So is trying to make out brownfield can't contribute to the housing crisis www.cpre.org.uk/wp-content/u...

Completely agree we can do both, and Homes England and local authorities empowered can help make more reuse of brownfield. Housing developers need to be held to agreements for delivering affordable homes at time of consents. Useful reading on the matter here: www.cpre.org.uk/wp-content/u...

Of course, new towns will take 20+ years to be realised. Don't imagine you'll be arguing over them.

There is a social and environmental imperative to clean up wasted brownfield land and revitalise existing spaces. A multitude of benefits all round. The increase in supply of suitable and available brownfield is counter government policy and it must act. to resolve this.

Developers only seek land rises from farm to resi, and don't serve the public well by only concentrating on profit before delivering what is set out in local plans. Don't misunderstand, we need developers to build homes, but they are too focused on shareholder dividends and not on public goods.

A popular misconception is releasing greenfield leads to more homes when in fact brownfield is quicker. www.cpre.org.uk/wp-content/u...

GMCA did good work with Natural England and Ordnance Survey to identify green gaps and used BF to connect green corridors. We support this. But don't leave brownfield land enough for 1.48 million homes lying wasted. Public harm results when it is left vacant and derelict.

CPRE accepts we need some greenfield as the article says, but the data speaks for itself and for much too long the government has listened to self interested housing lobbyist who have FAILED to deliver enough homes, esp affordable/social rent ones, and nature is degraded. BROWNFIELD FIRST!!

Yet again the housing lobbyists can't handle the facts!!

Agree. BF can be for housing, energy, nature. The fact the amount is increasing when we are losing greenfield is the point. Government should give councils more control to limit speculation on farmfields and focus on regenerations and improve places and health and well-being in the meantime.

Not true. In Wirral, one day homes are being built. To be on the Brownfield Register Part 1 sites are assessed as suitable and viable. Part II sites are more tricky and need funding for abnormal costs. Sounds like you just hate countryside and want all of it built

NW stats are good as GMCA and LCRCA have advanced good plans and action

If this is the case the site should be prioritised for nature.

@annaclarke.bsky.social what is your problem with CPRE using up to date figures from all the Brownfield Registers? Year on year increases. People in our team used to compile NLUD and contributed to the National Brownfield Study. Government could support more brownfield reuse action. A good thing.