The Labour Party has signalled that it wants to drive housebuilding by exploring green belt use, which I find a refreshingly daring message from Keir Starmer – whose leadership has so far been defined by being so middle of the road that nobody knows what he stands for.
Starmer told BBC Breakfast: “We would make those tough choices and say to local areas, notwithstanding that it’s greenbelt, if it’s a car park or similar land which doesn’t affect the beauty of our countryside… then we’ll change the planning rules, we’ll give you the powers to do that.”
The subject of green belt is emotional and political, as it has been at the cornerstone of protecting charm and wildlife in England for years.
This was expressed by former shadow chancellor John McDonnell MP, who said on Twitter: “The Green Belt was championed by the London County Council under Herbert Morrison in 1930s, legislated for by the Attlee Labour Government in 1940s & has been the fundamental basis of a battle to protect the environment in working class urban constituencies like mine over decades.”
However the question for me is whether all green belt land is all equally sacrosanct.
What about green belt land that sits on the edge of cities – can’t it be expanded while retaining some green spaces, welcoming new residents?
Nobody is suggesting you dig up a forest in the Lake District and build a tower block in its place, so surely we need some sub-classifications – rather than simply viewing land as green belt or not?
There are some advantages to building out in cities, providing you upgrade transport links accordingly. When you expand city boundaries you don’t cram people together in increasingly dense spaces, like with tower blocks, creating future slums.
Starmer said the UK is currently the second worst out of 38 countries in the OECD when it comes to the effectiveness of its planning system – and it does seem likely that the classification of green belt land is being used as something of an excuse for residents to express a NIMBYISTIC (not in my back yard) attitude, blocking new developments.
Of course, I do get the fears from those who worry about the UK slowly becoming a concrete slab.
Stefano Lobban, director at tool supplier Herts Tools, said: “Just because there is a green belt that can be built on, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we should.
“Building on green belts will mean that urban regeneration opportunities are ignored. There is plenty of other land which can be utilised for house building.
“The number of long-term empty homes in England has increased by 4.8% over the past year. We should be regenerating pre-used land and buildings, often left neglected and decaying anyway which will breathe new life into our towns and cities.
“Policy regarding green belt land has always stated that restrictions are in place to prevent development from occurring on the area. Urban sprawl is the biggest threat to climate change and many believe the housing crisis won’t be resolved by releasing land.”
I agree with him regarding the need to use the urban land we already have, but why not explore both avenues?
I do think some radical thinking is required to up UK housebuilding, so perhaps reclassifying some green belt land will help to make things more affordable with more developments – providing we don’t have one housebuilder monopolise the market and build them all.
Clearly the devil is in the detail with this and I feel it’s too early to be fiercely for or against this proposal, but I’m pleased Starmer seems serious about delivering new homes, especially when the Tories have given up on their yearly housing target.
