Brownfield?
Greenfield?
The threat to London’s unofficial countryside
A report by London Wildlife Trust on behalf of the London Brownfields Forum
London
Protecting Wildlife for the Future
“….. You don’t need to be an ecologist with a passion for
immigrant plants to enjoy a bit of ragged and exuberant
greenery, where no-one tells you to keep off the grass or
to stop picking the flowers. Yet your chances of so doing
get fewer by the day. Increasingly the so-called brownfield
sites are barricaded by razor wire and guard dogs, as if
they contained some delicate crop. What they do contain,
of course, is something much more robust and precious – a
whole urban ecosystem of majestic triffids, migrant birds,
opportunist animals and feral children.”
Extract from ‘The Unofficial Countryside’ by Richard Mabey (1999 edition)
Richard Mabey, author of the recent classic Flora Britannica, is a contemporary
spokesperson for the modern landscape and its enthusiasts. “The Unofficial
Countryside”, first published in 1973, is a celebratory account of the unique mix
of London’s wildlife and human communities.
London’s brownfield sites host a wide range of animals and plants, some of
them nationally rare and many of them truly characteristic of a cosmopolitan
London. This ‘unofficial countryside’, now under pressure from development, is
as much a part of the living London as Hampstead Heath, Richmond Park and
Epping Forest. I therefore welcome London Wildlife Trust’s initiative in raising
this important issue. The need for new development, particularly in the Thames
Gateway, needs to be tempered with a rigorous sustainable approach that takes
account of the environmental and social merits that many brownfield sites hold.
Brownfield? Greenfield? should help those working to regenerate London and
make it an environmentally richer place in which to live, work and play.
Sir Martin Doughty
Chair of English Nature
This report reveals the complexities behind a simplistic view of the brownfield
versus greenfield debate. It highlights the fact that some brownfield sites are more
important for wildlife than their intensively-managed greenfield counterparts and
makes the case for their selective preservation as a community resource. These
brownfield sites have become crucially important places for people and wildlife,
reconnecting urban communities with nature.
Professor Peter Crane FRS
Director of The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Protecting Wildlife for the Future
the colour of fields
Imagine you are walking through a field in summer.
Leaves rustle in the breeze and long grasses brush
your legs. Butterflies settle on brightly coloured
flowers. Chiffchaff and wren call out and a blackbird
searches for food under a hawthorn bush, unaware of
the kestrel overhead.
You might think you were in the heart of the
countryside. But you could equally be in the middle
of London, where urban wastelands bring city people
closer to the natural world. What we mean here by
wasteland is previously-developed land that has been
abandoned by people and reclaimed by nature.
This is some of London’s most valuable and
dynamic natural open space: part of the city’s
unofficial countryside.
In this report, we aim to demonstrate that urban wastelands are far from being
wasted assets. They often support a rich array of wildlife and provide people living
and working in urban areas with the opportunity to experience nature on their
doorsteps. This is particularly important where public access to other local green
open spaces is very limited. Brownfield sites (the term used by developers and
planners to refer to previously-developed land) are often more natural and full of
wildlife than many greenfield sites.
London Wildlife Trust supports the need for positive action to revitalise parts
of our city. But the government’s commitment to prioritise brownfield sites for
development has already resulted in the loss of wasteland sites recognised in
London for their wildlife importance.
We believe that a more sustainable approach to brownfield development is
essential. It must recognise the significant biodiversity of many of these sites and
the role they offer in the provision of green open space for local communities.
London Wildlife Trust thinks this approach is realistic, despite the many pressures
on these sites for new development.
This report:
• Examines the social and environmental value of urban brownfields
• Outlines current policy affecting brownfield land
• Proposes urgent action to protect London’s finest brownfield wildlife
brownfield or greenfield?
London has the chance of a brighter future. Central
government is committed to an urban renaissance to
create vibrant liveable cities. At the same time, London’s
regional government, the Greater London Authority, has
the opportunity of working on behalf of the whole city.
