It may be that #Metoo, the Winter Olympics, and Will Grieg being on fire are causing a blockage in the usual news channels, but it took me a while to spot the CPREs latest missive, 'State of Brownfield 2018: An analysis demonstrating the potential of brownfield land for housing' (click here to read). But having read through it, I'm wondering whether its more elementary than that; it doesnt really say anything. The headline: theres capacity for about one million homes across the country from brownfield land.

So how better to see out 2013 than with a pop at the Sunday Times?  I’ve only just got round to reading the last edition of 2013 (29-12), so initially missed the article on page 16 ("Nearly half of new homes are built on greenfield sites”).

I’m sure the journalist means well, but as statements in the bleeding obvious go, it takes some beating.  Guess what – there are now less homes being built on brownfield sites than in 2008.  Of course, the paper holds the Government to account (via the NPPF) for this phenomena – and the CPRE wouldn’t be doing their job if they didn’t join the bandwagon – but that would be like blaming politicians for UK coal and North Sea oil running out.

Funnily enough, brownfield sites are a finite resource; and we’ve spent fifteen years relaying heavily on them, at times, to the virtual moratorium on greenfield development.  It’s been, in some respects, a successful approach (I’ll ignore the rampant under provision of housebuilding and property price inflation), but the obvious sites have now been taken.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has good intentions - there is no doubt about that – but often they directly contradict themselves. While the CPRE often calls for affordable housing in rural areas, it has this week objected to new Government proposals that would make it easier to convert farm buildings into housing.

3030

All this used to be fields... ( Some rights reserved by ☺ Lee J Haywood)