TOPIC GUIDE: Green belt 2017
"We should build on the green belt"
PUBLISHED: 26 May 2017
AUTHOR: Anwar Oduro-Kwarteng
Share this Topic Guide:
For several years, there has been an ongoing debate about the merits of the green belt [Ref: Wikipedia] in the UK, with supporters and critics clashing over its relevance and necessity in the 21st century. The issue has come to a head more recently however, with the government publishing its new housing White Paper in February [Ref: Gov.UK], with estimates suggesting that there have only been an average of 160,000 homes built per year in the UK since the 1970’s – compared to the more than 275,000 required to keep up with population growth and under supply [Ref: Gov.UK]. This has led to talk of a housing crisis, with the number of houses available, and the affordability of homes in the UK hitting the headlines [Ref: Telegraph], leading many to argue that the solution is to build on the green belt [Ref: spiked]. For supporters, building on the green belt would allow for new towns to be built [Ref: Guardian], and encourage more radical thinking on how our existing cities are constituted, permitting them to expand and become better places to live. Moreover, they argue that building on the green belt is the most sensible way to alleviate the housing crisis, because: “For too long governments have viewed the green belt as sacrosanct, but with such limited housing supply, action on the green belt is vital.” [Ref: Huffington Post] Critics though, claim that the green belt is an important planning mechanism that prevents urban sprawl [Ref: Encyclopaedia Brittanica], and preserves the countryside, with Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell warning that: “The green belt was bequeathed to us by past generations, and we should take extraordinary care before allowing it to disappear under bricks and mortar. Once built on, it can never be restored.” [Ref: Daily Mail] They are adamant that building on the green belt is not the answer, with other suggestions mooted, such as building on previously used brown field land [Ref: Collins Dictionary], and increasing the housing density in towns and cities [Ref: Evening Standard]. Considering the competing arguments, should we build on the green belt, or would this irreversibly damage the countryside and do little to solve the housebuilding shortfall?
DEBATE IN CONTEXT
This section provides a summary of the key issues in the debate, set in the context of recent discussions and the competing positions that have been adopted.
What is the green belt?
First formally proposed as a Metropolitan Green Belt surrounding London in 1935, the subsequent Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 broadened the remit, to allow local authorities around the country to formally designate their own areas of green belt land [Ref: Wikipedia]. At its core, green belt policy was conceived to control urban sprawl by ensuring that towns and cities had a ring of countryside where agriculture, forestry and wildlife could flourish, and that city dwellers could easily access [Ref: Wikipedia]. Moreover in terms of town planning, the green belt was seen as a way to, “preserve the unique characters of historic towns, safeguard the countryside from development, and encourage the regeneration and reuse of urban land” [Ref: Independent]. However, the idea of a green belt goes back to the Victorian era when social reformer Ebenezer Howard suggested the idea of a ‘Garden City’, which would provide the benefits of living in the city, but have countryside nearby to offer tranquillity and fresh air for families [Ref: Guardian]. But recently, the nature of the green belt has come under increasing pressure from critics who argue that it stifles our ability to build vital infrastructure, such as housing. With this backdrop, the debate hinges on what should be done to build the homes and infrastructure that commentators on both sides admit we need, and what we want our cities, towns and countryside to look like in the future.
Loosen the green belt
Critics suggest that there are two main reasons why we should build on the green belt. Firstly, they challenge the picture often painted by advocates, of the green belt being composed of stunning, rolling countryside and abundant wildlife, and instead, like writer Paul Simons, they argue that: “Much of the green belt is not even green – 18% is classed as ‘neglected’ with derelict buildings, rubbish, electricity pylons and other blots on the landscape.” [Ref: Guardian] He disagrees with the entire premise of the green belt as having anything to do with the environment or preserving the countryside, claiming that, “the original idea of the green belts was to prevent urban sprawl, not for nature conservation or even beautiful landscapes”, adding that, “only 45% is green and much of it is monoculture farmland too harsh for most wild plants to survive.” [Ref: Guardian] Secondly, critics point to the fact that we are simply not building enough homes in the UK to cope with demand, meaning that property prices keep rising for buyers and renters, making affordable homes increasingly difficult to find, especially in the South East [Ref: Telegraph]. They also note how little of the UK is actually built on, and reject the idea that there are small pockets of countryside which must be protected at all costs - as urbanised zones make up only 9.9% of England with 4.2% classed as built up areas, whereas green belts make up more than 12.4% [Ref: London First]. As such, it is estimated that by building on just 5.2% of existing green belt land around cities, 1.4 million new homes could be built [Ref: Huffington Post], and with London’s green belt three times the size of the city itself, such a move could have a huge impact on the supply of homes for ordinary families [Ref: Huffington Post]. For some, a more ambitious, radical and utopian approach to city planning is what is required, with the ability to expand into the green belt key to this vision. James Heartfield says that: “The city has to able to breathe. Instead of squeezing more flats into every space that becomes available…London needs more green space in its centre, and wider streets.” [Ref: spiked] He envisions a future where: “If the green belt was built on, and the city was allowed to grow into the suburbs, all of us could lead grander, freer lives” [Ref: spiked]. Others point to the success of the original garden cities of Welwyn and Letchworth, along with new towns such as Milton Keynes [Ref: Wikipedia], as a template for how new towns can be built successfully in the countryside [Ref: Guardian].
