In defence of ‘brownfield-first’ housing policies

Mmmm houses. Image: Getty.

The co-ordinator of the Smart Growth UK coalition on the case for prioritising brownfield sites.

Glib talk about “the housing crisis” disguises the fact the UK is facing several crises in housing – only one of which, young adults’ difficulties in buying their own homes, appears to be something the government really cares about. In such a vacuum it’s all too easy to let self-serving building industry rhetoric about threats from things like brownfield-first policies take root.

The other bits of this crisis – social housing, the growing challenge of housing the elderly (where the real population growth is) and absentee landlordism – aren’t part of this narrative. But it’s a tale the house building industry, which can afford to pay people eight-figure bonuses, uses to attack sustainable planning. Brownfield-first and countryside protection policies have to be drowned in a pond of well-funded PR crocodile tears.

Potential buyers’ frustration about being stuck in a rapacious private rented sector is understandable. In fact, it was a one-off decision by lenders, only 40 years ago, to start giving mortgages on pre-1914 houses that cranked up the 1980s boom in ownership – yet it’s still treated like a permanent paradigm. Since then, lenders have pumped more and more money into the sector, just pushing up prices.

It’s all too easy to be seduced by calls to abolish things like brownfield-first policies in the mania to build. But these policies were actually abolished in England six years ago and, since then, things have only got worse.

There are very good reasons for brownfield-first planning policies, even if they might take a sliver off the edge of volume builders’ enormous profits.

Let’s get a couple of things out of the way. Brownfield-first doesn’t mean brownfield-only: it just means local authorities allocating land for house building must allocate their suitable brownfield land before greenfield.

Brownfield sites are indeed often a bit more expensive to develop than greenfield; but many sites aren’t contaminated at all, and “eye-wateringly expensive” sites are rare among those that are. Over the past 30 years, the remediation industry has developed cost-effective techniques for dealing with contamination; there are tax-breaks and Housing Infrastructure Fund money to help deal with it, too.

Other than that, yes, brownfield site reclamation is often marginally more costly, but nothing that should reduce the delivery of affordable housing.

Builders were handed this convenient brickbat to chuck at planning authorities six years ago, when the Treasury was mistakenly convinced that brownfield-first policies were reducing the amount of greenfield land being developed, ordered its abolition, and inserted ‘viability’ provisions in national planning policy. Since then builders have profiteered merrily as they wriggle out of their affordable housing responsibilities.


There’s a raft of good reasons to support brownfield-first policies. The sight of derelict sites in any town is a huge disincentive to investors. Regeneration of depressed areas depends on brownfield development; greenfield just sucks more life out of towns.

Derelict sites also encourage antisocial behaviour and the spread of invasive plants like Japanese knotweed. And there is scientific evidence which demonstrates they have a negative effect on local peoples’ health.

Brownfield sites are usually much better located than greenfield as they tend to be in towns, close to shops, education, healthcare and public transport. Greenfield ones tend to be outside towns, encouraging people to use their cars, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, congestion and accidents.

Urban sites also save public money as they can use much of the existing infrastructure, while out-of-town demands new provision. And in London, there is no real alternative to brownfield anyway.

It’s easy to be convinced that shortages of all kinds of housing, not just market, in London and the prosperous parts of southern England are all there is to this problem. But housing problems here are a symptom of an overheated regional economy which has sucked life out of the rest of the UK.

Much of the country is desperate for the jobs over-concentrated in the capital. Often those regions also have plenty of housing, and plenty of brownfield land where more is needed.

Actually, people outside the South East have aspirations too – as do those in London who can’t afford market homes and don’t benefit by one single brick from greenfield development pepper-potted over the rest of the region.

The drivers for the anti-brownfield-first campaign are purely commercial. There are very good social, housing, environmental and economic reasons for a brownfield-first policy, and they pose no threat to anyone. Except, perhaps, the volume house builders’ PR people.

Jon Reeds is the co-ordinator of the Smart Growth UK coalition.

