LoginSubscribe to Alerts

Should the green belt play a part in fixing the housing crisis?

Posted 20 March 2017 by Ben Salisbury

As the industry debates how to build more homes should there be changes in government policy regarding the green belt and is the policy fit for purpose?

The housing crisis throws up many potential solutions from different sources but would different rules governing the green belt help provide a solution?

Is there an appetite for change with regards to the green belt and should it be refocused to help solve the challenge of providing enough homes to meet demand?

What is the green belt?

The green belt is a method of planning control to stop the spread of housing into rural areas. Its aim is to maintain areas of agriculture and outdoor leisure by providing a ring of countryside around an urban area to create a barrier where no more building is allowed.

In England, there are 14 areas of green belt that are protected. The total area at the end of 2014 was 1,638,760 hectares, an amount that has fallen by just 80 hectares since 2009 and 13% of the land in England overall, much larger than the 9% of developed land. Wales and Scotland have their own areas of green belt.

The Metropolitan Green Belt around London was first proposed in 1935 and was enacted as part of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. Local authorities were allowed to include green belt proposals in development plans from 1955.

The idea behind the creation of the green belt is to protect the countryside, maintain areas of leisure for all and provide opportunities for the urban population to access countryside and control the spread of urban sprawl.

However, the green belt is under constant pressure because of the scarcity of land available for building in the UK and its increasing population. The policy of protecting the green belt has been followed by successive governments but has also been criticised for lowering the amount of land available for housebuilding and for pushing up house prices.

Policies surrounding the green belt are part of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and local planning authorities generally have to follow this advice when considering applications for development of the green belt in their area. There is a presumption against any inappropriate development on the green belt and the only way permission is normally granted is if developers can clearly show that the benefits will outweigh the harm caused to the green belt. This makes the policy very restrictive.

The NPPF says there are five purposes of including land as part of the green belt:

  • To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
  • To prevent neighbouring towns from 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.

But, with pressure to build new houses for the UK’s growing population, what is the future for the green belt and how can we provide enough homes for people to live in without compromising on quality of life?

In 2015, the government set a target of building one million new homes by 2020. That is 200,000 homes each year, but already new research suggests this will not be enough. Last year, a House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee recommended this target be increased by 50% to 300,000 homes each year. The Department for Communities and Local Government figures show 142,890 homes were completed in 2015, 21% up on 2014, but still well below the target required for the next five years and the latest figures show just 141,000 were completed in the year to September 2016.

The green belt is an issue that affects councils and communities throughout the UK. Pressures on housing and the lack of affordable homes for young people are issues that affect everyone. On the flip side, the desire to protect the countryside is an issue that is close to most people’s hearts, so how do you square this circle and is it time for a change?

The fact is that with far too much demand for too small a supply, prices will continue to rise with too few affordable homes being built for the people who need them.

As part of a Conservative government it was no surprise that when the government delivered its recent Housing White Paper it included a pledge to continue to protect the green belt.

The case for and against the green belt

The use of the green belt has stopped development between towns in many areas to help keep communities separate and distinct and to provide areas of green open space for town and city residents to use for leisure and as a potential valuable future resource for food and energy production.

The case for and against the green beltMany people who live in an area protected by the green belt hold the principle of protecting it as sacrosanct.

However, the green belt by definition stops further development of urban areas, a premise which suggests makes no provision to cater for the growth and development of a town as it needs to change, particularly as most green belt land was classified as such in the 1950’s and the UK has changed and grown in population hugely since then and will continue to do so.

Organisations such as the Adam Smith Institute argue that the green belt should be abolished to help supply the number of new homes needed. Other organisations call for at least a rethink of the issue and say that far from the green belt being strangled by sprawling urban development, it’s the other way round.

The mark up on land is very high because land is expensive for housebuilding because there is such a scarcity of available land for builders. The average cost of actually building a house is between £60,000 and £90,000, which, bearing in mind average selling prices, means a huge mark-up, mainly due to the cost of land with planning permission, which costs around 100 times more than land without planning permission, because it’s not the land itself that’s valuable but the permission to build on it.

The ability to build new homes in congested, high-density urban areas is often insufficient to meet the growing need for housing for an increasing population, and if you can’t build elsewhere, including on the green belt, where else can you build?

Local authorities are encouraged to make a local plan for housing need over 20-year periods but if that includes areas covered by the green belt then sites for new developments are limited.

The NPPF makes provision to apply to develop on areas of green belt through the local plan, but for this to have any chance of success the authority must argue that there are “exceptional circumstances” to justify a review of a green belt boundary.

