Brownfield or Bust

By Charlie Rattigan

In the wake of the government’s second budget of the year, housing and development remains a key issue for Chancellor Rishi Sunak. In recent months, building safety issues and unprecedented rising house prices has meant the pressure has been building on the government, making this budget even more crucial.

This emphasis on investment in brownfield development in the Budget represents a two-pronged approach by the government in both combatting the housing shortage and building carbon-neutral homes that will help contribute to reaching net zero by 2050.

While some may be supportive of the green housing strategy, there are growing doubts about whether these investments will result in enough actual affordable homes being built. Speaking on the BBC Today programme, Nigel Wilson, chief executive of Legal and General, was wary of smaller cities and towns being left behind due to lack of homes being constructed and concluded that: “You shouldn't have to be rich to be green”.

So why are the government targeting brownfield land? In the main, brownfield sites are located in urban areas with existing infrastructure which arguably makes the planning process simpler. It also offers the government a chance to send out a strong message that should, in theory, be supported by environmentalist: that by delivering new homes on unused land in urban areas, the greenfield sites are less likely to be used and likewise, natural habitats will not be disturbed.

The challenge for the government now will be addressing the imbalance between the areas of extensive brownfield land (often found in the North of England) and areas of high housing demand, in the South and East of England, as well as delivering affordable low-carbon homes.