The Government's town planning policies, especially those relating to new housing development, focus on reusing land that has been 'previously developed'. Often referred to as 'brownfields', returning this land and redundant buildings to economic use is more complex than developing on former agricultural, or 'greenfield', sites. This project obtained the views of 230 people and organisations involved in the process of redevelopment and found that:

• Contamination is only one of many physical characteristics that may prove to be an obstacle to the reuse of previously developed land.
• Owner aspirations as to the value of brownfield sites ranked highest in the list of obstacles to redevelopment, followed by remediation difficulties and costs.
• Developers were concerned that high density development, as proposed by the Urban Task Force, could lead to 'town cramming'.
• Decision-makers, such as residential, industrial and commercial property developers, were generally satisfied with the way that local authorities handled planning applications.
• There was support for the suggestion to establish national 'standards' for remediation of previously used land.
• With brownfield problems becoming more complex, those already involved with the development of brownfield sites are spending increased time on this issue.

The aims of the research were to:

• identify the main issues that inhibit the release of brownfield land for redevelopment;
• 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.

The term 'brownfield' in the report relates to land that is capable of redevelopment, whether with or without treatment, whether contaminated or not, and where such redevelopment would be in accordance with planning policies or urban renewal objectives.

Support was expressed for the use of remediation standards to be set by a governmental body, such as the Environment Agency, although the introduction of set standards is unlikely in view of government policy that sites should be remediated on the basis of suitability for use. There was also limited support for the idea of remediation being validated by a government body.

Some respondents were concerned that higher densities in respect of urban developments, as suggested by the Urban Task Force, might lead to 'town cramming'. Another major obstacle could be the need to change people's views of their living requirements, for example reducing their requirement for private gardens.

Many interviewees felt that taxation incentives or penalties may form important stimuli in returning brownfield land to beneficial use. Incentives could include tax credits in respect of remediation costs; penalties could include taxing the development of greenfield land or imposing taxes on the owners of brownfield sites. Shortly before the report went to press (March, 2001), the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced tax relief at the rate of 150 per cent in respect of expenditure incurred in reclaiming land determined to be contaminated in accordance with Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The overall impression gained was that the decision-makers, such as housing developers and housing associations, as well as commercial and industrial property developers, are generally satisfied with the ways in which planning applications are handled by local authorities. There are some communication problems but they are not one-sided. Some developers leave it too late to open a dialogue in respect of their proposals but expect quick decisions.

Many factors are considered as part of a risk assessment but the results of the interviews showed that decisions on whether or not to redevelop, the form of treatment and the form of new development have to be determined on a site-specific basis. The survey showed that, not surprisingly, the financial viability of the project was considered to be the most important factor, with legislation and insurability of the development being the two next most important issues. The quality of documentation relating to past uses or work undertaken was recognised as being important in the risk assessment process and a majority of the interviewees also recognised the importance of keeping such information with the deeds of the property.

The physical characteristics of a site are important; ground-bearing capacity has implications for foundation design, topography and water features affect the layout of the development. The presence of contaminants may sterilise part of the site and views of water or other attractive aspects may dictate the orientation of the buildings.

• The need for development land may be predicted on the basis of past demands, with supply allocated accordingly. In areas of high demand this will result in calls for more greenfield sites to be released for development, with consequent objections from countryside and preservationist lobbies. The development industry recognises the importance of the town planning process in ensuring an adequate supply of development land, although interviewees felt some aspects of the process could be speeded up.
• Whilst development proposals are sometimes frustrated by what the developers regard as the intransigence of landowners in holding out for high prices, they would be reluctant to see a weakening of the rights of land ownership.
• Image is important in many ways if brownfield land and buildings in 'run-down' areas are to be redeveloped.
• The research found that, although low importance was attached to public transport overall, the respondents considered that improvements to public transport could make a major contribution to managing the supply of development land.

There is some disagreement as to the most appropriate valuation methods and the choice of method may also be dependent upon the purpose of the valuation. The two main methods are the 'yield adjustment' approach and the 'cost to correct' approach. The question of 'stigma' impact on value, that is the financial impact that exceeds any physical detriment, is also an important issue.

• Planning authorities need to adopt a flexible approach to the reuse of land as they are sometimes too constrained by Unitary Development Plans or local and Structure Plans.
• Property developers need to establish early dialogue with town planners and environmental regulators.
• Holders of derelict, vacant or contaminated land need to consider how they may contribute to the urban renewal process, whilst taking advantage of tax benefits.
• Land Quality Statements or Land Condition Records should form part of the sale and transfer process for previously developed land and buildings.
• Landfill Tax exemption should continue to apply where removal of contaminated soil to landfill is the best, or only, option for site remediation.
• There is room for improvement in communications between regulators and the development industry.
• There is a need for better information flows in respect of soil remediation methods.
• Developers should consider ways in which to involve the local community in development projects.
• The Government should consider how best to introduce a replacement for 'gap-funding' grant regimes - note: a partial replacement for the Partnership Investment Programme (PIP) was announced by the DETR in March 2001; this will provide support for small and medium enterprises anywhere in England and for larger firms in Assisted Areas.

The study focused on ascertaining the views of property developers and their professional advisers as being the main stakeholders in activating the process of redeveloping brownfield land and buildings. The first phase was a questionnaire survey, in which a wide range of people in the development industry (developers, landowners and professional advisers) were asked about their involvement with brownfield land. Most of those contacted had a considerable amount of experience, in senior positions, and many confirmed that their involvement was increasing.

The first phase survey was followed by three seminars at which the results were discussed and wider views obtained, including those of local authority representatives. The questionnaire survey and seminars facilitated compilation of a list of forty factors having a bearing on the redevelopment of brownfields. These and other aspects of the development process formed the basis for the third phase of 100 structured interviews.

The fourth 'consultation' phase comprised an interim report, which provided the opportunity for public sector and representative organisations to respond to the views of the predominantly private sector participants in the first three phases. A second interim report and final phase questionnaire were then circulated to everyone involved in the earlier phases of the research.

The phased approach allowed the research questions to be updated and new questions to be included in response to events during the study period.

It had been hoped to assemble a database of brownfield property transactions, with details of the problems that had been encountered by landowners and developers. However, due to problems with confidentiality, this proposal was abandoned. It has been possible to describe twenty case examples that highlight a range of problems and the methods used in resolving them. These case examples are included as an appendix to the report.