Permission accomplished
While obtaining planning permission is an important step, it does not guarantee that a development will actually be built. Anthony Breach, director of policy and research at the Centre for Cities, notes that the 860,000 figure includes “lots of hypothetical projects that may or may not eventually get built”, alongside schemes that are already under construction.
“A big problem is that our planning system is very uncertain and restrictive, which ironically encourages speculative applications,” Breach says. “Developers have to prove to investors years in advance of any scheme being viable that there is local political support for the project.”
Construction costs have risen since the pandemic, while higher interest rates have made it more expensive to finance developments. For a developer concerned with profits, having permission to build does not always mean that doing so makes financial sense.
Keep reading the journalism that powers our mission
Register free to continue and learn more about the stories, campaigns and the support we provide, helping people facing poverty across the UK.
“The government will miss its 1.5 million homes target because of the state of the market and the negative headwinds caused by the mess in the world right now,” predicts Professor Nick Gallent of UCL.
Developers are looking at a market where mortgage rates are high and homes aren’t selling. That makes them cautious. And when it comes to brownfield sites, those pressures can be compounded by the costs and risks involved.
“Brownfield land is typically far more expensive to build on than greenfield, and often needs very substantial remediation,” says Paul Cheshire, emeritus professor of economic geography at the London School of Economics.
Sites may need to be demolished and cleared before work can begin, while contamination, gas risks and unpredictable ground conditions can all add to the cost and complexity of a project. Given that the easiest brownfield sites have largely already been developed, the land that is left presents greater risks and lower profit margins, which explains why there is little developer enthusiasm for pushing particularly challenging schemes forward.
Not all brownfield sites present the same issues, however. Gavin Parker, professor in the department of real estate and planning at the University of Reading, points out that some brownfield sites sit in prime locations with existing transport and utilities, making them comparatively attractive places to build. But if such brownfield sites are to deliver on their potential, targeted policy interventions might be required. Parker suggests options like tax breaks, alongside public-private partnerships that help absorb upfront costs, could have a role to play.
He also urges ministers to “resist the temptation to keep changing the local planning system”, noting that “constant change acts to delay and disrupt, rather than expedite and smooth development”.
For Breach, a key factor is the uncertainty that developers can face. Even in high-demand areas, developers could follow the existing rules and still find that a proposed development is refused planning permission. He describes the system as “unusually restrictive and uncertain” and believes a more flexible planning system, “like most of Europe has, or what New Zealand or parts of Australia are trying to create”, would likely lead to more brownfield development.
Read more:
Beyond brownfield
While the CPRE’s research indicates there is enough brownfield land on paper to accommodate the government’s target, there is broad agreement that this capacity alone is unlikely to deliver the homes needed.
“Brownfield land alone will get us nowhere near 1.5 million houses,” says Cheshire, while Gallent adds that now “isn’t the right time to realise the capacity of brownfield sites, though hopefully that will come”.
So, could developing the ‘grey belt’ be the answer? As part of its housing strategy, the government has asked councils to review green belt boundaries and identify lower-quality grey belt land that makes a “limited contribution” to the core purposes of the green belt. This could open up additional land that is relatively straightforward to develop.
Yet experts are cautioning against treating grey belt as a quick fix. Parker warns releasing these sites without providing infrastructure, from road access and transport links to GP surgeries and school places, is “not a well-planned” response.
Cheshire argues that the grey belt approach “will not help unless precisely defined”.
He advocates for stronger protections for valuable landscapes – national parks, sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty – while opening up green belt land that has little social or environmental value.
But this is far easier suggested than done. An Ipsos poll in 2023 found that 60% of people in England favour keeping the green belt as it is, even if it restricts the country’s ability to meet housing needs. Any attempt to redraw or redefine those boundaries, therefore, would represent a major political gamble. However, the limitations of brownfield land mean the government may have to make difficult decisions.
“Without land,” says Cheshire, “houses will not get built, and the housing crisis for all will just get worse.”
Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more.
Change a vendor’s life.
Buy from your local Big Issue vendor every week – and always take the magazine. It’s how vendors earn with dignity and move forward.
You can also support online:
Subscribe to the magazine or support our work with a monthly gift. Your support helps vendors earn, learn and thrive while strengthening our frontline services.
Thank you for standing with Big Issue vendors.
