build on. So, in order for development to be viable, new housing construction is forced to squeeze every last efficiency out of the land by building for density. This means that new British properties
are on average among the smallest in Europe, that vertical flat construction often provides better returns than horizontal family housing and in general the delivery of new housing is distorted by the land market rather than meeting the type and quality of properties actually demanded in the housing market. In the debate on whether greenfield
development should occur, are we genuinely considering the huge social impacts that are directly affected by not doing so?
it took a riot
It is perhaps no coincidence that this debate has made a resurgence within weeks of the recent London riots. However, if the negative social impacts of densely packed urban living are unpicked, surely the angst of a disaffected and largely youthful population is clear evidence that we haven’t got the physical environment of our cities quite right. In a drive to deliver density we have developed over sports fields, we have eliminated space for ‘ball games’ and have generally made it difficult to enjoy the sort of lifestyles that are freely available to our non-urban populations. For example approximately 600 acres of
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68