PEOPLE living near previously used land are significantly more likely to suffer from poor health than those living in areas with little or no ‘brownfield’ land, according to new research.

The findings by Durham University suggest that the regeneration of brownfield land should be considered as a policy priority for local authority public health teams.

The research – the first to examine the link between brownfield land and health in England – shows that brownfield sites could be a potentially important and previously overlooked environmental influence on health.

Brownfield land is previously used or derelict land that may have real or perceived contamination problems and that requires intervention to bring it back into productive use. The Homes and Communities Agency estimates that there is around 62,000 hectares of brownfield land in England alone.

Durham University researchers found that local communities with large amounts of brownfield land in England had poorer health outcomes, including limiting long term illness. Electoral wards with large areas of brownfield generally had worse health compared to those with no brownfield or only small amounts.

While the hazardous effects of brownfield land with contaminants are well known, researchers suggest that, regardless of contamination, brownfield could have wider negative impacts on the general health of communities. They say further research is needed to find out which health effects play the greatest role.

Professor Clare Bambra, lead author of the study from Durham’s Department of Geography, said: “Our study shows that local authorities and central government need to prioritise the remediation and regeneration of brownfield land to protect the health of communities.”

Wards with large areas of brownfield had a 15 per cent increase in ill health, including a 14 per cent increase in limiting long term illness, compared to wards with little to no brownfield.