A green belt is an area surrounding a town or city where building development is restricted. The stated aim of green belt policy is to restrict the sprawl of built up areas on to previously undeveloped land and to preserve the character of historic towns [Ref: DEFRA]. The first green belts were introduced in the 1950s following the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act in 1947.  Today, there are14 green belts around most of England’s bigger cities and amount to 1.65 million hectares, about 13 per cent of the country [Ref: Economist].  ‘Special areas of conservation’, ‘sites of special scientific interest’ and ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’ account for a further 29.8 per cent of the country where development is restricted [Ref: bshf]. A new report by the think-tank Policy Exchange says that by contrast, “developed” land, which includes parks, allotments, golf courses and gardens as well as concrete, covers just 10.6% of England and they suggest relaxing the rules on new development [Ref: Policy Exchange]. Those who see problems with green belts point to London as an example. They argue that the 40-mile wide green belt around London strangles the life out of the capital - responsible for restricting economic growth, for the high cost of housing, and for encouraging the destruction of valuable green space within cities, such as playing fields, allotments and gardens. [Ref: Guardian]. Others say that green belts have been a success, saving the English countryside from being disfigured by unthinking development.  They are concerned that short-term economic interests will lead us to desecrating our natural heritage and endangering our long-term wellbeing [Ref: Independent].

Housing Crisis
House prices in the UK have almost doubled in the last decade and with prices now approaching eight times the average wage [Ref: Guardian]. Millions of people sit on council housing registers waiting for housing, and the age at which people buy their first home is rising – restricting opportunities for young people [Ref: Guardian]. Some have estimated that 232,000 new homes need to be built each year in England just to replace Britain’s ageing housing stock before we even consider building the extra homes people now need [Ref: spiked]. Given that over 90% of the UK population now live in cities, many ask how this problem will be tackled unless cities are allowed to expand. Others also argue that we have a romantic view of the green belts – that, rather than being chosen for its beauty or environmental qualities, much of it is used for intensive farming and light industry [Ref: Economist]. Since 2010, planning consents approvals have fallen by 24% - building more houses would help address homelessness, push down rents and house prices, and provide jobs for thousands who are currently on the dole [Ref: National Housing Federation]. Freeing up just 1% of green belt land alone could provide space for 300,000 new homes.

Access to green spaces
Opponents of relaxing regulations on green belt development counter that the countryside surrounding cities is a vital asset that gives city dwellers access to green open space, helps retain the unique character of cities, towns and villages, and is valuable and important farming land [Ref: Guardian]. They also point out the dangers flooding poses to housing built on new land – estimating that half of all houses built in Britain since WWII have been built on land vulnerable to flooding. Concreting over the countryside only risks exacerbating the problem [Ref: Telegraph]. Expanses of green space have environmental benefits, counteracting the ‘heat sinks’ of cities and enabling local food to be grown, thus reducing food miles. It is not green belts which are the cause of housing problems, they argue, but rather economic issues which are to blame [Ref: Telegraph].

Building on the brownfield
Protectors of the green belt don’t deny that new housing is not needed. Instead, they recommend building on “brownfield” land – building on previously used, now derelict land within cities. According to the Government’s own National Land Use Database, this brownfield land has space for over 1.5 million new dwellings [Ref: CPRE]. This isn’t always in the right place though – London needs approximately 1 million new homes to meet the demands of its growing population as well as addressing a backlog, yet only has 4,000 hectares of brownfield land – enough to meet around a fifth of this demand [Ref: Guardian]. Others look to addressing the demand side of housing – immigration puts pressure on housing stock and lower levels would reduce the need for so many new houses [Ref: Daily Mail]. Others point to elderly couples living alone in large family houses, and that encouraging them to downsize could free up housing for families [Ref: BBC News]. But critics of existing planning processes point to the severe restrictions home owners face when they are prevented from extending their homes on land they already own. These existing restrictions do not protect the countryside, it’s argued, and when people have been made to apply for retrospective permission for a child’s Wendy House in the back garden [Ref: Daily Mail] is it now time to review Green Belt restrictions?