The framework\’s rejection of the brownfield-first policy is troubling because it was working. Last year, 76% of new dwellings were built on brownfield sites, up from 55% in 1989. It is estimated there are almost 62,000 hectares of brownfield or \”previously developed land\” in England ready for building on, of which 10,000 are in the south-east. This is enough to build more than 1.2m new homes.
That\’s 20 houses a hectare. 500 square metre building plots. So, err, where is all the room for those Passivhaus designs, those big south facing windows for the sun, the solar cells, the veg plots upon which we will feed ourselves?
Mark Wadsworth has the proper figures somewhere but housing, qua housing, is something like 2% of the entire country. Can\’t we spread ourselves out a bit more and have a bit more garden, a bit more living room?
Why do we have such building standards enforced when the main social movement of the day is that everyone should have more land not less?
And this is simply stupid:
Building on brownfield sites is more expensive, especially in the short term. But the great danger is that the social cost of building on these essential spaces between our urban areas will far outweigh the benefits in the longer term. The fear is that we will end up with sprawling conurbations whose peripheries boast upmarket homes that few starting on the property ladder can afford. It is this concern that the government must address.
No you twats. The fact that you cannot build on those greenfield sites is exactly what makes the extant housing there so damn expensive.