New research from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) shows that there is now enough brownfield land in England for more than 1.54 million new homes, enough to exceed the government's entire 1.5 million target.
The findings come days after Housing Secretary Angela Rayner admitted there is only a 'slim chance' of the government meeting its 1.5 million homes pledge. The government should treat this as a chance to rethink how the target is distributed across the country.
Big housebuilders successfully lobbied the government for a formula for calculating housing numbers that would maximise their profits, piling pressure on to rural areas without the people or infrastructure to justify new development. The result is a slew of car-dependent ‘executive’ homes in the countryside that will do nothing to address the UK’s crisis of housing affordability.
Ministers should instead prioritise the plentiful supply of previously developed land, much of it close to where people already live, work and go to school. Homes on these sites could be delivered without the delays, infrastructure costs and environmental damage of building on unspoilt countryside.
Much of the brownfield potential identified by CPRE is concentrated in exactly the areas, including London and the South East, where demand for new homes is greatest. This undermines the argument, often made by developers, that the Green Belt and other countryside must be sacrificed to meet housing need.
CPRE's latest State of Brownfield research has been compiled from local authority brownfield registers across England, which also reveal that 846,000 potential new homes on previously developed land have been granted planning permission but have not yet been built.
The number of brownfield sites identified as available for development has grown every year since 2018, when CPRE first carried out its audit. This shows how, even with an explicit brownfield-first policy, there are still far too few homes being built on previously developed sites.
This is unsurprising given changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, including the introduction of the ‘grey belt’ policy and a presumption in favour of development close to train stations, that make it easier for developers to build on greenfield land.
Last week, Angela Rayner told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that the government was unlikely to hit its target of 1.5 million new homes by the next election, citing 'headwinds' including the war in Iran and rising construction costs. Government figures show only around 203,000 homes were delivered in the year to June 2026, far short of the 300,000 required.
Further CPRE research on the economic benefits of brownfield development, produced by Pragmatix Advisory and due to be published ahead of the Budget next month, will demonstrate that the majority of brownfield sites are viable and can deliver decent profits to developers.
CPRE is calling on the government to:
- Enforce a genuine brownfield-first policy for new housing, including by focusing Homes England investment on brownfield sites and rejecting speculative greenfield development.
- Give mayors and strategic authorities the power to set local housing targets – including for social and brownfield homes.
- Provide targeted investment to unlock brownfield sites that are not yet commercially viable, rather than defaulting to countryside release.
- Set ambitious and enforceable targets for affordable and social homes on shovel-ready brownfield sites.
CPRE chief executive Roger Mortlock said: “Angela Rayner introduced a target-setting formula that prioritises big housebuilders’ profits over people and the environment. Our new research shows that there's more than enough land to build 1.5 million new homes without sacrificing yet more countryside in the process.
“The housing crisis is one of affordability, not supply. Building more detached homes on the Green Belt won't get families out of bed and breakfast accommodation.
“In the spirit of devolution, it's time to hand target-setting to mayors, asking them to set housing targets based on local need and demand. They know their own areas and communities, giving them clear mandates to deliver the social and brownfield homes their communities actually need.”
