In considering what the election had in store for planners and developers, I came to the mixed conclusion that we might expect a comparatively quiet time, given the tinkering that has beset the profession/industry in the last parliament. Now the ace-tinkerer, Sir Eric Pickles, has moved from his DCLG post, we should indeed expect a period of consolidation. Haven’t we earned the right to a bit of peace and quiet?
Not if The Adam Smith Institute has anything to do with it. In his controversial paper, “The Green Noose”, Tom Papworth has declared war, not only on his traditional foes, the CPRE and The Daily Telegraph, but the new government, whose election mantra was “we will build more houses, but the Green Belt is safe in our hands”. Tom is having none of this, and, if he gets his way, the government will have to consider radical changes to its safe and outdated stance that the Green Belt is fit for purpose.
It was probably not a vote winner to suggest that the Green Belt is expendable, though Labour did admit to the possibility in order to build enough homes, and the Lib Dems (who?) accepted that their ambitious targets for new communities would need greenfield sites. The Conservatives leave Green Belt definition to local councils – little prospect of radical thinking there. UKIP’s solitary MP “will protect the Green Belt”, though they don’t say from what (or from whom).
“The Green Noose” (www.adamsmith.org ) is a good read – not often said about a planning document – and could put a rocket under those who mistakenly believe that the housing crisis is going to be solved by building all the dwellings that this country needs in existing towns on brownfield land.
Put bluntly, the paper suggests that Green Belt has had its day, failing to fulfil its creators’ objectives, forcing development onto green space in locations where it is needed and valued, increasing the cost of housing while reducing the size of dwellings and contributing to urban sprawl and ever-longer journeys to work.
Towns and cities with Green Belts afford protection to 13% of England, when only 9% of the country is actually built on – half of this back gardens. Increase this to 9.5% and there would be no housing crisis, allowing for 2,000,000 new homes over the next decade. The Green Belt is the best place to find this 0.5%, much of it already given over to intensive agriculture. Houses built here could be of a decent size, with worthwhile gardens, when we currently build the smallest, most expensive houses in Western Europe and squeeze them onto postage stamp plots. The Institute’s premise is that urban parks are better used and more valued by town dwellers than the Green Belt ever will be. Far better to be building outside the urban areas and providing better quality open space on brownfield land.
The original notion – good old Ebenezer Howard – was that garden cities would allow people to move out of the big cities to self-sufficient, self-supporting settlements beyond the Green Belt. Try to get a seat on a commuter train into London from beyond the Green Belt! If it ever worked, it’s not working now. The houses that are being built, around Aylesbury, Banbury and Bicester, are built a) for M40 and Chiltern Line commuters and b) because Oxford is strangled by its Green Belt. The Green Belt is a gap that we cross to get to work in London, and, when we want quality time outside the city, we head for an AONB or a National Park and not to the Green Belt. The concept of the Green Belt having value by virtue of its openness alone is misconceived and counter-productive.
Maybe it’s time for a complete re-think of the whole concept, starting with the unthinkable proposition that the Green Belt, not fit for purpose, could be scrapped. Development in a small part of the Green Belt would resolve the housing crisis, increase the quality of new homes, reduce the pressure to build in areas already lacking decent open space, address ever increasing housing costs in areas where building land is too expensive, all at no cost to the environment. Might the government grasp this particular nettle?
When proposing the unthinkable, it’s prudent to have a fall-back position, and, in “The Green Noose”, there are two. Okay, so a government whose support is in the shires is probably not going to abolish the Green Belt, so instead we:
– build on those intensively farmed parts of the Green Belt that are of little value to local communities in need of recreational space and access to the countryside. This allows protection to parks, playing fields and urban green space, used and valued by more people than will ever spend quality time in the Green Belt. Courting controversy, Tom Papworth submits that “Green Belt policy preserves large amounts of plentiful green space around rich people, at the expense of rare green space near poorer people“ come on, Tom, get off the fence!
– look at land within walking distance of existing commuter stations – and we build decent houses of the size/quality built in the Netherlands or Germany, where the average new build is about 40% larger than in Britain. By this simple re-think of Green Belt strategy we could build a million new homes in places that are, by definition, sustainable and where commuting costs would be reduced by maybe 50 miles a day across the no-go zone.
These ideas may seem radical, but only to people for whom the housing crisis is not a personal problem and for the “I’m alright Jacks” already surrounded by the benefits of living in the protected countryside. It’s time for a thorough Green Belt review. A concept that once did its job cannot remain unchallenged when its purpose has changed. If we are to build the houses we need for a generation already priced out of the “to buy” and private rental markets, young people to whom “affordable housing “ is a bad joke, then this is not time to be precious about an anachronism like the Green Belt.
Give “The Green Noose” some time. The facts and opinions presented by its author will raise serious doubt in the minds of those who think the Green Belt is good, just because it’s greenish. It will need politicians with more bottle than is usually associated with the breed, but maybe they can be found in the new parliament. Tom Papworth is probably having too much fun poking his stick in this particular hornet’s nest to be a politician – shame.
Mark Thackeray BSc DipTP MRTPI
Principal Consultant
Walsingham Planning
Tel: +44 1628 532244
mark.thackeray@walsingplan.co.uk