What is clear is that if housebuilding targets are to be met, it is likely the green belt must be a part of the mix because many urban areas are already full with new housing developments crammed in at a higher density and with smaller living space.

So, how best can we utilise the green belt and what is really happening with applications to develop the green belt?

To develop a green belt site, the application must show that very special circumstances exist to do so. National planning policy encourages development on green field sites which can include the green belt if it stands up to assessments of local housing need, but if sites are developed they have to pass an economic test for viability of the area and will need access to infrastructure and local services and transport links, all extra costs that have to be paid for somehow.

This means a balance must be found between the desire for rural communities to remain protected and the need for new housing in other areas apart from cities. It’s a debate that should include the property industry, local councils and central government.

Should rules on building on the green belt be relaxedThere is a growing chasm between a combination of strategically important voters in the home counties, supported by environmentalists and existing homeowners, against people living in cramped urban centres, first-time buyers and renters, which makes it extremely difficult for the government to even review the issue.

Local issues

Across the UK local authorities are being challenged by rules governing development on the green belt. In some instances this means amendments or even a pause in the creation of local plans.

Bradford Council has been forced by housing minister, Gavin Barwell to pause its local plan because it wants to build 11,000 homes on green belt land. In October 2016, Barwell issued a holding direction just before the council was due to send the local plan to the executive for final approval.

Cheshire East Council has invited the public to take part in a consultation on the second part of its local plan, covering a range of issues, including whether adjustments are needed to the green belt boundary around Macclesfield and key service centres such as Wilmslow and local service centres within the green belt such as Alderley Edge, Disley and Prestbury.

Showing the importance of proving that exceptional circumstances exist to support any application to build on the green belt, on the Sussex/Surrey border, the Haslemere Herald reports that Waverley Borough Council has been criticised by government planning inspector, Jonathan Bore, for not providing more evidence to support its application for the freeing up of green belt land for development in its local plan.

Mr Bore wrote: “The green belt review and topic paper are concerned principally with site identification, and on their own they do not amount to the exceptional circumstances required to justify altering the green belt boundary. Where is the work demonstrating exceptional circumstances exist for the release of land from the green belt?”

However, at the Green Belt of The Future seminar in London last month, as reported on Show House, Janet Eskew, town planner and past president of royal town planning institute, argued that there is simply no need to build on the green belt. “There is a sustained assault on the green belt as result of the housing crisis. There are calls that suggest the green belt is a last ditch attempt to solve the housing crisis because of a perceived lack of land. This is unimaginative and misinformed.

“Local authorities are under tremendous pressure, partly due to a lack of town planners and the need to demonstrate a five year supply of land. It is ubiquitous, this call to build on green belt and from developers. We have sympathy with young people who can’t afford to buy a house, and believe an increased supply will mean lower house prices. This wouldn’t happen. The housing crisis won’t be resolved by releasing land.

“We are already releasing land. The policy allows for this – when we have exhausted all other land in our districts. Urban sprawl is biggest threat to climate change. Sprawl is low density. It is resource-hungry and an inefficient use of land.”

Alice Roberts of the Campaign to Protect Rural England cited figures which suggest there are enough places earmarked for housing away from the green belt. There are currently 260,000 planning permissions for homes in London; 300,000 opportunity areas and the potential for 100,000 homes in areas ripe for regeneration.

In the last 10 years, 50 housing estates with over 30,000 homes have undergone regeneration schemes, delivering nearly twice as many new homes on the sites of London’s demolished social housing estates are there were before.

In 2014, the Campaign to Protect Rural England estimated that there is around 2,650 hectares of brownfield land in London suitable for development for housing with capacity for 146,530 homes. The Centre for Cities suggested the same year that if every brownfield site were developed to its full capacity there would be enough land for around 382,500 new homes in the capital.

“Brownfield land is a renewable source,” Brown said. “The green belt is not. We are not running out of brownfield land anytime soon.”

It seems if there is a solution it involves a combination of development alternatives, including clever use of space to create homes that people want to live in in urban areas, the use of existing brownfield options and to identify and develop selected parts of the green belt, where there is an overwhelming need for new homes, development costs are minimised and the right homes are put in the right areas

The Housing White Paper only touched on possible solutions, though it did at least propose a standard method for calculating housing need which would form the basis for planning applications to develop green belt sites.

Other measures included stopping housebuilders holding onto land they have planning permission for and incentives for retirees to downsize to smaller homes, but neither is guaranteed to work. All of these measures combined will not come close to addressing the issue of supply and providing enough of the right homes that people need.


Sign up for email alertsGet the latest properties and updates sent directly to your inbox daily, weekly or immediately you are in control.
Subscribe to Alerts
Search news and advice

Click here to see your activities