TL:DR

A compelling defence has been made for why green field sites are planned for housing over brownfield sites in Swindon

Whenever a green field is the subject of a planning application, especially for housing, it’s a common refrain that we should be encouraging developers to look at redeveloping previously built-on land – brownfield sites – rather than immediately looking to use fields.

Local council planning departments will sometimes be inundated with letters, there will be speakers at planning committee meetings and letters to the press.

But how realistic is that? And if it is, how desirable is it?

Swindon Borough Council’s cabinet member for planning, Councillor Marina Strinkovsky thinks the important thing is to have a mix that suits the needs of the town

She said: “It’s not about one over or before the other – that may be true in large and dense metropolitan areas but it’s not one size fits all.

“Different kinds of sites lend themselves to different types of housing (flats or houses; build to let or ownership or social) and what we should aspire to is to have the right mix for the population and economy of the local area”

She added: “As a Local Planning Authority we can influence but ultimately not drive individual developer decisions, but we can improve the area around the train station and in the heart of Swindon to raise land values and make development there more attractive to developers.

“This is what we’re driving with Fleming Way, the increase in event spaces and 'meanwhile' uses, our Fleet and Bridge regeneration initiative, and partnerships with bodies like Network Rail on the Knowledge Central initiative.”

The leader of the opposition Conservative Group, Councillor Gary Sumner was himself a cabinet member for planning, and he said: “Development should be prioritised on brownfield sites rather than building over more of our countryside.

“But the problem with both types of development in Swindon is viability. The land values in the town centre have a real viability problem.

“ My administration 'de-risked' the Kimmerfields site by laying the access and utilities into the site at a cost of around £3m, but after nearly three years of Labour in charge there is no development on the site.

“Even the New Eastern Villages (NEV) was made more viable by putting in over £120m of Conservative government funding to build the expensive infrastructure to allow the development to become more viable – and that was enormously successful with over 6,500 homes consented.

“The only way we can encourage developers to build on brownfield sites is to make that economically viable by agreeing some form of public/private partnership or via a government subsidy."

As Cllr Strinkovsky said, the council can only influence what a developer will do.

Barratt Redrow is the company behind some of the larger developments around Swindon, especially in the NEV, and explained why this happens.

Russell Glimstead, regional managing director for the West Region at the company, said: “We are proud to have worked at some of the country’s biggest regeneration projects, such as at London Docklands and Toxteth in Liverpool.

“In London we are currently building at Hayes Village, regenerating the site of the old Nestle chocolate factory, and at Eastman Village which is the site of the old Kodak factory. Both are bringing thousands of much-needed new homes to previously industrial sites.

“However, brownfield development is often much more expensive and riskier than normal development because of the costs involved in remediating the land, preparing it for housing. This is why successful large-scale brownfield regeneration often requires local and central government to work together with developers and other stakeholders to create new communities.

He added: “A good example of this is our MADE Partnership, a joint venture with Homes England and Lloyds Banking Group delivering the specialist infrastructure and place-making needed for large regeneration sites. We are also working with stakeholders on a new project specifically looking at how the country could regenerate car parks, turning under-used brownfield sites into much-needed new homes.”

MP for Swindon North, Will Stone says there is an encouraging mix of both types of development in Swindon.

He said: “I’ve always believed developers should prioritise brownfield sites and support the Government’s efforts to encourage this approach. Residents deserve high-quality developments that minimise environmental impact.

“That said, some greenfield expansion—such as the New Eastern Villages—will be necessary, but it must come with robust infrastructure, essential amenities, and access to usable green spaces.

“Swindon has seen excellent examples of brownfield regeneration in recent years. Panattoni Park is creating new commercial opportunities, while Tekever’s commitment to the Spectrum building shows how repurposing unused assets can drive growth.

He added: “The council’s Heart of Swindon plan is another positive step, focusing on revitalising the town centre so we build up, not just out. Swindon takes environmental protection seriously, and I’m proud of these projects that support growth while respecting the beautiful countryside that surrounds our town.”

The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government said that the need for hundreds of thousands of new homes means that it is impossible to restrict development to previously built-on land.

A spokesman said: ”We inherited the worst housing crisis in living memory and all areas, including Swindon, must play their part to build 1.5 million homes and restore the dream of home ownership.

“We have been clear that brownfield land should be developed first, and we intend to strengthen support for brownfield development so that more homes will be built in the right places - and not at the expense of the environment.”

In December 2024, the National Planning Policy Framework was revised to set out that proposals for brownfield development should normally be approved. The definition of previously developed land was expanded to include large areas of hardstanding.

My Thoughts 💭My Thoughts 💭

As an engineer we prefer a greenfield to a brownfield to to the risk of contamination. Once subsurface works begins you never know what you might find but with that said I agree with Marina most cities need a good mix of green and brownfield development to keep the city viable throughout. Sometimes greenfield sites have issues as well and could lead to sunk infrastructure cost.

I enjoyed this article and UK home development and seeing they are battling the same issues we are here making development make economical sense.