Government Proposes Building On The Green Belt

Rachel Holdsworth
By Rachel Holdsworth Last edited 29 months ago
Government Proposes Building On The Green Belt
Part of Barnet's green belt. Photo by Rachel Jones from the Londonist Flickr pool

The government is planning to relax building regulations for the green belt, reports the Telegraph. A consultation published on Monday proposes changes to national planning policy to help housebuilding.

What could this mean for London? We need a lot of new homes — two years ago, London Councils estimated we needed an extra 800,000 by 2021 — and there's some debate about whether or not we have enough brownfield (ie, previously built on) land to cope. Zac Goldsmith believes we do — but the problems are getting that land into the hands of people who can build and also cleaning it up. That can be expensive, which in turn pushes up the price of the houses.

This leaves the green belt. Contrary to popular belief, London's green belt isn't all beautiful meadows and virgin woodland. 37% of it is agricultural land. 7% is golf courses, for crying out loud. This is something that appears to have bypassed Sadiq Khan, whose office issued this statement earlier today:

Ministers are completely wrong to allow developers to pave over our precious green belt. There are no shortage of brownfield sites to build on in London, and the green belt protects our environment, creates biodiversity and stops urban sprawl. Giving blanket planning permission to build on the green belt will not lead to new affordable homes being built because it will just increase the value of the land — meaning windfalls for landowners and developers but no benefit for Londoners.

Sadly, someone in his office hasn't read the proposals, as they're about small-scale, community-led developments, or infilling parts of brownfield surrounded by the green belt.

What that statement shows is how divisive and kneejerk reactions can be to any suggestions about building on the green belt. The Adam Smith Institute believes that building on just the 3.7% of London's green belt that's within walking distance of a rail station could create 1m homes. And being near public transport counters one of the (more sensible, in our view) arguments against green belt development, which is that it produces isolated communities that are dependent on cars.

Wrong type of homes

The main thing that should make anyone who's concerned about the housing crisis pink with fury here isn't building on the green belt. It's the government's shift to put money into 'affordable' home ownership rather than expanding the below-market-rate rental sector (ie, council and housing association homes) or even doing something to control the insane rampages of the private rental sector.

These moves are to free up green belt land for 'starter homes' — which we've already established aren't terribly affordable for Londoners anyway. There's some dispute over whether government-backed ownership schemes, like Help to Buy, help fuel a house price bubble (and bubbles always burst eventually), but Shelter says that, actually, if we want to encourage home ownership, low cost renting is the way to go about it.

Meanwhile, housing associations are being forced to sell rented homes in an insane expansion of Right to Buy and some are even reducing the amount of rental homes they build in response; and the amount of government money going into low-cost rental homes is being reduced, at the expense of 'affordable' ownership. Comparatively, whether a bit of the green belt gets concreted over is a minor issue.

Last Updated 08 December 2015

Continued below.

Matthew Rees

Most people do not want to live in Outer London where the Green Belt is, they want to be in the centre where the employment and leisure are. Building on the Green Belt would not solve the housing problem and would only add to the transport one, while destroying lots of attractive land to do so.


In the UK there are enough empty homes to house 2.5 million people.

In London it is around 600,000 people.

It's political lethargy rather rather anything else!

Small example in Victoria.

Walk down Palace St. From Victoria St. Castle Lane I think it is.

Empty boarded up ex-social housing.

Nothing doing for the past 2 years.


Building on the greenbelt will remove the incentive to redevelop more expensive brownfield site leaving derelict scars. Naive to think changes won't be used by developers. It is much more environmentally friendly to build medium rise on brown field. MANSION BLOCKS ARE THE FUTURE. think of all the time and energy and emissions created by commuting out to zone 7. Greenbelt building was abandoned in the 30s with good reason. If they were to build nice terraces it wouldn't be so bad but it will be sprawling detached houses wasting space.