Housing supply and brownfield regeneration in a post-Barker review world: A comparison of policy and practice in England and Scotland

The findings of the Barker review, which examined the reasons for the undersupply of UK housing, have important implications for the devolved constituents of the UK, including Scotland. This paper traces the emergence of the brownfield regeneration policy agenda across the UK and examines how the Barker review connects with this brownfield policy focus. The paper compares housing and brownfield policies and practices in England and Scotland, places them in an international context and elicits wider lessons for devolved governance in relation to housing policy, in terms of `centrist—local' tensions. Estimates based on published data suggest that Barker's emphasis on increased housing supply cannot easily be reconciled with the current emphasis on brownfield development and is likely to require a return to greenfield development in both countries

Comparison of international approaches to sustainable remediation

Since mid-to-late 2000s growing interest for sustainable remediation has emerged in initiatives from several international and national organisations as well as other initiatives from networks and forums. This reflects a realisation that risk-management activities can about bring environmental, social, and economic impacts (positive or negative) in addition to achieving risk-based remediation goals. These ideas have begun to develop as a new discipline of "sustainable remediation". The various initiatives have now published a number of frameworks, standards, white papers, road maps and operative guidelines. The similarities and differences in the approaches by these outputs and general trends have been identified. The comparison is based on a set of criteria developed in discussion with members of these various initiatives, and identifies a range of similarities between their publications. Overall the comparison demonstrates a high level of consensus across definitions and principles, which leads to the conclusion that there is a shared understanding of what sustainable remediation is both across countries and stakeholder groups. Publications do differ in points of detail, in particular about the operational aspects of sustainable remediation assessment. These differences likely result from differences in context and legal framework. As this analysis was carried out its findings were debated with members of the various international initiatives, many of whom have been included as authors. Hence the outcomes described in this paper can be seen as the result of a sort of multi-level debate among international experts (authors) and so can offer a starting point to new sustainable remediation initiatives (for example in other countries) that aim to start developing their own documents. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved