Time to review our Green Belt Policy

pic1As unpopular an idea as it may be I’m not sure politicians can avoid the need to talk about reviewing the green belt for much longer. With all the discussion about the UK housing crisis: rising prices, reducing affordability, scarcity of land and under supply of homes, it seems that those with an interest in housing are almost all agreed that increasing supply is one of the key ways of reducing our housing problem. How we do that is however a matter for debate – some would say it can be done by bringing empty homes back into use, densification and development on brownfield land, without the need to consider greenfield or green belt land. Others would argue that greenfield and green belt is a necessary part of the equation. But in typical UK style we are not taking a particularly long term, strategic or comprehensive approach to this, we are chipping away at the issue, encouraging local councils to consider the issues locally without really providing any clear national guidance. The result is confusion, uncertainty and unplanned, ad hoc developments that don’t really satisfy anyone.

So, what’s all the fuss about anyway, what is the green belt and why do we hang on to this historic policy so desparately? Green belt policy dates back to the 1930s and 1940s and its original purpose still holds true today, that is, to prevent urban sprawl and act as a buffer between towns. Green belt land accounts for about 13% of land area in England and is seen by many as valuable and by others as a major obstacle. The main purpose of green belt policy is spelt out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as follows:

  • to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
  • to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
  • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
  • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
  • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

It would be true to say that green belt policy has been one of our most effective planning policies, it has undoubtedly helped planners and communities to protect open spaces around cities and towns and has stopped the merger of built up areas. There are clear advantages to the policy that are as relevant now as they were when it was first established. Therefore I wouldn’t argue for a removal of the policy, as it is both valuable and effective. But I would argue for a full national review of the policy, assessing the quality, impact and relevance of current designations. Since the policy was first introduced many things have changed about the way we live our lives, about the way we commute and about the way our urban areas work. That’s why the policy needs to be reviewed, to take on board commuting patterns, to protect valuable open spaces within urban areas, to maintain varied density levels in urban areas and to contribute to the overall sustainability of our cities and towns. At the moment, green belt policy can be seen to have a negative effect on many of these aspects and is a hindrance to the ability of local councils to provide for new affordable homes in places that people want to live.

The key to this discussion is generating the right balance between protection and review, and to generating a rational debate about the issues without the kind of scaremongering promoted by some aspects of our media and some politicians and campaign groups. Since when was it more important to protect a piece of land than it was to house vulnerable people or provide choice in our housing market for those that need somewhere to live – because that’s what it boils down to in the end – real political choices and at the moment those protecting the land are winning!

There are many in the housing arena who are getting wise to this idea and various campaigns have started up over the last few years, such as Yes to Homes, SHOUT, and Priced Out but the Nimby and environmental lobby, CPRE, National Trust and others still seem to have the ear of our national politicians to the point where they are willing to sacrifice not providing enough homes in order to protect certain areas of land. Now I’m not suggesting a free for all, where all land is up for development, far from it. But it is definitely time for entrenched positions to be challenged and for a grown up debate about green belt land. With a proper review we could achieve all our objectives, by opening up relevant, appropriate and accessible land for development whilst maintaining and enhancing areas of green belt land for the future. Without a proper review, we will see constant battles over small pieces of land, continuing undersupply of housing, or poorly located housing, and further erosion of valuable open spaces within our urban areas.Town cramming is a very real issue, with huge implications, just ask town planners in the Netherlands who faced this years ago around Amsterdam and the Randstad.

The solution to the housing crisis is by no means simple, and reviewing the green belt to release land is not the only answer, but I can’t help but feel it needs to be part of the solution?

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Time to review our Green Belt Policy

  1. Since the policy was first introduced many things have changed about the way we live our lives, about the way we commute and about the way our urban areas work. That’s why the policy needs to be reviewed, to take on board commuting patterns, to protect valuable open spaces within urban areas, to maintain varied density levels in urban areas and to contribute to the overall sustainability of our cities and towns.

    I would argue that not that green belt policy needs to change, but those other aspects need to be examined.

    To begin with you mention commuting patterns. The motor car has had a disastrous influence here. Whereas many decades ago most people lived very close to their work, they can now live many miles or tens of miles from their workplaces. If people still want to commute from rural to urban areas for work, doing so by public transport and cycling need to be made far more attractive and commuting by motor car far less attractive for the sake of the environment if nothing else.

    In addition, housing density in urban areas needs to be increased to take the pressure off the green belt. Many comparable European cities have much higher occupation densities than their UK counterparts.

    After varying degrees of encouragement over recent decades, developers still seem reluctant to develop brownfield sites in urban areas and still prefer greenfield sites, whether in the green belt or not. More brownfield redevelopment needs to be encouraged and greenfield development discouraged.

    Like

    • Hi Steve, agree that other things need to be reviewed also, but so does our green belt policy. At the moment green belts create commuting patterns that jump green belts and force people to travel further every day, because they can’t afford the home they want in the city or urban area. North Somerset is a great example of this where many people live out in Nailsea, Yatton, Congresbury and Weston but travel into Bristol every day for work. Densifying our urban areas is part of the answer, but not everyone wants to live in high density areas, many would prefer detached or semi-detached houses with gardens.

      The reluctance to build on brownfield is an issue but development of that alone will also not solve the problem, it might not be in the right place or maybe not enough of it.

      Reviewing the green belt doesn’t mean losing all of it, I would even argue for maintaining the same amount, it might just be slightly different plots of land?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s