8.1- Costs and benefits of developing green/brownfield sites

Match the definition with the correct key term.

• Brownfield site

• The outward expansion of towns and cities into the surrounding countryside.

• Urban sprawl

• An area of land that has not been developed previously.

• Greenfield site

• An area of land that has previously been built on but is no longer in use (derelict).

Sort the costs (negatives) and benefits of greenfield sites

Groups:

(a) Cost

,

(b) Benefit

• Infrastructure such as gas, electricity and water will not be present

• Healthier environment

• Access to the development is easier as roads are not congested

• Disruption to the local area during construction

• Lower construction costs as there is nothing to knock down or renew

• Originally unoccupied so developer can build as they wish

• Valuable farm or recreational land lost

• Encourages suburban sprawl

Identify whether the statement is true or false about ​ costs and ​ benefits of developing on greenfield sites

1. 1. Often greenfield sites are areas far from work and services which generate more traffic for the local area. ​ (a)  

2. 2. Greenfield sites are easier to get planning permission for as the government tends to want to encourage developing greenfield sites. ​ (b)  

3. 3. Usually there is more space for car parking and improving the landscape which improves the environment. ​ (c)  

4. 4. Because the land is usually occupied, having to knock the existing buildings down can be expensive for the new developers. ​ (d)  

5. 5. Wildlife is unharmed during development of greenfield sites. ​ (e)  

• True
• False

Sort the costs (negatives) and benefits of brownfield sites

Groups:

(a) Cost

,

(b) Benefit

• Environmental survey needed because of past usages, which is costly and time consuming

• Often more expensive because old buildings have to be cleared and land cleaned of pollutants

• Greenfield sites are not used, so lessens urban sprawl

• Located nearer to main areas of employment, so commuting reduced

• Reduces the loss of countryside and land that might be put to agricultural or recreational use

• Land costs are higher as It is closer to the city centre

• Higher levels of pollution, less healthy environment

• Easy for the company to get planning permission as the government is actively encouraging this

• Development costs are less as much of the infrastructure and roads are already present

• Perception of contaminated environment puts off prospective buyers

• The removal of disused factories and the improvement of the aesthetics of the area

• Infrastructure, such as power and water, is already present so costs may be lower

Identify whether the statement is true or false about ​costs and ​ benefits of brownfield sites

1. 1. The perception of the contaminated environment encourages prospective buyers to that land. ​ (a)  

2. 2. Land costs are lower as It is often closer to the city centre. ​ (b)  

3. 3. The infrastructure, such as power and water, is already present so there is no disruption to the system.​ (c)  

4. 4. Helps revive old and disused urban areas ​ (d)  

5. 5. Brownfield sites do have higher levels of pollution and therefore are often less appealing. ​ (e)  

• False
• True