The Debate: Should we build on the green belt?
As Sadiq Khan commits to releasing parts of the green belt, we get two experts to make the case for and against in this week’s Debate
Yes: The green belt has grown to be many times larger than originally intended
London is so far from delivering the new homes needed to address the crisis of affordability and supply; the capital is on track to build just 5.5 per cent of the government’s target of 88,000 this year, according to some commentators. So, something must change. That is not to say that building in the green belt is the least bad option, but there are some significant advantages, provided rules apply.
As HTA Design has proved with projects at Hanham Hall in Bristol and Cane Hill in Croydon, new housing in the green belt can deliver spectacular increases in biodiversity. At the same time, our evaluation studies amongst residents demonstrate greatly improved wellbeing, in terms of physical and mental health. Both of these schemes were built by housebuilders, so we’ve proved they can do it, if we ask them to.
The key to success will be the application of better and more stringent planning requirements. Sites must be chosen that are well connected to infrastructure. The government should also insist on design codes that deliver a sense of place as well as more efficient use of land. Additionally, the housing we build must be low carbon and genuinely affordable which will require government subsidy, otherwise only the well to do will benefit.
The green belt was conceived as a constraint on urban sprawl. It is by far and away the most successful and best-loved instrument the nation has implemented since the birth of town and country planning. However, green belts have also grown to be many times larger than was originally intended. We now have the opportunity to use modest land-take – less than three per cent would meet all our needs – to help balance the negative aspects of unsustainable urban life.
Ben Derbyshire is chair at HTA Design and former RIBA president
No: Building more homes, especially on green belt land, won’t solve the housing crisis
We’re being told the housing crisis is all about not having enough homes; that if we just build more, prices will come down and the crisis will be solved. And that the planning system is at the root of all the problems and it needs to be ripped up. But the facts point in a very different direction.
Between 2013 and 2023, London’s population grew by six per cent; the number of homes grew by 11 per cent; and yet, house prices rose by 68 per cent and private rents by nearly 65 per cent. Meanwhile 300,000 homes in London have planning permission but haven’t been built (a ten year supply and there are many more in the pipeline). The planning system is working fine.
This isn’t a housebuilding crisis. It’s an affordability emergency.
And even if we did ramp up housebuilding? According to the Office for Budget Responsibility: “More housebuilding will increase the housing stock by just 0.5 per cent by 2029-2030 and only reduce the average house price by around 0.8-0.9 per cent.” We need to be clear: building more homes, especially high-cost ones on green belt land, won’t solve this. It’s not a housing strategy. It’s a set of policies which accommodate housebuilders’ lobbying requests.
What our city (and country) needs is a 20-year housing strategy addressing the many problems facing the various housing sectors. Funding social housing is top of the list. Our green belt is vital in a climate and nature crisis. Building on it is a lose-lose scenario. We lose our countryside; we leave brownfield sites lying idle; and we fail to solve the housing crisis.
Alice Roberts is head of campaigns at CPRE London
The Verdict: Build, baby build
Building on the green belt has long been a sticking point in the great Nimby-Yimby battle, so news last week that Sadiq Khan is planning to release parts of it for development was quite the advancement for our Y-headed friends. But is it really a good thing?
Mr Derbyshire says so. While the green belt has been a triumph in containing urban sprawl, its brought forth a new problem: green belt sprawl. That being said, he concedes there are caveats, and for that we should consider Ms Roberts’s case, whose argument that green belt development is no silver bullet for the housing crisis is sound.
That the planning system is working fine, however, and that building on the green belt would put our countryside at risk, is not a case City AM has much sympathy for (indeed, some here would gladly bulldoze the countryside in its entirety). The green belt anyhow is not just reams of dreamy meadows, but rather dotted with disused car parks, old industrial sites and, where it is green, a whole lot of golf courses. Our verdict: build, baby build.