Our green and pleasant land
With proposals put forward to build as many as 360,000 new homes in 14 new garden villages on green belt across the country [Ref: Guardian], including potentially up to 50,000 new homes around Manchester [Ref: Guardian], the green belt issue has been brought into sharp relief for supporters. For some such as Paul Bryson, “the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act is… the most intelligent, far sighted, thrillingly and self-evidently successful land management policy any nation has ever devised.” [Ref: The Times] He marvels at the tranquillity that the countryside surrounding cities offers, and challenges the idea offered by critics, that the green belt, “isn’t actually all that special, that much of the land is scrubby and degraded” [Ref: The Times], arguing instead that, “green belts in England contain 30,000 kilometres of footpaths and other rights of way, 220,000 hectares of woodland, 250,000 hectares of top quality farmland, and 89,000 hectares of Sites of Special Interest.” [Ref: The Times] In terms of building, others claim that we should prioritise urban regeneration, as well as the development of brownfield land [Ref: Collins Dictionary] if we need to build more homes. Brownfield sites denote derelict land which was once used for industrial or commercial purposes, but which now lie dormant, and estimates suggest that redevelopment of these sites alone, could provide at least 1.1 million homes across the country [Ref: Telegraph]. Similarly, urban regeneration is a priority for others, and it is proposed that local councils should be granted the power to compulsorily purchase tired, old and unused high streets and retail parks, and turn them into housing [Ref: The Times]. Another key concern with building on the green belt is urban sprawl [Ref: Encyclopaedia Brittanica], with critics claiming that the global trend of expanding cities into the countryside will have huge environmental effects in the long term [Ref: Guardian]. They warn that: “To live in sprawl means driving to work, driving to get dinner, driving to meet your friends. It means congestion…and isolation due to the lack of the perks of a compact city life.” [Ref: Guardian] A radical alternative, suggests Simon Jenkins, is that we increase the housing density within our cities, rather than building on surrounding green belt land. He argues that compared to cities such as Madrid, Athens, New York or Berlin, London is leafy and low rise, and notes that: “Inner Paris has a population density of 20,000 people per square kilometre, four times London’s.” [Ref: Evening Standard] So, should we build on the green belt?
It is crucial for debaters to have read the articles in this section, which provide essential information and arguments for and against the debate motion. Students will be expected to have additional evidence and examples derived from independent research, but they can expect to be criticised if they lack a basic familiarity with the issues raised in the essential reading.
Rowan Moore Guardian 19 October 2014
Oliver Wainwright Guardian 17 March 2014
Paul Simons Guardian 22 February 2017
James Heartfield spiked 27 April 2016
Juliet Samuel Telegraph 20 April 2016
Tim Montgomery The Times 25 September 2015
Daily Mail 5 February 2017
Telegraph 4 February 2017
Emma Bridgewater Telegraph 3 February 2017
Simon Jenkins Spectator 28 February 2015
Definitions of key concepts that are crucial for understanding the topic. Students should be familiar with these terms and the different ways in which they are used and interpreted and should be prepared to explain their significance.
Useful websites and materials that provide a good starting point for research.
Douglas Murray Guardian 19 April 2017
Economist 11 February 2017
James Heartfield spiked 10 February 2017
Ben Rochelle Huffington Post 10 February 2017
Alice Thomson The Times 8 February 2017
Alister Scott Independent 8 February 2017
Mark Swilling Guardian 12 July 2016
Sam Bowman Londonist January 2016
Simon Jenkins Evening Standard 6 October 2015
Bill Bryson The Times 30 September 2015
Patrick Barkham Guardian 1 October 2014
Eric Pickles Telegraph 13 June 2014
Colin Wiles Guardian 21 May 2014
Paul Cheshire City A.M 11 November 2013
Hannah Fearn Guardian 13 September 2013
Independent 21 March 2012
Links to organisations, campaign groups and official bodies who are referenced within the Topic Guide or which will be of use in providing additional research information.
IN THE NEWS
Relevant recent news stories from a variety of sources, which ensure students have an up to date awareness of the state of the debate.
Telegraph 28 April 2017
Telegraph 17 March 2017
The Times 13 February 2017
Evening Standard 5 February 2017
Guardian 5 February 2017
Evening Standard 5 February 2017
Daily Mail 21 January 2017
Guardian 15 January 2017
Guardian 2 January 2017
Huffington Post 13 December 2016
Telegraph 26 November 2016
Guardian 2 June 2016
Guardian 25 April 2016
Independent 10 July 2015
Guardian 8 September 2014
Guardian 26 April 2014
Telegraph 25 November 2012
This site contains links to websites operated by parties other than Debating Matters. Although we make every effort to ensure links are current, they will sometimes break after Topic Guide publication. If a link does not work, then the publication reference and date should enable you to find an alternate link. If you find a broken link do please send it to the webmaster for review.
TOPIC GUIDE MENU
Select the relevant option
Related topic guides