How greenfield and brownfield development relate to sustainability

Overview

Greenfield and brownfield land, advantages of greenfield development and advantages of brownfield development.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

1. 1

   Define greenfield and brownfield land.

   Model answer

   Greenfield land is land that has not previously been built on: farmland, woodland, open countryside or open land at the edge of a settlement. Brownfield land, more formally previously developed land, is land that has already been built on, whether it is now vacant, derelict or still in use; typical examples are former factories, docks, gasworks, railway yards, barracks, hospitals and redundant retail sites. Brownfield land is usually within or on the edge of the built-up area, and may require demolition and the treatment of contamination before it can be reused.

2. 2

   What are the advantages of greenfield development?

   Model answer

   Land is cheaper and free of contamination, so there is no remediation or demolition cost and less risk of unexpected ground conditions. Sites are usually large, unconstrained and in single ownership, so an efficient layout can be designed, construction is quicker, and economies of scale are available. There is room for gardens, schools, playing fields, parking and road access to modern standards. Buildings are not restricted by neighbouring structures, so higher energy standards and solar orientation are easier to achieve. And the resulting homes, particularly family houses with gardens in an attractive setting, are what a large part of the market wants and will pay for, so schemes are viable.

3. 3

   What are the disadvantages of greenfield development?

   Model answer

   It consumes countryside permanently: farmland, habitat and open space are lost, and soil is sealed under buildings and roads. It extends the built-up area outwards, contributing to sprawl and to the merging of settlements. Because peripheral sites are usually poorly served by public transport and distant from jobs and services, they generate long car journeys for the lifetime of the development, so transport emissions and congestion rise and car dependence is locked in. Entirely new roads, sewers, water mains, schools and health provision have to be built and then maintained. Paving over permeable land increases runoff and flood risk downstream unless drainage is designed carefully. And development at the edge draws population and spending away from the existing centre, which can leave inner areas with falling demand and dereliction.

4. 4

   What are the advantages of brownfield development?

   Model answer

   It reuses land that has already been taken from nature, so countryside and farmland are protected and no new land is sealed. It generally uses existing roads, sewers, water, power and public transport, which is cheaper for the public purse than building new networks. Central and inner locations put residents close to jobs, shops, schools and services, so journeys are shorter and more of them can be made on foot, by bicycle or by public transport, which reduces emissions and supports the viability of those services. It removes dereliction, contamination and eyesores, improves the appearance and reputation of run-down areas and can trigger wider regeneration and investment. It brings population back into the centre, which supports town-centre shops, cafes and evening activity and increases natural surveillance in streets that were empty after working hours.

5. 5

   What are the disadvantages of brownfield development?

   Model answer

   Contamination from former industrial use may require expensive investigation and remediation, and old foundations, basements, tanks and buried services complicate construction. Demolition costs money and produces waste and embodied carbon. Sites are often small, awkwardly shaped, in fragmented ownership and hemmed in by existing buildings, which limits layout, daylight and orientation and raises costs per dwelling. Land values in accessible urban locations are high, so schemes tend to be built at densities and price points that deliver fewer family homes and less affordable housing, and redevelopment can displace existing lower-income residents and small businesses through gentrification. Central sites face congestion, noise and air quality problems. And long-derelict urban sites are sometimes surprisingly rich in wildlife, so treating all brownfield land as ecologically worthless is a mistake.

6. 6

   Weigh greenfield against brownfield development in terms of sustainability.

   Model answer

   On the environmental dimension brownfield generally scores better: no loss of countryside or soil sealing, reuse of existing infrastructure, shorter journeys and lower transport emissions over the lifetime of the development, and reuse of a site that was already damaged. On the social dimension the comparison is genuinely mixed: brownfield schemes give good access to jobs and services and regenerate deprived areas, but they can be less affordable, deliver fewer family homes and displace existing residents, whereas greenfield schemes can deliver affordable family housing quickly but may isolate households without a car. The decisive variables are not the label but the specifics: how accessible the site is by public transport, at what density it is built, what mix of homes and tenures it delivers, and what the land would otherwise have been used for. A brownfield site on a ring road with no bus service and a greenfield extension built compactly around a railway station can easily reverse the usual ranking, which is why policy applies a sequential approach rather than a blanket rule.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.