Redfield Sites - A New Approach to Housing Strategy - David Kidney MP
Over the last decade or so, the language of green and brownfield sites has slipped into popular parlance. Across the country there have been wide-ranging public campaigns to protect greenfield sites from the development of new houses. At the same time there has been active Government encouragement to see more development on brownfield sites. Now it’s time for a new focus – a focus on ‘redfield’ sites. By “redfield”, I mean those sites containing empty property capable of being returned to use.
The current terminology of green and brownfield sites has squeezed out consideration of the usage of existing property, which is empty or unused. There are many successful initiatives to bring empty properties back into use. But the fact that the language we use to talk about them is different prevents us from properly articulating that empty properties should be considered as a potential source of new housing supply in the same way that green and brownfield sites are.
In part, therefore, this is a call for re-branding. This new term emphasises the logic of considering all the potential sources of new housing together:
- Recycling redfield sites.
- Redeveloping brownfield sites; and
- Building on greenfield sites;
But there is much more to the “redfield” label than a spin doctor’s wheeze or a marketing manager’s bright idea. No, this is a matter of substance concerning a vital issue of public policy. The new term will stress the seriousness of the situation we are in, the fairness of the call for equal treatment and above all the urgency of the need for action.
The Sustainable Communities Plan, published by ODPM in 2003, makes the case for new housing supply to meet the needs of a changing population. However, new supply comes at a cost. Even the greenest housing has an impact on the environment: generation of carbon dioxide, production of pollutants and loss of habitats for wildlife. A recent study by the Empty Homes Agency showed that the process of refurbishing a derelict house generated less than one-fifth of the carbon dioxide compared to the process of building an equivalent new house. There can also be costs to existing communities in building new houses with the loss of amenity space, increased traffic congestion and adverse impacts on the viability of existing towns; inevitably there will be a high demand for new houses that are built, but this can be at the expense of existing housing which can see a reduction in demand.
First we should ask the question: Is it possible to provide housing from existing buildings on ‘redfield sites’? Second: Is there potential for using previously developed land (brownfield sites)? And thirdly, only after the first two sources have been exhausted, consider the potential for greenfield site development.
There is already a target for the second of these options; the 60% brownfield site target, but the brownfield site definition is too broad and doesn’t encourage the innovation and creativity needed to make the best use of existing buildings.
Within the broader target of brownfield site usage, we should consider a specific target in each local authority area for bringing these ‘red-field’ sites back into use. Any development on brownfield sites counts towards the target regardless of whether it is the best, the most sustainable, or the most efficient use. Knocking down a property capable of being recycled and building a new one counts against the target in a situation where the restoration of the existing home would carry much lower environmental costs.
There could be a percentage target for every region within its brownfield site target to state what percentage of that target would be met by ‘redfield’ site development. Crucially, it will be necessary to link a dedicated funding stream to this percentage for ‘redfield’ sites.
What is needed to affect this step-change is a national movement supported by grass roots campaigns across the country. The public have a right to know how existing property is to be incorporated into the plans for new housing supply.
What we need in our nation’s housing strategy for the next decade is to address the challenge of ‘redfield’ site development alongside the established challenges around green and brownfield sites. It’s a matter of the same terminology, the same important policy goal and the same level of commitment. We want to see government holding housing authorities to account for the percentage of ‘redfield’ site re-development. Until this happens, it will always be easier to resort to new build on brownfield, or even greenfield, sites.
Very often the easy solution is not the best solution, and the development of ‘redfield’ sites will not always be easy and can be a complicated route. But it is the only sustainable route for a sensible, fair and long-term strategy for tackling housing need in the UK.
David Kidney is the MP for Stafford. This article is an abridged version of a pamphlet published by the Empty Homes Agency