Propertymark wants the government to cool down on its enthusiasm for brownfield development.

It says in a response to a consultation that the government wants amendments to planning policy and the way the Housing Delivery Test works to develop more brownfield sites. 

But the trade body says the government should also consider other issues – such as the 1.1m new homes receiving planning permission, but not being built.

Propertymark warns that an overemphasis on using brownfield land to meet housing targets could lead to the development of poor-quality housing in areas where people would not move to. As an alternative, it suggests an ‘infrastructure first’ approach, where homes are built with all the community assets they need, such as shops, transport links and access to schools. This would create new communities that people would actually want to live in.

It also calls for amendments to national planning policy which would encourage or incentivise smaller developers on smaller sites to offset the obstacles regarding tiny brownfield sites.

Propertymark adds that the Housing Delivery Test – a tool local authorities use to identify the number of homes required and delivered in their jurisdiction – should be applied more flexibly than now. 

It argues that local authorities should ultimately base development decisions on what would lead to the largest number of new homes that people would want to live in. Prioritising brownfield development would not work in every situation, therefore a flexible approach should be prioritised.

It also says local authorities should approve developments that build a larger number of homes per year, rather than longer developments so they can respond quicker to the current housing supply shortage. Also to avoid developers with a large number of outstanding development projects and to consider the affordability of the new homes built.  

Henry Griffith, Policy and Campaigns Officer at Propertymark, comments: “Propertymark is well aware of the current housing shortage facing the country. In that sense we are supportive of measures introduced to improve the supply of new homes. We fully support this policy where it can open up opportunities to develop brownfield sites that were previously not considered and lead to the delivery of new homes that people want to live in. 

“However, this policy presents a risk that poor quality homes in unappealing areas could be prioritised in order to meet delivery targets. This must be avoided at all costs as it will not lead to communities and areas where people want to live.”