In 2021-22, the statistics state, that 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 compared to 31 March 2021 – that a 1.5% increase.
England has a land area of just under 13,046,240 hectares of which 8% is of developed use, with around 11% being classified as ‘built-up’, according to the figures.
While it is important that the most valuable green spaces are protected, this increased allocation will impact housing availability, and therefore house prices – and also transport, environment, housing, leisure, food, and economics.
Ian Barnett, National Land Director of Leaders Romans Group, commented: "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 the 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 constraints 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 (notable towns in the southeast 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 a 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% 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."
It is no coincidence that land surveyors within Leaders Romans Group, who work closely with Boyer, have identified the A1 corridor as an area with significant growth potential. The 100-mile stretch from the north of Cambridge to Gainsborough is located at least eight miles to the east of Green Belt. In the last week alone we announced two substantial land sales, one for a 64-hectare storage/logistics in Lincolnshire and another for a 47-hectare urban extension to Nottingham and we see this area as having substantial growth potential.
LRG and Boyer are not calling for the Green Belt to be scrapped - as Karen says, "Green Belt policy and planning policy conflict on many levels and Green Belt reform is needed to resolve these conflicts, to deliver homes, including affordable homes, up and down the country, and in doing so, to genuinely level up the UK."
