New report points to rise in planned new green belt homes in England

New research suggests that the number of homes planned to be built on green belt land in England has risen from 81,000 in 2012 to 362,346.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) conducted research on behalf of The Guardian newspaper to update CPRE’s ‘Green Belt Under Siege’ report from April 2016.

The CPRE is concerned that protection for the green belt could be weakened to allow the government to meet or get closer to housbuilding targets.

In its April report, CPRE found that 275,000 houses were planned for the green belt. The figure was calculated by looking at local plans and identifying proposals slated for green belt release and then working out how much housing would be built on green belt land as a result. This figure has now increased to 362,346 as a result of new local plans released since April.

The CPRE said the highest number of developments planned for the green belt was in the east and the north west of England. It found that the number of homes granted planning permission annually in the green belt increased by five times from 2,258 in 2009-10 to 11,977 in 2014-15 and the net loss of green belt from 2004 to 2014-15 was 41,750 hectares.

Areas that contain open fields owned by Oxford colleges including Brasenose and Magdalene as well as sites close to the New Forest in Hampshire are green belt areas that could have new housing built on them.

More details could come with the White Paper on housing scheduled for later this month. Sajid Javid, the communities’ secretary has sent out mixed signals on the subject. He recently praised Birmingham city council for letting new homes be built on the green belt but has previously described the green belt as “absolutely sacrosanct.”

The Guardian reports that Manchester is facing the biggest threat to green belt land that surrounds it, with thousands of hectares identified by planners for around 50,000 homes, which former shadow home secretary, Andy Burnham warns could “diminish quality of life in some communities and restrict people’s access to good air and green space”.

The issue is a sensitive one for the government. Theresa May and Javid are among many conservative MPs who lead constituencies which include areas of green belt, yet they are also part of the process that has set ambitious housebuilding targets. They are also part of the government that on the one hand has made protecting the green belt a manifesto commitment, but has also promised to tackle the housing crisis.

Shaun Spiers, the chief executive of the CPRE, said: “The government faces a choice. It can either continue to set inflated and undeliverable targets that fail to increase building rates and force the release of green belt land and other countryside for development. Or it can set realistic targets and get the nation behind building the new homes we need.”

The way the process for applying to build on green belt works is that the government orders local plans from councils. If these include rezoned green belt areas proposed to be built on, the secretary of state can decide whether to call in the plans for review. If the plans are not called in, then the government is effectively approving building on the green belt, but can classify the decision as a local one.

A spokesperson for the Department for Communities and Local Government said of the CPRE figures: “These claims are based purely on projections in local plans, including those not yet adopted. This government is committed to protect the green belt. Only in exceptional circumstances may councils alter green belt boundaries, after consulting local people and submitting the revised local plan for examination.

“We’ve been absolutely clear that councils must prioritise development on brownfield land, and have announced plans to radically boost brownfield development and bring life back to abandoned sites.”

Andrew Whitaker, the planning director at the Home Builders Federation, said: “A strategic review of green belt policy could better ensure that this broad-brush policy evolves to cover the type of land many believe it was set up to protect, such as areas of natural beauty and gaps between settlements, while allowing the country to address our housing crisis in a sustainable way.”