The green belt: Essential barrier to urban sprawl or blocker of new housing?

It’s difficult to find an issue as contentious as the green belt when talking about housebuilding. For some people it’s a vital protection against excessive city growth and for others it’s an outdated rule that prevent development.

Some key green belt statistics:

• Covering 16,384 km2 or 6,326 square miles the green belt is situated around 15 urban areas in England, with the aiming of preventing their outwards growth.
• The largest green belts are around London (5,085 km2), Merseyside and Greater Manchester (2,477 km2) and South and West Yorkshire (including Sheffield, Leeds and Bradford, 2,465 km2).
• It covers 12.6% of England’s land area – compared to the 8.7% which is developed. Within the green belt 93.1% of land is undeveloped, with 65% of all green belt land being used for agriculture.
• Only 6.8% of the green belt is developed with of half of this being accounted for by roads and transport infrastructure and only 0.3% being used for housing.

In the run up to a potential general election the green belt is likely to get wrapped up in wider discussions on housebuilding and we’ve already started to see some differentiation between the parties. Labour has said it will be more “honest” about the greenbelt and take a strategic approach to the release of land.?

The Conservatives are less likely to be as bold in committing to changes around the green belt as their voters are more likely to be in seats within the green belt and want it protected. The Conservatives will also be wary following the by-election defeat in Chesham and Amersham where opposing development was a major feature of the successful Liberal Democrat campaign.

?

What are the key arguments on either side?

In terms of those that consider the green belt a success they would point to its success in protecting open land on the fringes of urban areas from development in all but exceptional circumstances. This means that according to CPRE it has been successful in “checking urban sprawl, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and encouraging housing development on sites close to where people already live and work.” They argue that:

?

“By and large, this totemic legislation must be deemed a success. Green Belt became one of the great achievements of the post-war era; an assurance to people in urban areas that they would be able to reach green fields and feel a connection to the countryside that so many had fought for in two world wars. Today, 12.5% of England’s land area is under Green Belt protection, and urban and rural environments have benefited.”

?

Proponents of the green belt argue that it supports the battle against climate change and boosts public health by providing people in cities with easy access to green space.?

The key challenge against the green belt is that it prevents access to land suitable for development in the highest demand areas. Centre for Cities argues that “the opportunity cost of the green belt is a lack of developable land, resulting in fewer homes being built and higher prices”. Their research shows that new houses in the UK are 40% more expensive per square metre than in the Netherlands, despite there being 20 per cent more people per square kilometre there than in England.[4]

One of the key disagreements around the green belt is the amount of homes that could be provided on brownfield land instead. CPRE has argued that there is more than enough brownfield land to meet housing need, suggesting that 1.2 million homes could be built on 23,000 sites covering more than 27,000 hectares of brownfield.?

Others have argued that brownfield land can only be part of the solution to housebuilding as other factors need to be taken into account. Planning consultancy Lichfields has argued that there is less brownfield land available in the places with the highest demand for new homes, that these sites often require high density development to be viable so don’t allow for family homes with gardens and housing development can price out industrial and office development.

As well as potential losing space for industrial and commercial buildings the increased pressure for city and town centre development can lead to the loss of green space in more central locations e.g. public land and gardens. This is often more important to people living in cities who are more likely to be living in flats or homes with only limited outdoor space. The green belt can also lead to loss of countryside on the non-city side if development “jumps” the green belt focuses on areas just outside the protected areas, particularly those close to good transport links.

How could green belt development rules be changed

To fully meet housing need in high demand areas around cities some changes to green belt rules are needed. The challenge for any politician remains the ability to balance a desire to build new homes against levels of support for the green belt – Ipsos Mori? shows that 60% of people would retain the current Green Belt ‘even if it restricts the country's ability to meet housing needs’ and only 21% state the opposite.

?More optimism comes in the support for housebuilding with the same polling. This shows that by a margin of more than 2:1 people agree more than disagree with the view that ‘We will not make housing more affordable unless we increase the number of new homes being built every year’ across Britain (50% agree, 20% disagree) and in their local area (46% agree, 21% disagree).

Smaller changes to the green belt are likely to be the most well received, particularly if they are not seen as ultimately weakening its protections. This could include:

A strategic review of green belt across England – Reviewing the green belt can help understand the impact it is having, how appropriate it remains in different locations and set out a long term strategic approach to its future which balances the desire for protection with the need for new homes.

Loosening of restrictions around transport hubs in the green belt – When looking at how and where housing development could take place in the green belt it makes sense to focus on areas that are likely to have particularly high demand and the facilities people are looking for. Focusing building on areas around public transport hubs, in particular stations, would meet these criteria and potentially help reduce additional road traffic.

Enabling development of low quality sites within the green belt – Not all the green belt is picturesque countryside or productive agricultural land. It can also include ex-industrial land and disused commercial property including scrap yards and petrol stations. Housing development on these sites would in most cases be an improvement on what is there already yet green belt restrictions still apply. Loosening restrictions on these areas would help provide new homes and further improve the character of these areas.

Taking a more dynamic approach to the green belt – a more controversial approach to the green belt would be to look at green space around and within towns and cities. Shifting focus to the green belt of ensuring everyone has access to green space could lead to an ability to reduce the green built if protected green space within cities is created. Other approaches could include the creation of green wedges, rather than a full-scale green belt.

A change in Government leading to a change in approach on the green belt?

Labour have already made it clear that they will review the green belt so we should expect to see changes if they form a Government after the general election.

The nature of constituencies in the green belt mean they tend to vote Conservative so there is less of a political impact on Labour of unhappiness around green belt changes. Labour’s generally younger voters are also more likely to be attracted to policies they think will help them get into home ownership.

That said, any reforms around the green belt are likely to be specific rather than radical. Increasing the amount of development while retaining the core of the green belt is likely to be Labour’s aim. Focus on poorer quality sites and limited development in areas with certain characteristics should be expected.

More widely the impact of any changes will take time to filter through. It would take time to work through the process of changing green belt designations even if it is one of the early changes a potential Labour Government puts in place. Any new homes built as a result of these changes are several years away.

More generally any changes to the green belt should be part of a single Government housing strategy which looks across all tenures and types of housing to set out a coherent approach to deliver enough affordable and easy to access homes to meet the UK’s housing need.

Some further reading