Campaign to Protect Rural England Standing up for your countryside

Skip to navigation

Why people need the Green Belt

Recreation and farming in Bath's Green Belt Recreation and farming in Bath's Green Belt

The government’s rhetoric on the Green Belt is generally quite encouraging. If we just listen to what they say, and focus less on what is actually happening, then we would have little to worry about. Philip Hammond stood at the dispatch box back in November promising ‘strong protection of our Green Belt’, and yet 2017 also saw 425,000 houses planned for Green Belt land. So we’ve been scrutinising the government’s proposed changes to planning rules – the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – published back in March, to ensure this ‘strong protection’ is secured, or better yet, strengthened.

The Green Belt is the ‘countryside next door’ for 30 million people – more than half of England’s population. It’s where those of us stuck in cities go to get away from the stresses and strains of urban life. Its fresh air and open spaces make it fundamental to our physical health and mental wellbeing.

The consequences of sprawl

Green Belt policy aims to prevent the urban sprawl which is reducing quality of life in so many cities across the world. The Guardian’s recent Overstretched Cities series powerfully illustrated how this least sustainable form of development swallows up farmland and wildlife habitats while increasing air pollution, flood risk and car dependency.

While there is no comparison with the developing world’s unprecedented growth in population and consumption, England is in the middle of its own housing crisis – a situation that many argue should justify the return of urban sprawl here. A lack of affordable housing is entrenching social inequalities and preventing younger people and families from getting onto the housing ladder. However, building on Green Belt land is not a viable solution to this crisis.

When protected countryside is released to developers, it’s not low cost housing they build, but executive homes for the most wealthy. 84% of homes built on Green Belt in recent years have been for the middle or top end of a market that is already unaffordable for most people unless they already have access to existing housing wealth. Misguided calls to build on Green Belt result in millions of people losing valuable access to countryside without doing anything to tackle the housing shortage.

A social good

Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries there was a widespread consensus that people need access to countryside just as much as they do housing and health services. Social reformers since Octavia Hill, as well as leaders from across the political spectrum, all recognised the importance of protecting the countryside as a primary social good.

Post-war legislation saw the Town & Country Planning Act, National Parks and Green Belt protection stand proudly alongside the establishment of the NHS and a great programme of social housebuilding, because everyone agreed that access to clean air and nature was of equal importance as the health of our nation and the provision of shelter.

In the 21st century, however, the countryside has somehow become a target for those seeking a solution to the housing crisis. An adversarial situation has arisen where demands for growth become set against local community concerns for the environment, a situation in which nobody wins. We’re told that young people must accept a trade-off between housing and countryside: a strangely binary argument which would never be applied to other social goods like health. 

The land question

We live on an island – a densely populated island – where land is a scarce and finite resource. Interestingly however, compared to many countries, our largest cities are less densely populated. The densest neighbourhoods of Paris and Barcelona, for example, house well over twice as many people as London’s most populous areas.

There is still much more we can do to make our town and city centres more attractive places to live. Investing in these areas would represent much better value for public money than simply servicing more building on Green Belt land.

This country’s treatment of our land, its ownership and value, the way the construction economy works and the dysfunctional nature of the free market when applied to housing, are the real factors behind the chronic housing problems we face. But there are solutions that don’t involve taking away our access and opportunity to connect with the natural world, and enforcing Green Belt protection forces us to look for more sustainable locations for housing.

Brownfield first

There’s currently space available on previously developed land for well over 1 million homes. Most of this land is in urban areas, close to jobs, roads, entertainment and amenities – areas where many younger people looking to get onto the housing ladder most want to live. Significant amounts of it can also be found in southern England, not just the northern regions.

There is brownfield land within our Green Belts too, but developers continue to exploit the housing target pressures and planning loopholes that enable them to maximise profits by building executive housing on greenfield land at wastefully low densities.

As the Government reviews its ‘planning rulebook’, the NPPF, it’s important and timely to stress the need for brownfield sites to be prioritised. The current proposals do take a step towards this, but certainly stop short of an explicit ‘brownfield first’ policy that allows local authorities to refuse greenfield development where there is a suitable brownfield site nearby.

Planning for people

Releasing parts of the Green Belt for housing should always be a last resort. In the rare instances where this needs to happen, the homes built must be affordable for local people on average incomes or below, and on land already well-served by public transport. We must first look to re-use previously developed land and avoid the temptation to pick on rundown bits of Green Belt, just because the people who use it are those less likely to make a fuss.

It is these areas that are most important of all, as the front line against sprawl, and the most accessible countryside for the communities who would benefit most from the enormous health and wellbeing benefits it offers. We must do all we can to protect and enhance the Green Belt in a way that benefits as many people as possible. People need both good affordable housing and access to nature. If we use land well we can do both.

We welcome the revised NPPF’s proposals that the ‘exceptional circumstances’ needed to change Green Belt boundaries can only arise once councils have considered all other options – including using brownfield sites and increasing building densities. However, we worry that without clearly defining that high housing targets are not ‘exceptional circumstances’ in and of themselves, the system will continue to be gamed, and our Green Belt land will be unnecessarily and permanently lost under nine inches of concrete.

Our predecessors managed to deliver over half a century of unprecedented housing and economic growth while protecting, and ensuring that people had access to, green space near to where they live. Will our generation be able to say the same, or will we sell the young a falsehood: that they can’t have housing without losing their countryside?

We must do all we can to protect and enhance the Green Belt in a way that benefits as many people as possible.

Back to top

frost on leaves web home

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. If that's okay, just continue browsing - or see our cookies policy for ways to opt out.