1.4 million. Even CPRE says it can only meet 1.5 million. This makes it clear issues is NOT where development goes but whether nationally we have the kodjonies to face down the Avocado NIMBYs who in the face of the evidence simply want to push down the housing numbers per-se
We have analysed all local authority Brownfield Registers.
We find that, even if every identified site was built to its full capacity, the capacity of previously-developed land equates to 1,400,000 net dwellings. This equates to just under a third (31%) of the 4.5m homes that are needed over the next fifteen years. Even with significant government support, brownfield land can only be part of the solution to the housing crisis.
Further, brownfield land is not evenly distributed, and not well aligned to current demand for new homes.
There is less brownfield land available in the places with the highest demand for new homes. The three regions where brownfield land is most relatively prevalent (North West, Yorkshire and the Humber and North East), are those where the price of homes is more closely aligned to average incomes.
Even in these regions, the capacity on registers is less than the current level of housing need. If ‘levelling up’ achieves economic re-balancing and drives higher levels of housing need, the gap between capacity of previously-developed land and homes needed will grow. Further, the type of homes that might be built on brownfield sites do not always match local housing needs and aspirations….
there are no housing market areas where the current standard method is acting as a ceiling on realising the potential of brownfield land.
If the Government did follow the recommendations of
The Building Back Britain Commission report, and redirect its support for house building towards areas that
might see higher job growth through levelling up, this
would not overcome the fundamental points that:
- There is not enough brownfield land in any
housing market area to meet current housing need,
let alone if that need is boosted through ‘levellingup’.
- The areas of the country where ‘levelling-up’ might
be most desirable, are also those where there is
greater viability risk to brownfield development.
- By positioning housing delivery in ‘levelling
up’ areas instead the most unaffordable areas,
price imbalance will continue to rise as supply
undershoots in high demand areas.
Any brownfield policy focus would need to be
accompanied by targeted and effective funding and not
be expected alone to provide the homes that are needed
in every area of the country.