Politics

Should we build on the green belt?

New research shows 275,000 houses are planned for green belt land

April 28, 2016
File photo dated 28/02/12 of a roof worker building new houses, as the number of new houses set to be built on England's green belt has risen to more than a quarter of a million, campaigners have warned ©Rui Vieira/PA Wire/Press Association Images
File photo dated 28/02/12 of a roof worker building new houses, as the number of new houses set to be built on England's green belt has risen to more than a quarter of a million, campaigners have warned ©Rui Vieira/PA Wire/Press Association Images
Read more: Is the London housing crisis Boris Johnson's fault?

Building on the green belt is not the answer to England's housing crisis. So argues Matt Thomson from The Campaign to Protect Rural England, in light of news that councils are planning to build over a quarter of a million new homes on green belt land.

Thomson argues the development of brownfield land is the solution. But Andrew Carter, from the Centre for Cities think tank, argues that there is not enough of it to go around—and so green belt development is essential.

Matt Thomson, Head of Planning at The Campaign to Protect Rural England: 

First, something that I hope we can agree on. Rural beauty is not the main reason for the existence of green belts, the rings of countryside around cities protected from development, although it’s often a welcome benefit. The prime purpose of England’s 14 green belts is to prevent urban sprawl.

Green belts do give millions of city dwellers a valued bit of countryside close to home and natural capital in terms of flood prevention and carbon storage, important assets in our climate-challenged times. And, in preventing the urban sprawl that we see in other countries, they encourage much-needed urban regeneration, ensuring that new housing is built closer to existing amenities and making our towns and cities exciting and vibrant places to live.

However, our green belts are under attack. Research by the organisation I work for, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) shows that local authorities are planning to build 275,000 houses on England’s Green Belts. This represents an increase of 25 per cent (or 55,000 houses) in the past year, and is almost 200,000 more than were planned in 2012. Yet those in the government, including the prime minister, say that they share the public’s love for green belts, and recognise their importance as a planning tool. The 2015 Conservative manifesto included a commitment to safeguarding green belt land. Yet the number of houses proposed to be built on green belts keeps rising.

Councils are under pressure due to rising house prices and the increased demand for housing. Under planning laws, the boundaries for green belts are only meant to be changed under “exceptional circumstances.” But such circumstances aren't clearly defined, providing a loophole for developers to exploit in applications to hard-pressed councils. CPRE is fully aware that we need to build more homes, especially ones that people can afford. But it is possible to do this without continuously eroding green belts, because the housing crisis isn't caused by undersupply of land.

According to the Local Government Association, 475,000 homes have planning permission but have not yet been built. Furthermore, CPRE research shows that in England there are enough brownfield sites—land previously built on, usually for commercial or industrial purposes—to accommodate at least 1m new homes. We should encourage developers to build out the permissions they already have. The government needs to empower local authorities to prioritise the use of brownfield sites and make it clear that green belts are protected. Building on them is not the answer to our housing crisis.

Andrew Carter, Director of Research and Policy at the Centre for Cities think tank:

The independent evidence shows that the green belt is not under attack. In fact Government figures show that green belt is larger than it was a decade ago, and has doubled in size since the 1970s. It now makes up 13 per cent of England’s land mass. Indeed, London’s green belt is three times the size of the capital itself.

Furthermore, while 275,000 homes may have been proposed for the green belt, only a tiny fraction of this number will actually be built. In 2014/15, for example, less than 12,000 homes received planning permission on the greenbelt—amounting to 5 per cent of the total number of homes given planning permission in the UK.

Nor does the green belt prevent urban sprawl. By creating a no man's land, development leap-frogs the protected land to places further away from cities. This is bad for the environment: it means an increasing number of commuters will have to make longer journeys each day.

Current green belt policy contributes to making housing unaffordable. Maintaining the size and restrictions of current Green Belts drives up land values by arbitrarily disregarding land that could be used to build homes. This in turn increases housing costs, pricing people out of our most successful cities. Not only does that affect quality of life for those priced out—it also undermines the competitiveness of thriving cities. We should be re-assessing whether the green belt needs to be at its current size, especially given that not all of its land is green, accessible or desirable.

While I agree with the CPRE that brownfield sites will be an important part of a solution to the housing crisis, there simply isn’t enough brownfield land to build the amount of new homes needed—especially in places like London, Oxford and Bristol, where demand is highest. And many brownfield sites are unsuitable for housing because they are located far away from where new homes are needed, or are better suited for other land uses like leisure and transport. Plus, redeveloping brownfield sites is expensive.

We urgently need to consider all the options that are available for tackling housing shortages in our most successful cities. Our research shows that building on less than 5 per cent of green belt land in the ten least affordable UK cities would supply 1.4 million homes close to train stations. Given the extent of the housing crisis—with conservative estimates suggesting that 50,000 new homes need to be built in London alone each year for the next decade—ruling the green belt out is a luxury we don’t have.