Three in ten people think that more than half of land in England has been built on, according to a new Ipsos survey carried out for the Economist.  Not such a green and pleasant land then?

Six in ten people (according to the same survey) would retain the current Green Belt even if it restricts the country’s ability to meet housing needs. Quite draconian – but maybe if you think half of the land in England is already covered in concrete it is justified?

Anyone who has seen the news, heard the radio or read a newspaper in the last decade or so will be aware that there is a severe housing shortage in this country.  Some of the survey’s respondents will be affected themselves (those surveyed were a representative sample) and over half of respondents disagreed that housing is affordable in Britain for “people like me”.  However, as we have seen, over half would prioritise the Green Belt over housing.

What is the truth?

The Office for National Statistics states that 8.7% of land in England is built on (April 2022).  Not even 10%, let alone half.  The housing shortage is definitely true.

Presumably a distorted view on the amount of developed land feeds into concerns about allowing development in the Green Belt.  Misconceptions about the Green Belt might too.  Whilst the Green Belt can include beautiful areas, it is certainly not all lush green spaces.  Roads, scrubland, disused sites, farms, homes and villages are all in there.

What is the Green Belt?

Green Belt is around 15 urban areas in England, with the largest area predictably around London.  It covers around 16,382km/6,324sqm as at the end of March 2022, representing 12.6% of England’s land area.

Green Belt is a planning designation and different rules apply to land within it.  A chapter of the National Planning Policy Framework is dedicated to protecting it.  Here it sets out that the “fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, the essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and their permanence”. 

How can development take place in a Green Belt if it is permanent?

Inappropriate development (including, say, building a house) in the Green Belt is harmful to the by definition and should not be approved unless very special circumstances exist.  Therefore, it is possible, not easy, to carry out piecemeal development in the Green Belt if such circumstances can be shown.

Planned development in the Green Belt necessitates amending the boundary to remove the land from the Green Belt first (therefore removing the need for very special circumstances).

The boundaries of a Green Belt can be redrawn in exceptional circumstances, which involve Authorities meeting tests regarding full use of other land, consulting neighbouring authorities to see if development need could alternatively be accommodated there and optimising potential development.  Any release should be offset by compensatory improvements to remaining Green Belt land.

A large area of Green Belt has been released to the North of Harlow making way for around 8,500 homes located close to the town’s train station (the area was first identified for release back when Regional Spatial Strategies set out top-down housing targets under a Labour government).   Work towards the release and outline planning permission took over a decade and faced much local and political opposition.  (We could talk here about the planning system and delays…)

Clearly proper interrogation of proposals and debate is essential before land is released from the protection of the Green Belt.  What the Ipsos survey shows is that voters do not have the full facts, something likely to only exacerbate the divisive nature of potential Green Belt development and cloud judgement over its appropriateness in meeting housing need.