An analysis of the UK development industry's role in brownfield regeneration
| Pages | 521-541 |
| Published date | 01 November 2006 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14635780610708310 |
| Date | 01 November 2006 |
| Author | Tim Dixon,Yasmin Pocock,Mike Waters |
| Subject Matter | Property management & built environment |
An analysis of the UK
development industry’s role in
brownfield regeneration
Tim Dixon
Department of Real Estate and Construction, Oxford Brookes University,
Oxford, UK, and
Yasmin Pocock and Mike Waters
College of Estate Management, Reading, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to provide a review of brownfield policy and the emerging sustainable
development agenda in the UK, and to examine the development industry’s (both commercial and
residential) role and attitudes towards brownfield regeneration and contaminated land.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper analyses results from a two-stage survey of
commercial and residential developers carried out in mid-2004, underpinned by structured
interviews with 11 developers.
Findings – The results suggest that housebuilding on brownfield is no longer the preserve of
specialists, and is now widespread throughout the industry in the UK. The redevelopment of
contaminated sites for residential use could be threatened by the impact of the EU Landfill Directive.
The findings also suggest that developers are not averse to developing on contaminated sites,
although post-remediation stigma remains an issue. The market for warranties and insurance
continues to evolve.
Research limitations/implications – Thesurvey is based on a sample which represents nearly 30
per cent of UK volume housebuilding. Although the response in the smaller developer groups was
relatively under-represented, non-response bias was not found to be a significant issue. More research
is needed to assess the way in which developers approach brownfield regeneration at a local level.
Practical implications – The research suggests that clearer Government guidance in the UK is
needed on how to integrate concepts of sustainability in brownfield development and that EU policy,
which has been introduced for laudable aims, is creating tensions within the development industry.
There may be an emphasis towards greenfield development in the future, as the implications of the
Barker review are felt.
Originality/value – This is a national survey of developers’ attitudes towards brownfield
development in the UK, following the Barker Review, and highlights key issues in UK and EU policy
layers.
Keywords Brownfield sites,Contamination
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
On their election in 1997, the UK Labour government placed a particular emphasis on
brownfield[1] recycling as a cornerstone of urban regeneration and set within the wider
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-578X.htm
The authors would like to thank Jude Shephard (formerly Research Officer at CEM) for her input
into the Stage 1 research.
Brownfield
regeneration
521
Received September 2005
Accepted January 2006
Journal of Property Investment &
Finance
Vol. 24 No. 6, 2006
pp. 521-541
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-578X
DOI 10.1108/14635780610708310
agenda of “sustainable development”. This approach recognised the importance of
reusing brownfield land both to improve urban environments and to relieve
development pressures in the countryside (ODPM, 2000; ODPM, 2001). In po licy terms,
as Williams and Dair (2005) argue, reusing urban land is seen as contributing to wider
urban regeneration, preventing urban sprawl, keeping cities compact, and reducing
urban out-migration. Two key policy agendas have therefore emerged in relation to the
reuse of urban land in the UK (Dixon, 2006):
(1) promoting sustainable development (or “susta inability”); and
(2) encouraging brownfield recycling.
Regeneration in the UK has largely been characterised by area-based initiatives driven
by the property development industry, but often in partnership with the public sector
(ODPM, 2003a; Raco and Henderson, 2006). The UK property development sector,
comprising financial institutions such as pension funds, insurance companies and
property companies (including investor/developers and housebuilding companies)
therefore has the power and capacity to influence patterns of economic activity, as well
as affect wealth and income distribution through engagement in urban regeneration
(BPF, 2003; Dixon and Doak, 2005).
This paper seeks to examine:
.the background and policy context to brownfield regeneration in the UK; and
.the role played by the development industry in brownfield regeneration and its
response to the emerging policy agendas in the UK.
The empirical part of this paper (the “main findings” section), which primarily
addresses the second of the above issues, is primarily based on the first phase of a
survey of commercial and residential developers carried out in mid-2004 (Shephard and
Dixon, 2004). The paper is also linked to the findings covered in Dixon (2006), which is
based on the second phase of the same survey. The survey work for this paper is
underpinned by structured interviews with eleven developers at a national level [2]
with each interview focusing on a different organisation. The focus is therefore on the
development industry as a whole, but particularly on those developers engage d in
residential development either exclusively, or in mixed use schemes [3].
Policy context and background
Since the 1970s there has been a growing awareness of the term, “sustainable
development” (which is often used interchangeably with “sustainability” (Dresner,
2002)). Key to this has been the powerful lobbying of the environmental movement, and
publications such as “Limits to Growth” (Meadows, 1972) and the Worldwatch
Institute[4] reports have raised awareness of sustainable development as a concept
globally (Kearns and Turok, 2003) and also led to the 1987 World Commission on
Environment and Development, which defined sustainable development as
(Brundtland Commission, 1987):
Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.
There has, however, been considerable controversy over the meaning of the term, and
many suggest that sustainable development (or “sustainability”) is a “contested”
JPIF
24,6
522
To continue reading
Request your trial