London Wildlife Trust believes that any talk of urban
renaissance must recognise the value of natural
areas that already exist. A significant element of
the Government’s proposals is the prioritisation of
brownfield sites for development. By 2008, 60% of new
housing should either be built on brownfield sites or
created from property conversions. Yet, about a quarter
of London’s 1,200 wildlife sites1 are wholly
or partly brownfield in character. And seven of inner
London’s Sites of Metropolitan Importance2, which
were designated for their wasteland biodiversity,
have now been destroyed or so damaged that
they no longer merit such wildlife status. London’s
remaining brownfield sites with the most valuable
wildlife must be saved.
The government’s brownfield targets accentuate the
‘brownfield versus greenfield’ debate. This tends to
focus on meeting house building targets, protecting the greenbelt and preventing
urban sprawl. Yet, much of our countryside has been polluted and damaged by
industrialised farming methods. In many areas, such as rural Essex, the countryside
is dominated by endless tracts of featureless prairies. These are technically green
fields but they are often sterile areas for people and wildlife. Similarly, our
greenbelt land, strongly protected against development by planning policy, is often
inappropriately managed and of low wildlife, landscape and recreational value.
In contrast, urban brownfields can be very rich in wildlife, providing a refuge for
many plants and wild animals. These colourful wasteland communities, that spring
up spontaneously wherever land is abandoned, are one of the few remaining truly
natural types of habitat in the country. The contrast of natural and industrial
heritage can be strikingly attractive and interesting. But the opportunities it offers
for recreation are often ignored.
Not all brownfield sites have a high wildlife and amenity value. Certain sites,
such as areas of hard-standing, car parks and existing empty buildings, should
be targeted for redevelopment first. In other cases, creative mitigation can allow
redevelopment to go ahead without the destruction of local wildlife characteristics.
We need to recognise the potential contribution of these sites in areas with very
limited natural open space.
1. London’s wildlife sites have been surveyed and assessed using procedures recommended by the London Ecology Unit,
and now adopted by the London Mayor and the Greater London Authority’s Strategy Directorate. 2. Sites of Metropolitan
Importance are sites which contain the best examples of London’s habitats, sites which contain particularly rare species, rare
assemblages of species or important populations of species. They are of the highest priority for protection.
Important Inner London wildlife
sites lost to development;
Thames Wharf and the
Limmo Peninsula
Newham
Deptford Wharf
Lewisham
Klein’s Wharf
Tower Hamlets
Bricklayers’ Arms
Southwark
Spitalfields Viaducts
Tower Hamlets
Woolwich Arsenal and
Tripcock Park
Greenwich
Barking Levels
Barking and Dagenham
natural redevelopment
Wastelands have always had a chequered history. They appeared because of
accident, politics or economic failure and often disappeared just as unexpectedly.
But today, more wastelands are being lost to development than are being created.
And this means that the unique wildlife features of some of our existing sites are
even more precious.
The illustration below indicates how the process of natural colonisation can work
on brownfields. It shows that wasteland or brownfield habitat can be very varied:
from sparsely vegetated ground to areas of relatively mature trees and shrubs. In this
report, brownfield biodiversity refers to all of these types.
Substrate conditions and the level of human activity strongly influence the pattern
of colonisation. On larger brownfield sites there may be a variety of wildlife
communities at different stages of natural colonisation.
This can result in an amazing array of plant-life, which in turn encourages foraging
and nesting birds, including linnet, goldfinch, skylark, song thrush and kestrel. In
London, these dynamic landscapes have also attracted a rare bird in the UK, the
black redstart. Other animals that make use of urban wastelands include fox and
bats, as well as butterflies, grasshoppers and slowworm.
The diverse origins of urban brownfields can result in wildlife species that would be
the envy of many rural nature reserves. Certain nationally-important invertebrates,
such as the ‘humble bumble’, Bombus humilis, are virtually restricted in London to
a mosaic of brownfield and relic grassland sites in the East
Thames corridor. These places offer the unusual, but
essential, combination in the city of sandy or stone
substrates and an abundance of nectar-rich wildflowers.
Wastelands are also unique in the way their species
reflect our history and cultural diversity. For
example, plants and animals, imported into our
cities from around the world, colonised wasteland
sites around ports. London’s docklands, once the
hub of trading activity, provided a home for many
wildlife stowaways. Railway yards and container
parks continue to do so today. As a result, there
is a great variation between species found on
wasteland sites across London and other parts
of the country.
