The growing Green Belt will impact housing availability and drive up house prices, according to Berkshire-based property services group Leaders Romans and its Bristol- and Berkshire-based planning and design consultancy, Boyer.
Figures released last week (Friday, September 16) by the government show that the Green Belt actually grew between 2020 and 2021 – by 1.5 per cent.
In 2021-22 14 local authorities adopted new local plans or neighbourhood plans, with the result being a net increase of 24,150 hectares in the overall area of land designated as Green Belt in England.
It means 12.6 per cent of all land in England is now designated Green Belt.
And in areas including London, Cambridge, Oxford, Tunbridge Wells, Sevenoaks, Guildford, Windsor, High Wycombe, St Albans valuable urban brownfield sites have already been utilised, resulting in very high house prices.
Ian Barnett, national land director of Wokingham-based Leaders Romans Group said: “The Green Belt is widely referenced in the media, but little understood by those not in the industry.
“In terms of the protection of swathes of countryside, the Green Belt has been a massive success and we enjoy such a beautiful expanse of countryside as a direct result of this inventive legislation.
“Countries without Green Belts (or similar) suffer from urban sprawl and ribbon development.
“But we need a national review of Green Belt policy. To emphasise this should be a review. Why should a 70+year old policy not be subject to a review? There can’t be much legislation dating from the 1940s that is fit for purpose today.
“A review of the Green Belt needs to be undertaken in the context of the needs of the country – transport, environment, housing, leisure, food, and economics.
“We need a review of the Green Belt as part of a national spatial plan. But what do we have instead? We have levelling up, but February’s Levelling Up White Paper contained just four references to the Green Belt and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill failed to mention it once.
“It is clear that the Government views Green Belt reform as separate from levelling up. This is ironic because Green Belt has, to some extent, driven the north-south divide, which itself brought about the need for levelling up agenda.
“The Green Belt constrains growth around cities such as Oxford, Cambridge and London, inflating house prices beyond the means of many, especially the young.
“Arguably, the presence of a green ‘halo’ around these and other locations – notably towns in the south east such as Tunbridge Wells, Sevenoaks, Guildford, Windsor, High Wycombe and St Albans – in which valuable urban brownfield sites have already been utilised, results in very limited opportunities for growth, and therefore a perception of exclusivity.
“The fact that the Green Belt has remained in place in these locations for almost seventy years is testament to its success.
“But since 1955 when the Green Belt was introduced, the UK population has grown from 51,063,902 to 68,497,907.
“Furthermore, development is no longer characterised by concrete as it was then: thanks to the Environment Act and many other initiatives, the development of greenfield sites has evolved to the extent that it offers the potential to significantly boost both the aesthetic and biodiverse qualities of the land.
“The Green Belt covers 13 per cent of the UK, including substantial areas surrounding cities in the Midlands and the North, including Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.
“Due to the availability of urban brownfield sites and less overall pressure for housing growth in these cities, the Green Belt has not significantly constrained growth in the Midlands and the North as it has in the South – which perhaps explains its absence from the Government’s levelling up agenda.
“But levelling up must be viewed in the context of the bigger picture: the UK as a whole. Unless, through Green Belt reform the lack of housing affordability in the South is addressed, the north/south divide will persist and levelling up will remain a distant dream.
Karen Charles, director of LRG’s planning and design consultancy, Boyer added, “Few would argue for the Green Belt to be abolished, but its value would be increased if its strictures were softened somewhat.
“The broad-brush approach which succeeded in preventing post-war urban sprawl has led to some land which could benefit from redevelopment being over-protected: contrary to a widely-held belief that the Green Belt is a bucolic ring of verdant countryside open to all, much of it is inaccessible and/or preserves and protects unattractive edge-of-settlement brownfield sites – those which have potential for sustainable development.
“Currently the development plan process which allows for land to be removed from the Green Belt for residential development in exceptional circumstances is time-consuming and comes with considerable risk. Were Green Belt legislation to allow for local flexibility, it could result in such sites coming forward for development as attractive communities and with accessible natural amenities.”
