Most people feel it’s nice to have a black-and-white issue. And when it comes to new homes, it’s brownfield vs. greenfield.
Those same people will also come down on one side of the argument, with the consensus being that we should build on brownfield land first. It fits neatly into the sustainability narrative: reuse, regenerate, protect the countryside. It’s a simple argument, and simple arguments usually win.
The Reality of the Brownfield vs Geenfield Debate
But the reality is far more complicated, mainly because the language we use to frame the debate is often too simple.
“Brownfield” and “greenfield” are planning terms that have become common language, and they have almost religious and moral significance.
Building on brownfield is seen as virtuous, greenfield as destructive. Yet these labels can be deeply misleading. A patch of derelict industrial ground might be ecologically diverse with wildflowers, pollinators, and nesting birds. Meanwhile, a so-called greenfield site could be degraded farmland, compacted by years of intensive agriculture and drained of biodiversity.
I’ve seen this contradiction play out close to home.
Rewilding a Brownfield Site
A long-abandoned industrial plot once occupied by a 19th-century coachbuilder to Queen Victoria had quietly rewilded itself without human interference.
Between the crumbling brickwork, a thriving mini-ecosystem emerged. Bees burrowing into gravel, wild plants reclaiming space. The land was later cleared and new homes developed with minimal green space. In reality, it was another missed opportunity to sensitively integrate nature into the places we live.
This is the flaw in our binary thinking. Label a site “brownfield” and it signals ready for development. Call it “greenfield,” and the outrage is instant. The public outcry we see on social media rarely goes beyond these words to ask what the land actually is, its condition, its ecological value, and its potential.
A balance between houses and green spaces
Urban areas do need more homes, but they also need more green. Cities depend on natural systems to manage flood risk, store carbon, and improve well-being. Packing every disused site with housing risks creates dense spaces with little room for nature.
Equally, building on certain greenfield sites, particularly degraded agricultural land, can be an opportunity to restore biodiversity and create sustainable, mixed-use developments that bring people closer to nature.
Understanding the land beneath us
The answer isn’t to leave citizens to pick a side. It’s to help them understand how land is evaluated and communicate those findings clearly. Too much of the current system is framed in policy language that alienates communities and encourages polarisation. When people don’t understand the terms, they take sides. “Save the countryside” versus “build on brownfield.” Both are grounded in good intentions, both are missing crucial details.
This is ultimately a communications issue as much as a planning one. The language of land use should invite understanding. Each site deserves to be judged on its own merits: its history, ecology, and capacity to support human and natural life.
We can’t build a sustainable future if we treat land as either green or brown. The world is far more nuanced than that. And so must be our conversations about it.
By Debbie Larrad