Protecting Wildlife for the Future
young woodland
patches of scrubby
bushes
herbs, grasses and
bienial plants
sparce cover of
pioneer plants
bare ground
The Ripple
Set amongst the new industrial landscape of
Barking Reach in east London, the London
Wildlife Trust’s Ripple Nature Reserve is
a fascinating example of how nature can
reclaim industrial wasteland. It is a mosaic
of colourful habitats that include natural
colonisation over areas of pulverised fuel ash
dumped from a former local power station.
Over the next few years, the reserve will
be surrounded by the Thamesview estate
and the new Barking Reach residential
development – built on land designated as a
Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature
Conservation. The Ripple will become an
increasingly important resource for the local
community, as the nearby natural open space
is lost to development.
contamination and creative
remediation
There is increasing evidence that we benefit from contact with nature as part of
our everyday lives. Easy access to natural green space makes us feel better, both
physically and mentally.
These benefits have been acknowledged by the London Mayor, who proposes in
his Biodiversity Strategy that all Londoners, wherever they live or work, should
be within walking distance of a quality natural space. In many built-up areas,
particularly in inner London, wastelands and other brownfield sites may be the
only natural greenspace there is. They are our unofficial countryside: an escape
from the noise, bustle and pollution of London and, if properly managed, they
could help significantly to reduce the number of areas deficient in accessible
open space.
Clearly, not all urban wasteland sites meet these needs. Some are perceived to be
unsafe, unappealing and the focus for anti-social activity. In some cases in London,
the value of wastelands has been recognised and they are being actively managed as
wildlife sites for the benefit of local communities. Other wastelands are more likely
to be inaccessible to the public and targeted for development. Their potential to
fulfil a much-needed function for people and wildlife is unrecognised or ignored by
both planners and developers.
Many brownfield sites remain contaminated as a result of their previous industrial
use and are a threat to public health and safety. Yet it is often these abandoned
sites, with their unusual substrates, that host distinctive plants.
We realise that remediation work required to make contaminated sites safe is a costly
and complex obstacle to redevelopment. We agree that health and safety issues must
be tackled. But the impact of remediation and redevelopment on wildlife must also be
considered early on. Mitigation, in the form of innovative wasteland habitat creation,
may be one option for compensating loss of existing biodiversity.
At a former Transco site in Deptford, L.B. Lewisham, contaminated ground has
being tackled in preparation for a new education and visitor centre. The top half
metre of contaminated substrate has been removed and replaced with crushed
brick and concrete as remediation to allow the local flora and fauna to
recolonise naturally.
natural space for people
The wildlife value of brownfield land is often unrecognised, despite the biodiversity
of even the smallest sites.
London is fortunate to have a relatively good history of habitat surveying across
the boroughs. Small wasteland sites, however, have in the past, been under-sampled
because they fell below the size threshold of accepted survey methodology. The
biodiversity of newly abandoned wasteland can also develop quickly but its value
may not be acknowledged if a habitat survey is not due for several years.
Ecological research and the evaluation of wasteland habitat has lagged behind that
of more conventional semi-natural habitats of the British countryside. As a result,
nature conservation professionals consistently undervalue wasteland sites.
As we have explained, the government has set targets for building homes on
brownfield or previously-developed land. These are contained in Planning
Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing), which defines what is meant by ‘previouslydeveloped’.
This definition specifically excludes the following: ‘land that was
previously developed but where remains of any structure or activity have blended
into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be
considered as part of the natural surroundings), and where there is a clear reason
that could outweigh the re-use of the site – such as its contribution to nature
conservation’.
This exclusion clause has offered a ‘safety net’ to a few mature brownfield sites
and has led to a more sensitive approach to redevelopment. However, most urban
wastelands are at earlier stages of colonisation and do not meet the conventional
idea of ‘blending in’. These wastelands tend to be viewed instead as unsightly
wildlife deserts, when in fact they can be of the highest wildlife value. London
Wildlife Trust believes that if this value were recognised by environmental
professionals these sites could be saved or mitigation made for their loss.
