"Why can't we, with a more intelligent policy, actually have houses that are affordable, built at higher densities than they are at the moment and built on brownfield sites"

Prescott’s line is a challenge to the assumption that affordability, urban quality, and environmental care must trade off against one another. He frames housing outcomes as a product of policy design, implying that the status quo results from choices rather than inevitabilities. “More intelligent policy” suggests an integrated approach: aligning planning rules, infrastructure funding, land use, and transport so that delivering homes becomes faster, more predictable, and better matched to need.

Affordability here is not just a price point but a system outcome. It relies on increasing supply where demand is strongest, diversifying tenures (including social and affordable rent), and capturing a portion of land value uplift to fund infrastructure and affordability obligations. Predictable planning, design codes, and streamlined approvals can lower risk and cost, allowing savings to flow to prices and delivery.

Higher densities are presented as an opportunity, not a threat. Done well, density supports transit, shops, schools, and public services, and can reduce car dependence and sprawl. The emphasis is on livability, good design, daylight, open space, and mixed uses, often achieved through mid-rise “missing middle” housing and gentle intensification around stations, high streets, and town centers.

Directing growth to brownfield sites ties affordability to regeneration and environmental stewardship. Reusing previously developed land protects greenfield and green belt areas and revitalizes underused urban parcels. Yet brownfield often carries challenges: contamination, fragmented ownership, infrastructure deficits, and viability gaps. Intelligent policy would tackle these through land assembly, remediation funds, infrastructure grants, and public-private delivery vehicles or development corporations that de-risk complex sites.

Underlying this is the political economy of consent. Communities want tangible benefits: beautiful buildings, local services, green space, and fair contributions from developers. Clear design standards, community engagement, and mechanisms to share value can build support.

The statement ultimately argues that affordability, density, and brownfield regeneration are complementary goals, achievable through coherent policy, investment, and design excellence rather than mutually exclusive choices.