The Green Belt Dilemma - Preservation or Progress?

By Matthew Goh

With demand for new homes in the UK far outpacing supply, the Green Belt has come under intense criticism for reducing available land for the construction of housing and driving up property prices.

Last year, the government updated the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), outlining major changes to the Green Belt policy including making the reassessment of Green Belt land mandatory, sparking renewed debate on the effect of the Green Belt on housing.

But what is the Green Belt and why is it such a contentious policy?

In the early 20^th century, growing concern of urban sprawl led to the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938, which aimed to curb encroachment of urban areas into the countryside by preserving open spaces around cities and towns. Subsequently, local planning authorities (LPAs) were given the power to preserve green areas and grant approval for planning proposals following the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which saw the extension of the Green Belt to cover approximately 16,384 km² land today, about 13% of England’s total land area.

Permission to build on land in the Green Belt has been notoriously difficult to obtain, as the NPPF states that development by default is ‘inappropriate’ and ‘harmful to the Green Belt’, directing LPAs to only approve development in ‘very special circumstances’, or if the project falls under a narrow list of exceptions, reflecting its protected status.

The exceptionally stringent criteria for development in the Green Belt has been attacked for unreasonably limiting the supply of housing, particularly in areas experiencing population growth like London and Oxford. When cities are too dense for new construction, development will need to ‘leapfrog’ the Green Belt to find available land. Professor Paul Cheshire of the London School of Economics has pointed to the fact that new homes in the UK are 40% more expensive than the Netherlands, which is more densely populated, as evidence that the Green Belt has made housing unaffordable. People who are priced out of the city, particularly first-time buyers, are then forced to relocate to more distant areas, facing longer commuting times and increased travel costs. What was originally intended as a cordon sanitaire to prevent urban sprawl around major cities has, in the eyes of many, become a stubborn barrier to affordable and sustainable housing. 

However, others claim that the Green Belt has had little impact on housing supply, as there is plenty of land available in areas outside of the Green Belt to construct houses. The countryside charity CPRE asserts that over 1.2 million homes can be built on brownfield land – land which has been previously developed. They are concerned that giving developers greater liberty to develop the Green Belt will lead to urban sprawl and the destruction of natural habitats and landscapes without necessary translating into an increased rate of housebuilding. Instead, the real problem is inadequate funding for councils and developers not adhering to planning and construction regulations, which results in poor-quality houses. Thus, instead of encroaching on the Green Belt, the planning system should be reformed such that clear standards and regulations are established to ensure good quality and affordable homes.

The five core purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF are:

      1.      To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

      2.     To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another

      3.     To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

      4.     To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

    5.   To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

Examining these aims, the Green Belt appears primarily to be a land zoning policy, with environmental protection a secondary consideration. In response to advocates of countryside preservation, academics note that the Green Belt is mostly privately owned land and not accessible to the public. Moreover, the Green Belt could indirectly contribute to global warming through increased vehicle emissions due to longer commutes to workplaces. Centre for Cities, a think-tank which seeks to improve the economies of the UK’s large cities and towns, has also argued that the ecological value of the Green Belt is exaggerated, as most of the Green Belt is not made up of lush rolling green hills but land which is used for agricultural purposes or golf courses. It seems that the current government has decided to address this issue by repurposing such poor-quality Green Belt land, termed the ‘Grey Belt’, for development as part of its target to build 1.5 million new homes within this parliamentary term.

Ultimately, the path to Green Belt policy reform will undoubtedly be a difficult one given its cultural and political entrenchment. Nevertheless, unlocking more available land for housing is crucial in providing affordable and conveniently located homes for current and future generations to come.