5.26

More must be done to encourage developers to take on these sites, otherwise they will continue to be left unused while good quality agricultural land is used as an easy option. The council should lobby central government for funds to make such schemes possible.

The comments are supported - viability is a significant consideration in the delivery of development, notably associated with complex brownfield sites. These are often in sustainable locations and redevelopment offers significantly greater benefits - economic, regenerative, social and environmental - than greenfield land release.

To encourage the use of brownfield sites. central government support should be sought to acquire funding to help with land decontamination in the promotion of protecting green spaces and providing sustainable local development

This is the problem in a nutshell, redevelopment of brownfield sites are the answer however private developers do not want the degradation to their margins by non-productive cost. Central government has a duty to make these sites more attractive to developers

There are measures to enable developments to be more affordable. These can for example, be based on a design policy of LONG LIFE / LOOSE FIT / SURPLUS ENERGY. Such developments pay for themselves over a long period, are adaptable and flexible in use and sell surplus energy to the National Grid creating a revenue stream to off-set their cost.

Our client supports the recognition that brownfield sites have potentially high redevelopment costs, therefore affecting viability. This is particularly the case given the nature of the Site including the potential for remediation. Our client would like to continue discussions surrounding the potential constraints of the Site with the LPA in order to ensure that the redevelopment of the Site can be appropriately delivered.

References to ‘the Site’ mean Site Ref: GN6 (Gillingham No.3 and 4) identified in the Land Availability Assessment 2023 and as fully detailed in our letter of representations submitted to the Council.

There is a raft of measures to enable developments to be more affordable. These can for example, be based on a design policy of LONG LIFE / LOOSE FIT / SURPLUS ENERGY. Such developments pay for themselves over a long period, are adaptable and flexible in use and sell surplus energy to the National Grid creating a revenue stream to off-set their cost.

Very important. Many of these sites have been left for years and the council should make landlords/landowners develop or go for compulsory purchase. I can never understand why land or properties are left to decay for years. these people obviously don't need the money. Take the shop just down from The Holywood Bowl in Gillingham with the old circular frontage. A complete eyesore and it's been like this for years. Time to get tough, should be treated as an environmental issue. These buildings have a serious effect on people well being.

Richborough agrees with the assertion that sites in the urban core area are likely to have greater viability constraints due to costs associated with demolition and site remediation as well as the usual obligations relating to the provision of affordable housing and infrastructure requirements. A Viability Assessment which considers the whole plan, including the ability of sites to meet requirements in respect of sustainable construction, accessibility and dwellings standards should be undertaken.
Whilst urban regeneration schemes help deliver housing in sustainable locations and at higher densities, the lead-in times for urban sites where there are technical or ownership challenges to overcome can impact the rate of housing delivery. Too much reliance on urban sites in the Local Plan trajectory should be avoided, as much needed housing may be slow to be delivered.
Richborough also questions the suggested capacity of sites in the urban area given the Council’s clarification that 109 of the housing sites in this area have not been proposed by landowners or promoters and cannot therefore be classed as available (paragraph 3.1.5 of the LAA Interim Report). These sites have most likely been available for several years without development coming forward despite Development Briefs being prepared and rising house prices in the areas generally. Many of these sites also currently appear to be in alternative uses with no certainty they will come forward at all. There does not appear to have been any consideration of implications for current uses. The Stage 2 Assessment will clearly need to rigorously assess the urban sites given the breadth of constraints in respect of suitability, availability and viability concerns.

Brown field should be promoted despite the constraints.
I've heard it argued that if based on a design policy of Long life /loose fit/ Surplus energy suh developments pay for themselves over a long period of time. Certainly worth serious consideration.

If these sites are not decontaminated (for development purposes) due to potential costs, is there a risk that any future flooding (which is apparently becoming more likely) may cause pollution problems, which would then negate the potential financial saving from leaving them contaminated?