Gargoyle Wharf
This is a classic wasteland site next to the
River Thames in the London Borough of
Wandsworth, and once a proposed
Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature
Conservation. It was the subject of at least
three major planning applications in
the past six years and vigorous local
campaigning for the open space to be
retained. Over 250 different species of
higher plants were recorded on the site
before it was bulldozed.
Protecting Wildlife for the Future
undervalued and ignored
ecological surveying of London’s existing green roofs
Some influential reports, policies and strategies are shown
here. Some have increased pressure on London’s unofficial
countryside; others offer exciting opportunities.
The Urban White Paper (2000), Our Towns and Cities: The Future - delivering
an Urban Renaissance adopted many of the recommendations of the Urban
Task Force’s 1999 report, particularly the prioritisation of new development on
brownfield sites. The White Paper’s emphasis on social and economic issues and
its relative weakness on the environment and wildlife may contribute to many of
the problems highlighted in this report.
A government headline indicator for sustainable development is the percentage
of new homes built on previously developed land. This indicator will not
measure the percentage of urban wildlife sites destroyed or damaged as a result.
The government says we need 3.8 million new homes in England by 2021 and
many of them should be built on brownfield land. PPG3 has increased the
pressure for development on urban brownfields, many of which are unique
colourful city sites, teeming with life.
Planning: delivering a fundamental change (2001) sets out the Government’s
proposed reforms to the local planning system. Proposals include the creation
of business zones in all regions, where certain development could proceed
without planning permission. These zones are likely to be on brownfield sites,
particularly if the strong lobby against greenbelt development persists.
The London boroughs often fail to adopt individual brownfield wildlife sites in
their Unitary Development Plans. Subsequently, biodiversity is more likely to be
ignored or undervalued when development proposals are being considered by the
local planning process.
In a recent review, this government agency was reclothed as the brownfield
regeneration body for England. Its key objectives include the identification and
prioritisation of strategic brownfield land and management of demonstration
projects. At this stage, its precise role and policies are unclear.
The UK government signed the Convention on Biodiversity at the Earth Summit
in 1992. Countrywide targets and action plans to conserve priority species
and habitats have been published. But these plans fail to acknowledge the
significance of urban brownfields, particularly when some of the priority species
depend on wasteland habitat.
threats and opportunities
Urban White Paper
Sustainability Indicators
Planning Policy Guidance 3
(housing)
Planning Green Paper
Unitary Development Plans
English Partnerships
Biodiversity Action Plans
Protecting Wildlife for the Future
New duties for the London Mayor include the preparation of a Spatial
Development Strategy (The London Plan) and a Biodiversity Strategy. The London
Plan replaces the current strategic regional planning guidance for London and will
be the ‘conductor’ of the Mayor’s other strategies. Development plans produced by
the London boroughs should conform to The London Plan.
The draft Biodiversity Strategy identified wastelands as sites of value to London’s
biodiversity and acknowledged that they were declining due to economic
pressures. It noted that: “a balance is needed between the need to concentrate
new housing into brownfield land, and the importance of some of this land as
wildlife sites”. Unfortunately, this call for balance was not reflected in The draft
London Plan, where brownfields were mentioned only in relation to their potential
for development.
Newly revised PPG17 emphasises that local authorities should ensure that they
meet the needs of communities for open space. We believe brownfield sites
need to be recognised for the contribution they can make to an area’s overall open
space resource.
The Government is also looking to the regional development agencies to help
achieve its target for house building on brownfield sites or through property
conversions. However, one of the London Development Agency’s statutory
responsibilities is to contribute to sustainable development. It is well-placed to
promote the additional social, economic and environmental values of integrating
appropriate wasteland features into new developments.
The brownfield resource of the Thames Gateway has been recognised as the
“largest in the capital” (Nick Raynsford). The Thames Gateway Partnership is an
alliance of stakeholders from the public, private and community sectors, working
towards regeneration of the sub-region. A key objective of the partnership is
overcoming obstacles to brownfield redevelopment.
The Government’s Urban Green Space Task Force was established in 2001
following a pledge in the Urban White Paper to establish a comprehensive
programme to improve the quality of urban parks and open spaces. This is an
excellent opportunity to embrace local biodiversity and the potential value of
brownfield sites in the urban green space network.
