Build on brownfield sites in cities

[PoliteCritic]

This is the cry of people fighting against the building of new homes in the countryside. I think they are wrong.

I live in a City. Over the last five years lots of green areas have been built on. I went to Surrey at the weekend and they have lots of green spaces in between houses as well as proximity to green belt space. It felt leafy and green. In my City with all the odd bits of green spaces being built on, the City feels more and more concrete like.

There has to be a limit to building in cities. If you build on every green space except small parks serving enormous populations, then you make cities very unpleasant places to live. Why should places like Surrey live in far greener surroundings with access to large green spaces, and yet call for ever more building in Cities?

We need to build on these green spaces as well and in pretty ordinary fields to expand villages. You can't keep your view and expect those in cities to be left with virtually no access to any green space.
AIBU?

There is one aspect of city and town development where I have some sympathy. There are empty shops and commercial properties, yet more are being built. Ending this along with short term lets and second homes, and you would have a lot more houses available.

I agree. I live in a city and we've already lost a community garden and now every other patch of grass is being bought up by developers who want to build a tiny block of flats on it. People in cities don't have their own garden, so the open green spaces are even more important.

Brownfield already have or had development on it, this is fair game in my opinion. Community gardens, allotments, parks etc are not

This. Our local town is full of empty shops and small commercial premises whilst great juggernauts are being built on the outskirts. This is what needs to change, not filling in small green spaces

Yes. So many empty shops, fake shops, empty buildings. Convert these into dwellings if they aren’t renting out as commercial properties. We also need to build upwards. Decent soundproofed properties ( not high rise sink estates). Green fields are for crops and animals, not for building.

we also need a lot more investment in the north. Rather than millions crammed into the south because it’s where the jobs are.

Thing is, nobody wants it on their doorstep so people are always going to advocate for it being built on wherever they don't live.

I agree with you, by the way. Everyone should have access to green spaces so it seems sensible to build on green spaces where there already is a lot more of it.

As a city dweller, yabu I think. A lot of those "green spaces" that aren't parks were actually only green and undeveloped because they'd been land banked.

My flat wasn't overlooked back or front when we moved in 10 years ago and was surrounded by undeveloped semi-wild spaces that were havens for wildlife and dog walkers etc. Now they've all been built on/are in the process of being built on - by the owners of the land. That's fair enough and they were brownfield from previous use decades ago.

It would be great if councils would buy more land for community use, eg allotments, community gardens, but around here the city councils are very cash strapped.

I don't think the answer is forbidding development of brownfield, but a lot of developments around here need to provide an amenity & green space for the local area as part of their plans which I think is fair. We got a great new playpark out of one flat development which anyone can use.

I wish more people had a better understanding of the value of brownfield land for biodiversity.

Brownfield doesn’t mean it’s concreted over. Brownfield sites can have more value than greenfield at times due to the very specific conditions they create.

We need to be very careful of pushing for building on “brownfield” land.

Some of Starmers description of the greybelt were worrying too.

OP you need to use the correct terms.
Anything that has been previously developed, then abandoned is brownfield land. Usually this refers to industrial/commercial purposes.
Green spaces, designated as such are not brownfield.
Green belt land refers to protected areas not meant for development.

What people are talking about, as mentioned by PP is disused or abandoned buildings, property etc that should be given a new lease of life. Or industrial land that needs a bit of work before development suitability.

Many developers avoid this as it's more expensive than tearing up never been develop (i.e., greenfield) land.

Agree with others, we need all the half empty city centre office buildings changed back into domestic use. I can think of a few properties which would be perfect for redevelopment, two former car dealerships, a former Brantano shoe warehouse, a pub next to two derelict shops.

In my city they have been building on every patch of green land. I suspect most of this is officially wasteland and may have been used many years ago.
I take the point about land banking. But we will be approaching the situation where the only green space we have is a few scattered parks serving many many people.
I am not talking about views. My views are of houses. But avoiding turning cities into a total concrete jungle.

In my city shops have in some cases already been converted into houses. I am sure more will be. They are hard to let, no one wants to live there, because you get drunk people walking by on the way back from city centre clubs and pubs. And there is no parking and no garden.

This! We need to be demolishing and building on derelict sites, i.e. derelict/empty retail, industrial, warehouses, churches, schools, railway depots/sidings, etc. I.e. places where there is/was buildings previously. If planning law needs to be changed to make it easier to demolish/refurbish/repurpose these buildings, then it needs doing.

Leave the open/green spaces alone that havn't previously been built on in town centres. It makes no sense to concentrate even more homes in already busy/congested built up towns and cities.

Re greenfield sites, there's huge amounts of emptiness throughout the UK, so rather than forever encroaching on the outskirts of towns and villages, we should be building new towns in the middle of nowhere (but close to infrastructure such as motorways, railway lines, etc) to facilitate easy transport. After all, places like Yorkshire mill towns were once nothing but fields, rivers, hillsides, etc., and look at them now.

