The new UK government’s plans to “get Britain building” include the reintroduction of targets to build 1.5 million new houses, which is likely to encroach on some of the country’s protected countryside spaces or “green belt”. Further pressure comes from plans to build more energy infrastructure such as pylons and wind turbines as part of the goal of decarbonising the electricity supply by 2030.
The idea of protecting the green belt is both politically powerful and divisive, but the definition of the green belt has become confused.
The term was first coined in 1875 by the Victorian reformer and co-founder of the National Trust, Octavia Hill. She believed that the provision of an undeveloped ring of countryside around cities like London would bring good mental and physical health to their inhabitants. Designed to stop urban sprawl, this green belt now covers around 12.6% of English land.
But despite her campaigning, Hill was not able to stop London’s sprawl. The land she campaigned to preserve for peace and recreation, Swiss Cottage Fields, was too valuable and London expanded into the countryside that once encircled it.
Today, some 150 years later, the true meaning of green belt land as good quality, green open space for the inhabitants of towns and cities is getting lost. And the new government may begin to distinguish between high- and low-quality countryside when making planning policy.
As an environmental lawyer specialising in the protection of the countryside, I spend much of my time examining the framework of regulation that makes up modern planning law. Terms like green belt, and others such as “brownfield” and “grey belt” have become part of the political conversation.
Brownfield sites are previously developed urban sites formerly used for industrial or commercial purposes. The previous Conservative government pushed local authorities hard to develop this land in order to protect the green belt from development.
The grey belt is a relatively new term that recognises that some areas of the green belt are in poor environmental condition and may be ripe for development. This includes old car parks and wasteland situated on land technically classified as the green belt.
Recent announcements, including in the king’s speech setting out the new government’s legislative agenda, indicate that plans to develop the green belt are likely to start with this grey belt.
The green belt has been used to encourage developers to focus their efforts on urban brownfield sites that lie within the green belt ring around a city. Reusing brownfield land that was previously developed for another purpose and saving the green belt might sound like a double win.
But many old industrial sites come with high decontamination costs and can be expensive to develop for housing.
The government’s national planning policy framework (NPPF) is used to guide decisions made by planning authorities. If you want to build an extension or put another house in your garden, your local council will follow this guidance when making their decision.
This framework explains how the green belt aims to stop urban sprawl and prevent built-up areas merging into one another. It’s intended to guard the countryside from development and preserve the character of villages and towns.
If the new government wishes to allow some development of “grey” areas of the greenbelt, the NPPF will need swift revisions. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has already promised a review into the framework before the summer recess. That’s expected to reinstate house building targets removed by the Conservatives and to streamline the planning process.
Although planning authorities are discouraged from allowing new development in the green belt, there are already some important exceptions. These include some small developments of affordable housing for local communities, and some minor development close to existing buildings.
This is not insignificant. Government research showed that in 2021-2022, 2% of new addresses were created through the development of green belt land. The king’s speech has few details on how new housing targets will be met but it is likely that plans will include further exceptions for more housing, or require local authorities to identify which parts of the green belt are grey, and therefore less of a priority to protect.
Blurring the boundaries
The green belt concept is misleading. Although described as countryside in the NPPF, most green belt land is privately owned, and very little is open to public access.
Agricultural and some industrial development is still allowed on green belt land, including large buildings for agricultural use and the extraction of minerals. Much farmed land is in a poor environmental state.
Research commissioned by the last government shows the importance of public parks and urban green spaces, which could help provide better habitats for people and nature than the worst green belt land.
For our most fragile and valuable green spaces, the protection goes beyond the green belt anyway. Sites such as national parks, protected wetlands and sites of special scientific interest all benefit from enhanced protection. To build new homes in a national park, the National Park Authority needs to give the go ahead and apply tough rules to protect their unique environments.
Building on grey or green belt doesn’t have to be detrimental to the environment. Developments can restore green spaces in a nature-friendly way.
Both Bournville near Birmingham and Port Sunlight in the Wirral were built according to Hill’s philosophy that a green local environment leads to better housing. These developments were planned and funded by influential businessmen, with access to green spaces, fresh air and sunlight factored in to provide pleasant, good quality homes for workers.
The government’s plans to create a new generation of new towns was not expanded upon in the king’s speech, but is a detailed manifesto pledge. This included the promise to consider “beautiful homes” and “green spaces” as part of these new developments.
The creation of these new green towns, targeted development of the green belt and the support of local authorities will be the most effective way to deliver on the government’s promises.
Ben Mayfield does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