The London Biodiversity Action Plan (2001), published by the London Biodiversity
Partnership, includes a habitat action plan for wastelands. The three aims of the
action plan are:
• To highlight the important value of London’s wastelands for people and wildlife
• To maintain a diverse network of wasteland sites
• To promote the retention, incorporation, enabling and management of
wasteland habitats within new developments in London
The London Wildlife Trust is the lead organisation for the wastelands habitat
action plan and, along with the London Brownfields Forum, it takes the lead role
for specific actions identified in the plan. The London Brownfields Forum was
threats and opportunities
New strategies for London
Planning Policy Guidance 17
(sport and recreation)
London Development Agency
Thames Gateway London Partnership
Urban Green Space Task Force
London’s Wasteland Biodiversity
Action Plan
developing with wildlife
Developers are increasingly undertaking ecological surveys and evaluations as
part of brownfield development proposals, whether or not an assessment is
legally required.
While this should be encouraged, proposals for environmental enhancement
or mitigation on brownfield sites far too often involve tree-planting or other
‘greenwash’ landscaping. This may be inappropriate to the existing local landscape
character and ecological context. Tree-planting and standard amenity grassland is
too often seen as an easy solution to greenspace provision.
Guidelines on good practice for urban building design already exist but they do
not tend to acknowledge the option of designing with wildlife. Supplementary
Planning Guidance is being developed for the Mayor’s London Plan on the issue
of sustainable design and construction. This must adequately reflect the value of
wasteland biodiversity and encourage more imaginative design that incorporates
urban wildlife features.
At Deptford Creek in south London, projects funded by the Single Regeneration
Budget have successfully raised awareness of brownfield biodiversity. Here,
planners and developers are producing renewal programmes that celebrate rather
than ignore the distinctive creekside wildlife. Local materials will be used within
the landscape design of new developments to encourage natural colonisation of
existing plants and animals. For example, many of the buildings will have green
roofs, using crushed bricks and concrete as the substrate. When completed,
Deptford Creek will have the largest concentration of ‘eco-roofs’ in the UK.
Braeburn Park Nature Reserve is a new nature reserve on a former brownfield site
in Crayford, LB Bexley. It is a good example of a site actively managed to conserve
rich and varied brownfield biodiversity.
The reserve has a history of sand and gravel extraction and has been used since
the 1960’s mainly for recycling waste building materials. As a result of a planning
agreement between Bexley council and the developer, London Wildlife Trust
will receive the freehold of the open space and a sufficient endowment to cover
maintenance costs of the reserve in perpetuity.
It is ironic that the destruction of urban brownfield wildlife sites is contributing
to the government’s targets for sustainable development (see Sustainability
Indicators). The benefits of retaining urban brownfield sites do not just relate to
wildlife. The vegetation of open land intercepts and absorbs more rainfall than the
impermeable surfaces of concrete and tarmac. It therefore has a valuable function
in flood prevention and reducing the amount of polluted run-off reaching our
urban waterways.
Cities are generally warmer than surrounding areas. Increasing vegetation cover
will reduce the localised urban heat island effect by reducing air temperature
and improving air circulation. Trees and shrubs that have naturally colonised
brownfields can also reduce air pollution and noise.
These undervalued functions of brownfield sites, along with their social value as
natural wildspace, need to be considered as part of more vigorous approach to
sustainable development of brownfields.
demonstrating alternative management
urban design - grasping the nettle
brownfield landscaping at
Deptford Creek
sustainable development
the environmental benefits of green roofs are
recognised in other parts of Europe
relieving the pressure
This report has outlined the importance of urban brownfield sites of high wildlife
value. It has also emphasised the potential of brownfield sites as community
accessible natural areas, particularly where there is a deficiency of conventional
parks and green spaces.
London Wildlife Trust believes brownfields can be much more than just sites for
economic development, despite the many policies and associated actions that
promote this view. The Trust suggests that it would be feasible to adopt a truly
sustainable approach to the development of brownfields – an approach that offers
social and environmental, as well as economic benefits. It proposes an urgent
programme of action.
RECOGNISE the biodiversity of our remaining urban brownfields and
acknowledge the ongoing loss of their wildlife habitat.
