It is questioned the extent that town centre regeneration does in fact have potential to meet the needs of older people and families. There are two fundamental points associated with development on previously developed land, namely 1. the cost of remediation and 2. the typically urban environment justifying higher densities. Both of these facts inevitably lead to brownfield development predominantly containing a high proportion of flats or smaller units that may not be suited or as desirable for certain households, namely families. Such densities are often required to provide the returns necessary to offset the remediation costs and given the market led nature of the development industry and the need to use land efficiently, it is somewhat inevitable that higher densities will be used where the context would promote such character.
In terms of the assumption that the elderly and families may find accessibility to town centres desirable is questioned. There does not appear to be any detailed evidence to support this. Indeed a counter argument could be the assumption that those households quite often prefer the quality of life attributed to a village setting. Of course this in itself is also an assumption but is highlighted to indicate that if such statements are to be made, they need to be based on clear evidence. It is contended that an argument for sustainability should not simply be used to justify focus on growth towards urban areas. Indeed, a balance with growth in more rural settings can be beneficial, subject to ensuring the relevant infrastructure is put in place to support the selected spatial strategy.
It is reiterated that the role of brownfield sites is of course noted and an important focus for development. However, the role and benefits of greenfield sites should not be downplayed to ensure a range of needs are met. A balanced approach not only helps meet a variety of needs that arise within the community but also helps facilitate a continuous delivery.