Releasing Brownfields

Citation

Dixon, T. (2001), "Releasing Brownfields", Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 559-560. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpif.2001.19.6.559.1

This published report, which summarises a two year research programme supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and RICS Research Foundation, comes at a time when local authorities find themselves under increasing pressure to deliver on contamination. Under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 local authorities had until July 2001 to draw up and adopt inspection strategies under which they will identify contaminated land. They must also inspect land for contamination and issue remediation notices where appropriate. Moreover, the recent foot and mouth crisis has focused the minds of those involved in more rural authorities even more closely: identifying overall liability for contamination will therefore be a key feature in the rollout of this legislation.

The research in the report was conducted between mid 1998 and mid 2000, thus overlapping the Urban Task Force Report of June 1999 (which itself contained some 105 recommendations on how to improve towns and cities), PPG3 and the introduction of the EPA 1990. However, it pre‐dates the important November 2000 Urban White Paper. It is important to bear this in mind in interpreting and understanding the research results because despite a 2001 publication date, the report contains no detailed account of how, if at all, the research results/recommendations influenced the policy findings of the Urban White Paper.

Some mention is made, however, of the abortive Partnership Investment Programme (PIP) – in fact, the Government has now agreed new Partnership Support Schemes with the EU.

The research was aimed to:

• •

  identify the main issues that inhibit the release of brownfield land for development;

• •

  consider the mechanisms that need to be put in place in order to ensure that urban regeneration is not prevented, or delayed, as the result of site assembly problems, and

• •

  review ways in which information concerning the risks may best be conveyed.

In the report “brownfield land” is defined as land that is capable of redevelopment, with or without treatment whether contaminated or not and where such redevelopment would be in accordance with planning policies or urban renewal objectives. This definition differs from the more contamination‐oriented US definition and of course the “contaminated land” definition used in the EPA.

The research was conducted in phases over a two‐year period. Some 230 individuals from 188 organisations responded from a mixture of seminars, interviews and consultation, together with questionnaire work.

In terms of structure, the report covers key themes identified in the research, such as town planning, urban renewal and taxation; risk assessment; physical site characteristics; environmental and community issues; transport and valuation implications, all of which might hinder, delay or encourage the reuse of land. Each of these themes is handled in a concise summary form, and, perhaps unusually for this type of qualitative, interview‐based research names the respondents. This raises the question as to whether some responses would have been different if individuals had remained anonymous?

The study focused mainly on ascertaining the views of property developers and their professional advisers as being the main stakeholders in brownfield redevelopment. The viewpoint is very much built environment oriented, but the views of other stakeholders have not been overlooked, including local authorities and end users.

The study concludes that although developers may not shirk from developing brownfield land they do have real concerns. To alleviate such concerns requires such initiatives as a more flexible planning approach, early dialogue between developers and planners, tax incentives (such as the 150 per cent tax relief now available on land reclamation), and land quality statements. Moreover, landfill tax exemptions, better communication, involvement of the local community, and a more flexible alternative to “gap funding” all require examination by policy makers.

The report includes a useful set of case studies and a full results section and clearly much effort has gone into the compilation of the work. Occasionally, however, important initiatives subsequent to the research but probably prior to publication are overlooked. For example, the National Land Use Database initiative of DTLR, English Partnerships, Improvement and Development Agency and Ordnance Survey, and the Government’s pilot Urban Regeneration Companies (URCs) are not covered in the report. Presumably, because of the publication date, no mention either is made of the English Cities Fund, the plans to reform VAT for residential conversions, or exemptions from stamp duty for property in disadvantaged areas. It would also have been useful to have seen a list of useful Web sites as so much useful information is now available in this form.

Nonetheless, despite these points, the report offers a good summary snapshot of the research carried out by Professor Paul Syms and his team and it shows how important the issue of brownfield development really will be in the future shape and pattern of urban areas. As the new legislation comes on stream, not only are some environmental insurers looking forward to the prospect, property researchers are as well. It will be interesting to see, for example, how stakeholders’ attitudes and perceptions may shift as a result of the changes moving across the contaminated landscape.