Brownfield sites suitable for building houses

[tzijlstra]

TL;DR - where are the brownfield sites in Sheffield, suitable for housing?

 

I had a discussion with the missus yesterday following the news that greenbelt in Yorkshire should be built on for housing. I think it should, she thinks it shouldn't. Fair enough, the argument evolved and we both agreed that one thing that would resolve a lot of issues was if the council pro-actively and forcefully CPOd brownfield sites to develop them. In fact, in my opinion, there should be a law that stipulates that if a landowner has a brownfield site and has not developed it within a certain timeframe (5-10 years or thereabouts) than the council automatically gains ownership of the land with a view to sell it for development of houses.

 

Having had that discussion we then started to discuss where there are brownfield sites that are suitable for building new neighbourhoods/housing estates and frankly came to the conclusion pretty quickly that there isn't much left in terms of desirable land.

 

In our area (Hillsborough) there is only one plot of land we could both think off that might be suitable and that is the triangle of land opposite the football ground on Penistone Road/Herries Road South. But I believe it is flood-prone, it is hemmed in by two busy roads (although a new road to unlock the land feeding into Herries Road South wouldn't upset the applecart too much in terms of traffic).

 

There is some more land along Penistone Road, all at flood-risk from the Don but I believe most of it is designated as commercial/industrial.

 

So the question remains - where are these fabled suitable brownfield sites? Keep in mind that desirability plays a role, it is no use plonking 40 houses down if they are only going to be worth cost-price.

[L00b]

I'm not sure follow your logic of co-optation by the Council and 'desirability'?

 

Either the brownfield site is 'desirable' for dwelling construction, whereby a component of its value should reflect that desirability and be realisable by its legitimate owner rather than the Council.

 

Or, if the Council does coopt the brownfield site from its legitimate owner, then it should in the name of building council housing, whereby the desirability should not matter one bit and the value of houses being built should be as low as possible due to public budgetary constraints.

Edited January 22, 2016 by L00b

[BHRemovals]

we all become nimby's on this issue

[Eater Sundae]

There might be an issue regarding contamination in some cases, which may require expensive measures to remove or cap it.

 

I think there could be a case for building on some greenfield sites and at the same time convert the brownfield sites into a "green" amenity. In some cases this could be used to create park areas close to housing that currently doesn't have much access to parks.

 

We have some lovely green corridors along Sheffield's valleys (eg Sheaf, Porter and Rivelin), surrounded in some areas by housing. A couple of hundred years ago these were the industrial brownfield areas, surrounded by farmland. I don't see why other areas cannot change over time.

[geared]

There might be an issue regarding contamination in some cases, which may require expensive measures to remove or cap it.

 

Isn't it the landowners job to clean up the site??

 

I thought half the idea for brownfield use is to take run down, ex-industrial areas and revamp them for use as new residential areas.

 

Sheffield has plenty of old industrial areas.

[the fonz]

Isn't it the landowners job to clean up the site??

 

I thought half the idea for brownfield use is to take run down, ex-industrial areas and revamp them for use as new residential areas.

 

Sheffield has plenty of old industrial areas.

 

Waverley for example.

 

Harworth Estates, who own Waverley, take many old UK coal sites and regenerate them into housing sites.

[Eric Arthur]

Most brownfield sites aren't suitable for housing and many are for other uses like business. Not many people want to live next door to Forgemasters or the sewage works.

 

---------- Post added 22-01-2016 at 11:35 ----------

 

Sheffield has plenty of old industrial areas.

 

I can't think of any that don't still have industry on them which aren't already being regenerated for housing.

[tzijlstra]

I'm not sure follow your logic of co-optation by the Council and 'desirability'?

 

Either the brownfield site is 'desirable' for dwelling construction, whereby a component of its value should reflect that desirability and be realisable by its legitimate owner rather than the Council.

 

Or, if the Council does coopt the brownfield site from its legitimate owner, then it should in the name of building council housing, whereby the desirability should not matter one bit and the value of houses being built should be as low as possible due to public budgetary constraints.

 

We have apparently, and I am basing this on what a Professor of development from one of the West Yorkshire Unis said, at a stage where hanging on to land is more valuable than to develop it due to the price of land going up quicker than the price of dwellings. In other words, the market is working against developing housing. The only way to resolve this is by employing a shotgun approach to brownfield development OR developing greenfield.

 

As the latter seems a sore point for many people it would require a shotgun approach to the former.

 

Most brownfield sites aren't suitable for housing and many are for other uses like business. Not many people want to live next door to Forgemasters or the sewage works.

 

This is indeed a major issue. The other one is that if you look at a place like Darnall/Attercliffe where there is land available it is built up with low value property that needs clearing or previously heavily polluted sites that need cleaning. Either way the cost to develop is very high.

 

I can't think of any that don't still have industry on them which aren't already being regenerated for housing.

 

So is my assumption that we are short on brownfield sites correct? And does that not justify the notion that we should start looking into greenfield sites suitable for development?

[Eric Arthur]

So is my assumption that we are short on brownfield sites correct? And does that not justify the notion that we should start looking into greenfield sites suitable for development?

That sounds like a good assumption to make. My colleague is an expert and would agree with you.

[Eater Sundae]

Isn't it the landowners job to clean up the site??

 

I thought half the idea for brownfield use is to take run down, ex-industrial areas and revamp them for use as new residential areas.

 

Sheffield has plenty of old industrial areas.

 

Even if it is, if the cost is prohibitive compared with the potential return, then they're not going to want to develop the land.

 

Looking wider, and with some joined up planning, it might be possible to, for example, develop housing on the least contaminated land and convert the worst land to parkland. Although the number of new houses would be reduced, there is the opportunity to provide more desirable housing as they would be surrounded by parkland, not derelict industry.

 

The newly created parkland could then be protected for future generations by reassigning it as green belt or some other standard. This would justify then being able to reallocate some green belt land for building.

 

Obviously this would need some managing of land value, and on that basis might fall over at the first hurdle, as land with planning permission suddenly shoots up in value - but this has happened in the past, so can probably be managed in the future.

 

So, an owner of contaminated land can be persuaded to build on some of it and convert the rest to protected parkland, with the sweetener of being allowed to develop land that was previously in the green belt.