As we know large housing developers carry a “land bank” on their books, it’s kind of an extension of their cash flow, just as any company needs a good supply of money to operate, a developer also needs a steady stream of building sites for its raw material.

Much has been made about the 400,000 houses worth of land already banked in the UK, the problem is much of it is brownfield and not profitable enough in the current economic climate, so developers are turning ever more towards green fields.

So when our local authority assures us that brownfield land will be developed first, it’s really a very simplistic view of the housebuilding world which is driven, like the rest of the world, by the need to make a profit.

This interesting report from the National Trust states:

“The National Planning Policy Framework excludes many of the 400,000 sites nationally that have planning permission from a council’s deliverable five-year housing supply on the basis that they are currently considered economically unviable for development.

The NPPF encourages a short-term view of economic viability that risks unnecessary development of greenfield and Green Belt sites. Local Plans must identify a “deliverable” five year housing land supply. This means that development plans must be shown to be economically viable and achievable with a reasonable time frame.

The fact that greenfield sites are more profitable to develop than brownfield sites, and therefore more viable, is forcing councils to propose development of these sites. As a case study in this report shows, many of the sites for 10,300 new homes approved for development in Salford are excluded from the council’s five year supply forcing the council to consider planning applications for greenfield sites.”

It makes sobering reading and I feel this is one impact of localism that we will feel quite soon! There are lots of brownfield sites in Dinnington and Anston in need of re-development, but who will choose these above going straight to green field? It’s cheaper to build there and it will make more profits as it will tend to be in a more desirable location.

There is a really good summing up here.

Another aspect of localism is Neighbourhood Plans, an opportunity for town and parish councils to make their own mini plans for development. The same report has this to say:

“The Localism Act introduced a new layer of local planning: Neighbourhood Plans. The government’s aim is to “put communities in the driving seat”. It should be emphasised that  Neighbourhood Planning is still at an early stage. The regulations governing the creation of Neighbourhood Forums were only finalised in April 2012.

Councils have identified three key challenges that face Neighbourhood Planning.

First, the powers of Neighbourhood Forums are limited. Neighbourhood Plans cannot include proposals that are contrary to the Local Plan or the National Planning Policy Framework. The LGiU research confirms this picture. Nearly two thirds of local authorities said that Neighbourhood Plans were not important or not important at all in shaping their Local Plan.

Second, not all areas have a Neighbourhood Forum. Parish and Town Councils are able to act as Neighbourhood Forums. Neighbourhood Forums must, however, be established from scratch where these bodies do not exist. Although there are a number of successful examples, contributors to the LGiU research expressed concern that coverage is uneven and focused in more advantaged areas.

Third, the resources for Neighbourhood Forums are limited. Estimates for the production of a Neighbourhood Plan range from £20,000 to £100,000 which, given the low level of funding allocated by government to support Neighbourhood Plans, must in general be found by local communities. This has had a deterrent effect and may serve to concentrate Neighbourhood Plans in more advantaged areas.”

So maybe not all they were cracked up to be and quite expensive, worth considering perhaps for Towns or Parishes with the will and the means?