I didn't think parks counted as brownfield.

@Juztintime

we also need a lot more investment in the north. Rather than millions crammed into the south because it’s where the jobs are.

First, we need the jobs. No point building more homes that will only be occupied by unemployed or richer second home owners/holiday homes, etc. There needs to be jobs to encourage workers to move out of London/SE.

I live in a run down seaside resort in the North. There were huge numbers of empty properties when UK holidaying bit the dust in the 80s and 90s. We have no local industry, no big employers, after the "brain drain" when all the big firms closed regional offices and relocated everyone to London. The council encouraged ex-offenders and newly released prisoners to come to fill the empty boarding houses which owners had turned into bed sets. The council gave no thought whatsoever to the anti social behaviour that was entirely foreseeable! Within a few years, we had massive crime problems, open drug dealing on the streets, drunkeness, burglaries, robberies, burned out buildings, etc etc. That's what happens when you, literally, bus people into an area without jobs!

So, by all means, build new houses in the North, repurpose old buildings, etc., but we also need incentives for businesses and other organisations to provide employment alongside that, so that we get a proper, balanced, mix of people.

But I live in the country to get away from people. I don’t want a housing estate at the end of my road. In this part of east anglia they built a tacky housing estate on one of the sites of a constable painting. How is this acceptable? It’s not even full of local people. It’s overspill from Essex. There are plenty of run down areas of towns and cities that need regeneration before you destroy our precious countryside. You live in your town and do your thing. I want to live in the countryside where people are few and far between.

Yes, I meant investment in jobs in the north. I worked for a housing association and we had lists a mile long for people wanting to move into London and the south, and empty properties in the north.

I find a similar situation in my (large) village. The “infill” houses people talk about just end up with a few giant houses being stacked in leaving a very cramped situation, going for £500k-£1m. The couple of (not huge - 60 ish houses) estates built outside the village boundary are much less intrusive and because they were larger they had to make a % affordable homes (not mandatory for developments under 10). The larger estates also had to donate a large sum to the village - approx £300,000 that could be used for village hall refurb, new playground equipment etc.

fwiw, my village had space in school and a massive very capable doctors surgery and has absorbed the new estates with no issues. Everyone who lives in the village can get into the local school and go appointments available either emergency same day or a couple of weeks wait for non emergency.

"This! We need to be demolishing and building on derelict sites, i.e. derelict/empty retail, industrial, warehouses, churches, schools, railway depots/sidings, etc. I.e. places where there is/was buildings previously. If planning law needs to be changed to make it easier to demolish/refurbish/repurpose these buildings, then it needs doing."

There is far less of this than many people seem to think. A lot of these have already been demolished and built on. Old railway tracks are often the nearest green spaces for many people.
I simply do not see why somewhere like Surrey should get to keep its large green spaces in between housing, plus easy access to lovely green belt open greenery. While in the City we will be left with no green space except some parks.
If we are going to infill green spaces where there is housing already, why not somewhere like Surrey that is incredibly green?

p.s. I know why. They are rich. Poor people do not need green space beyond small playparks for their children to play on.

You talk about all of this as if it is a choice. I doubt very much I could afford to live somewhere like you live.
But everyone deserves to live in a place that meets basic standards of amenities and I think part of that is some greenery.

Op I'm in a town and flat upon flat and flat is going up.
Greenfield spaces in the town are being built on, there is always a fight on about new estates and green belt. I can't imagine more building here.
We are short of everything here.

@SunshinDay that is exactly what it is like here!! People talking about brownfield sites are delusional. Brownfield sites have been built on, and those that have not it is for very good reasons. And now they are filling in every last bit of green space.
I have zero patience for those in villages fighting new developments. They are nimbys that do not give a stuff about anyone else and just want to preserve their views. They will still have plenty of green space close by unlike many of us.

There is plenty of new building happening in Surrey. Not much of it brownfield. A lot of it inadequate in terms of parking, local infrastructure improvements etc. Almost all of it over priced for the people who grew up in the area, priced for commuters who add almost nothing to their local community. Doesn't feel like a brilliant solution.

@PoliteCritic I've got lots of sympathy for villages too.

Our green belt is already eroded around here and it's nice to leave my town and visit villages.

There are many empty office blocks built used for maybe 10 years then left empty.
It's all a massive con.

In every area sensible people should be looking at old empty industrial estates and office blocks before green belt.

The whole house building thing feels like a con to me. Many firms are actually owned by pension companies and investment companies.

The types of houses built also need careful consideration.

We in the north would also benefit from more fully remote jobs, as opposed to just hybrid. But people often don't want to hear that!