Do we need to develop on the green belt?

The issues surrounding the green belt are nothing new. Ever since I can remember there has been the thorny issue regarding green belt release for land and whether very special circumstances exist for development – be it a large-scale housing development or a modest extension.

What is a recent development though in the battle for the green belt, is the political sway this has over the political parties (as seen in the Amersham by-election and the May local council elections where a few ‘blue’ councils turned yellow over their green belt and housing policies). Anecdotally a few voters are now expressing concern over the Labour leader’s recent comments saying they may decide not to vote Labour (having been lifelong Labour voters) over this re-consideration over the green belt.

This is staggering given how niche this issue is when looked at within the wider objectives of government – such as maintaining a healthy and thriving economy, protecting the NHS, levelling up and education. For voters to focus on green belt issues seems rather blinkered, especially when viewing it from a levelling up perspective – we need more affordable homes for people to live in. Having access to a safe place to call home is one of the fundamental building blocks to ensure levelling up is a success – Hashi Mohamed’s book ‘A Home of One’s Own’ explains this so well.

But looking at the concerns of residents is crucial to understanding the drive to object to anything anywhere in the green belt mantra.  They feel there will not only be an erosion of green spaces, but also that the critical infrastructure required to support developments will not come forward.  A recent example is the case in Scotland where a residential development was built with a school which is now oversubscribed, meaning there are not enough school places to meet demand – even people who can see the school from their homes risk being turned down for a place.

Roads are often impacted. Again, anecdotally talking to some people in a Midland town recently who are opposing housing developments, they say they have seen a dramatic increase in the amount of housing which has been developed on mainly green belt land, but the road infrastructure has remained the same – so that one journey a couple of years ago that may have taken 20 minutes can now take over an hour. This is causing division, driven by frustration of a broken system.

Therefore, any policy needs to address these fundamental points about developing on green belt land. We need a policy which addresses what the land has been used for in the past and how it can be developed now, with improvements to the surrounding area also being brought forward.

Green belt policy, though adapted over time, is still stuck in the past. There needs to be a sensible conversation about what the green belt should be – there are vast areas which are in the green belt, which are considered brownfield, previously developed, not very attractive, but still stuck in the same draconian policy protections as the green fields of the countryside.

Green belt policy should instead concentrate on preserving those areas which are green and nature spaces and could be changed to enhance the protections for these key areas. Bringing in BNG requirements could assist in further protecting those areas – making the land work for the benefit of the environment as well as being preserved for the population to enjoy.

There does therefore need to be a change and who is best to deliver that?  Local authorities who know their respective areas seems like a good place to start. This will move the dial away from a fixed – one policy fits all approach; what may be good for the South West is not great for the North West and vice versa.

But I also think the scrapping of the RSS’s was a big mistake. Bringing back reginal strategic planning would be a positive step in having more focused and informed policies and discussions. It would remove the competitive nature of local authorities, some of which approve house building on green belt land which has a massive effect on the neighbouring local authority, but they get the 106 and CIL receipts.

RSSs would also allow for the re-introduction of infrastructure planning so that the road and public transport networks could be improved on a regional scale, improving the lives of those that work, live and play in a particular area.  Again, this should be a big part of the levelling up conversation. The problems faced with east/west travel in the North is well documented – thousands of hours in lost productivity. As a result, businesses might look elsewhere to set up, creating fewer jobs in the areas which need them the most.

Exploring both the pros and cons of green belt release is a positive step forward in my opinion: re-framing the conversations, bringing forward the benefits of green belt release, not having a one size fits all approach to policy, but one that can be adapted to a location specific policy. This is a must. And here I have focused on housing, but it could be anything. In my local area people have objected to a relatively modest glamping site because of green belt policy.

The green belt is one of the most overly used but misunderstood policies; most people believe it is a blanket ban on any development. We need to change this to reflect what our country needs now.

Claire Petricca-Riding is head of planning and environment at Irwin Mitchell