Brownfield development; The challenge to the next generation or ours?

Brownfield schemes are too expensive to build on Mr. Long?

Having just watched a local BBC report on St Helens with regards planning, I was shocked to hear a local Authority Council member(Leader Mr Long)suggest that the reason for developing Greenbelt was the cost of developing on brownfield. With a requirement to build housing in the NW and enough Brownfield sites to build 160,000 houses why do we need to use Greenbelt

Having worked around the UK on numerous Brownfield schemes since the early nineties alongside English Partnerships(HCA Et al) to say I was surprised to hear his reasoning with regards contaminated land issues.Examples of successful regeneration schemes

• Hulme Regeneration(Manchester)
• Lower Broughton(Salford)
• Victoria Dock(Hull)
• Bordesley Village(Birmingham)

If land is that contaminated that it cant be used, land owners have a mountain of issues to face with regards legislation and cleaning the site, so surely it would be better to hand over the keys to a developer for ￡1.00 and allow the regeneration of an eyesore and the benefits of building there.

• improvements to the local community
• Removal of potentially dangerous contaminants
• Generating Income for the local council through taxes(Council Taxes etc...)

Perhaps Mr Long should speak to Manchester, Liverpool and Salford and ask how they have managed to build on their inner city sites, that are probably equally as contaminated. All the aforementioned Cities have a similar Industrial profile, mining, heavy industry and poor historical land management.

Maybe, just maybe he is being wrongly advised by people with little or no experience and being pressured by land owners who believe all land should have a value. To ask the Government to fund Brownfield development is valid, but certainly not to the level where the current land owners make a profit.

In my nearly forty years of working in our great industry, working on difficult schemes has produced answers to previously unsolved issues and I am certain that the St Helens problem is equally solveable if the experts are given the opportunity, but it is easier to control and approve Greenfield development. As a "Tree Hugger" Greenfield should only be developed in areas where it provides local employement and housing for rural and remote communities.

Always available to talk and discuss and would welcome the opportunity to help anyone with similar issues, who are prepared to go "Brownfield"