This blog looks at how the Green Belt impacts the scale and location of housebuilding in England, as well as the potential opportunities for reform, using data from our ‘Restarting Housebuilding’ research series.
The UK faces a shortfall of 4.3 million homes compared to other Western European countries. This housing shortage has worsened housing affordability, growth and living standards. As the Government looks to increase housebuilding rates, many have pointed to green belt reform as a way to do this.
But what do we know about the impact of the green belt on the scale and location of housebuilding in England? And what are the opportunities from reform? This blog answers some of those questions, using data from our ‘Restarting Housebuilding’ research series.
Green belts – introduced in 1955 – are an urban containment tool, designed to limit development on areas around major cities.
Figure 1 shows that within 15 years the London green belt was clearly achieving its goal. Housebuilding rates in rural authorities around the capital declined, while they increased in rural areas outside of the green belt.
Overlaying the 1997 green belt (the earliest green belt map available) shows that the green belt achieved what it set out to do.
Figure 2 places this impact in a national context. The green belt halted growth in what, in 1955, was the fastest growing part of England. Before the green belt was introduced, private housebuilding was almost twice as fast as the rest of the UK in green belt authorities in the Greater South East. By 1973, the rate had dropped back to the 1953 level.
Notes: The increase in size of local authorities in the 1974 reorganisation makes it much more difficult to estimate green belt building after this date.
It isn’t possible to know whether the impact was to displace housebuilding elsewhere, or to supress overall housebuilding rates. Likely, the impact was a combination of the two.
Today, the green belt is one of the main obstacles to achieving the Government’s annual housing target.
Figure 3 highlights the gap the recent housebuilding rate and the mandated rate based on the 372,000 new homes per year target set by the Government. Local authorities around the capital with large shares of green belt in the area they cover show the largest shortfall, accounting for 25 per cent of the total deficit in the Greater South East, even though they cover only 3 per cent of the region’s land.
Clearly, the green belt is a major restriction on housebuilding. Centre for Cities research also shows that it is blocking most sensible locations for urban expansion.
Taking a public transport-oriented approach, the third paper in this research series identified space for 5 million homes within commuting distance of 15 major cities by train. But, as Figure 3 shows, 2/3 of these locations are currently ruled out by green belt restrictions. Around London, 9/10 suitable locations are in the green belt.
Meanwhile, developing these locations would have little impact on the total green belt. Building on all the identified land would reduce the green belt in England and Scotland by less than 5 per cent, with some areas slightly higher but never exceeding 20 per cent.
Building millions of new homes and preserving most of the green belt are not irreconcilable policy goals, nor are they incompatible with protecting environmentally valuable land.
Many people are surprised to learn that much of the land is currently used for environmentally unfriendly purposes, such as intensive farming or golf courses, which provide limited public benefits and could potentially harm the environment. Developing green belt land near stations could turn these areas into environmentally friendly homes. For example, the architects RCKa have proposed a mock plan to build 650 homes at a golf course in north London, while also boosting biodiversity by rewilding the remaining areas of the course.
Additionally, profits generated by value capture could potentially contribute to restoring valuable nature reserves. If we take out 5 per cent of the potential land value capture from viable sites across the UK, over 8,000 hectares of inland water bodies and lagoons – the most costly type of habitat – could be restored every year. And the Government’s plan, which requires developers to fund state-selected environmental interventions through tariffs, could help make this a reality.
The green belt isn’t an environmental designation and it should stay that way. But, contrary to popular conception, development could contribute to improving environmental outcomes.
The 2024 National Planning Policy Framework established new rules for managing the green belt. Most notably, it introduced a ‘grey belt’ definition for green belt land of little environmental value, and a set of ‘golden rules’ that must be met for green belt development. In addition, it ramped up housing targets, which if they are to be met will almost undoubtedly require a degree of building on the green belt in some areas.
More positive signs are the Government’s announcement over the weekend of its intention to facilitate development around railway stations. Centre for Cities’ estimates suggest this could accommodate 1.8 million extra homes on sites around big cities.
Ultimately, though, if the Government is going to hit its targets then it will need systemic ‘big R’ reform to the exiting system. It has two main choices as to how to do this. If it wants to have more building on brownfield land in cities then it will need to remove the discretion from the current system and move to a rules-based zoning system. If instead it wants to keep the current system then it will need to go much further on green belt reform. Tinkering will not bring the large increases in housebuilding that the targets require.
Leave a comment
Be the first to add a comment.