The Land Restoration Trust, set up six years ago to manage derelict brownfield land with no commercial use as open space, is to be converted into a body to manage public open spaces and green infrastructure.
The move is being marked by a change of name reflecting a move away from its brownfield focus. In future it will be the Land Trust with a "single aim of delivering our vision of creating high quality and sustainably maintained open space".
The LRT was set up by English Partnerships, Groundwork, the Forestry Commission and the Environment Agency specifically to tackle brownfield issues, but the Government's decreasing brownfield focus over recent years has seen it take on one or two greenfield sites and evidently the change of government has prompted it to end the brownfield focus, now called its "pilot phase".
"During our pilot phase it quickly became apparent that our approach to managing ‘neglected land' was appropriate for all open space and there was a significant demand for our services," said chief executive Euan Hall.
"In particular house builders and developers who would create green spaces as part of their developments needed someone to take on their land."
But the Trust's new "Business Blog" questions whether greenfield land is always worth protecting unless it is woodland, marsh land, wetland or heathland.
"At the risk of causing moral outrage I have to disagree," says the Blog.
"Yes habitats such as woodland, marsh land, wetland and heathland need protecting. However, much of the land classified as green is former agricultural land, therefore it's not really natural at all. This land has often been so intensify farmed that landscape is quite bland and there is very little biodiversity. Furthermore as public access to this land is normally restricted, what value are people actually getting from it?"
The Blog says some brownfield land can support varied ecosystems and habitats and that skylarks and grassland have colonised some brownfield sites.
"Although this is a bit of an oxymoron, the grassland that has colonised these brownfield sites is more natural than is found on the supposed green belt," it says.
It also says that as brownfield land is often at the heart or fringe of communities it allows greater access when used for open space.
"I'm not advocating concreting over the green belt," says the Blog.
"I just believe we need to use a more strategic approach. Sensitive controlled development on the ‘not so green belt' can actually enhance and protect the important habitats if we use planning gain or Section 106 wisely.
"We'd also then need funding to manage land to ensure it delivers benefit for both people and nature. Additionally this money could be used to convert more brownfield land to useable open space and therefore ensure we have a net gain of green land."