PROTECT London’s remaining brownfield sites of the highest ecological value
and manage them to retain their biodiversity.
PROMOTE alternative approaches to regeneration and brownfield development,
where urban design respects existing wildlife value, the spirit of place and
community well-being.
London Wildlife Trust also calls for improved dialogue between the Greater London
Authority, London Development Agency, English Partnerships, Thames Gateway
London Partnership, local planning authorities and environmental organisations.
Working as a partnership, these organisations have the skills, resources and vision to
help save London’s valuable wildlife wasteland sites.
As a first step, London Wildlife Trust recommends five targets for the partnership:
• Wasteland audit that maps the existing distribution of brownfields in London
and identifies key sites that support species of London, regional and national
nature conservation importance.
• Hierarchy of three levels of brownfield sites: those for which redevelopment
should not proceed; sites which should be retained with appropriate
mitigation; sites of low wildlife value where redevelopment should proceed
as a priority.
• Ecological urban design guidelines that acknowledge the importance of
brownfield biodiversity and encourage high-quality design standards embracing
urban ecology and local landscape character.
• Brownfield nature reserves and open spaces that are managed to demonstrate
their value to people and wildlife, from which good practice can be disseminated
• Research programme that develops our current understanding of wasteland ecology.
3 steps towards sustainable
development of brownfields
targets
Protecting Wildlife for the Future
Recommended bibliography and signposts
Bertrand, N. (editor) (2002) Deptford Creek Life on the Edge
Creekside Education Trust Ltd. ISBN: 0-9542098-0-X
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2002)
Headline Indicators of Sustainable Development for the UK www.sustainable-government.gov.uk
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 : Housing www.planning.odpm.gov.uk
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000)
Our Towns and Cities: The Future - Delivering an Urban Renaissance
Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (2001)
Planning: Delivering a fundamental change www.odpm.gov.uk
Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (2002)
Green Spaces, Better Places Report of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce www.urban.odpm.gov.uk
Frith, M., Sinnadurai, P. and Gedge, D. (1999)
Black redstart an advice note for its conservation in London London Wildlife Trust www.blackredstarts
.org.uk
Gedge, Dusty (2002)
Roofspace – a place for brownfield biodiversity? pp 69-74 Ecos Volume 22 issue 3/4 BANC
Grant, G., Engleback, L., and Nicholson, B. (2002)
Green roofs; their existing status and potential for conserving biodiversity in urban areas.
Report for English Nature, Ecoschemes Ltd, & Engleback Studios
Greater London Council (1986)
A Nature Conservation Strategy for London: Woodland, Wasteland, the Tidal Thames and two
London Boroughs. Ecology Handbook No.4
London Biodiversity Partnership (2000)
The London Biodiversity Audit Volume 1 of the London Biodiversity Action Plan www.lbp.org.uk
London Biodiversity Partnership (2001)
The Action Volume 2 of the London Biodiversity Action Plan www.lbp.org.uk
Mabey, Richard (1999)
The Unofficial Countryside. Pimlico. ISBN: 0-7126-6506-4
Original text by Annie Chipchase and Mathew Frith.
Editing and additional text by Jenny Scholfield and Miranda Waugh of
London Wildlife Trust, and Ruth Hayhurst of Ruth Hayhurst Communications.
Illustration by Miranda Waugh. Photos by London Wildlife Trust, D. Gedge, Environment Agency,
M. Game/LEU, M.Frith, S. Alcorn.
Designed by Roger Taylor. Printing by Ikon Printing Company.
With thanks to David Bevan, Ruth Day, James Farrell, Dusty Gedge, Jill Goddard, Helen Hall,
Dan Hackett, Sarah Jennings, Peter Massini, Graham Myers, Emma Robertshaw.
Published on behalf of London Brownfields Forum by:
London Wildlife Trust
Harling House
47-51 Great Suffolk Street
London SE1 0BS
tel: 020 7261 0047 www.wildlondon.org.uk
e-mail: enquiries@wildlondon.org.uk
©London Wildlife Trust 2002
Registered charity no. 283895
a London habitat garden at the Thames Barrier
Information Centre