 
 
 
 

How can cyclists protect themselves against air pollution?

A female cyclist attempts to protect herself from air pollution. Image: Getty.

The popularity of cycling in London continues to rise: according to statistics published by Transport for London (TfL), the number of journeys made by bicycle in London grew by 5 per cent in 2018. The transport agency has attributed the upwards trend in cycling to its investment in cycling infrastructure, not least the seven Cycle Superhighways and 12 Cycle Quietways the city now boasts.

Cycling is widely reported to result in health benefits for participants, and cyclists can expect to achieve improvements in both their physical and mental health as a result of switching from public transport or car to a bike. But with air pollution levels remaining stubbornly high across London, should cyclists be concerned that the health benefits they achieve as a result of cycling are actually being outweighed by the dangers posed by increased exposure to air pollution? 

Unlike during the Great Smog of 1952, air pollution today is often invisible to the naked eye. Nonetheless, London breached the European and UK air quality annual limit on 18  March when, for the 36 time this year, levels of pollution particles recorded at a measuring post exceeded the agreed limit. (EU rules allow 35 breaches a year.) Whilst this is a marked improvement on 2018 when the annual limit was broken on the 5 January, it reminds us of the risk that air pollution continues to pose to Londoners today. 

The rise of respirator masks

Anyone who has cycled or walked along one of London's cycle paths in recent years is likely to have seen someone resembling Darth Vader cycling towards them. Protection masks, which are becoming increasingly popular amongst the cycling community, range from cotton surgical masks to respirators with in-built air filtration systems that cover a significant part of the cyclist’s face. 

But do masks actually work and are they worth the investment? 

Cotton masks categorically do not protect wearers against the inhalation of airborne particles. Whilst they can be somewhat effective in protecting against the spread of illnesses, they will not protect a cyclist from air pollution. 

Respirator cycling masks, which range in price from £25 to over £50, are a more sophisticated option. “N99” respirators are said to remove up to 99 per cent of airborne particles from inhaled air. But the particles that cause air pollution today are extremely small, which makes it particularly challenging for respirators to effectively block them from entering the human body. 

Another complicating factor is the fit of the respirator against the human face. Studies have concluded that under “perfect” conditions respirators do effectively filter pollution out of inhaled air. However, when actually fitted to a human face, respirators are often not able to form an effective seal against skin, which ultimately renders them useless. Features such as facial hair and short noses make is particularly challenging for a seal to form. 

The findings of studies into the effectiveness of respirator cycling masks are somewhat mixed – but point to the ineffectiveness of current designs. 


So what can cyclists do to protect themselves? 

The best intervention a cyclist can make to reduce their exposure to air pollution is to avoid the most polluted streets and roads. TfL’s Quietways are an easy way for cyclists to identify the less busy and less polluted roads (although TfL has announced it will be merging the Quietway and Cycle Superhighway networks into a single Cycleways cycle network during summer 2019). 

Cyclists may also consider reducing their cycling speed to reduce their inhalation of airborne particles. The faster and deeper we breathe in polluted air, the more pollutants are delivered to our lungs. Therefore slowing down and reducing their amount of exertion will go some way to protecting cyclists from air pollution. 

Finally, cyclists should check air quality forecasts and make informed decisions regarding their chosen mode of transport on a particular day. TfL provides daily forecasts on its website. 

So should cyclists stop cycling all together? In a word, no. Although there is currently not an effective way to stop yourself from inhaling air pollution whilst cycling, scientists have concluded that the physical and mental health benefits of cycling continue to outweigh the dangers posed by exposure to air pollution. Cycling remains a healthy method of transport for Londoners. 

If you are a cyclist who is concerned about your exposure to air pollution and you are considering investing in a respirator mask, be aware that research suggests they will not protect you effectively. Instead you may want to consider donating the money you would have spent on a respirator to a charity such as Trees for Cities, whose mission is to transform urban areas by creating Urban Forests.