Photo credit: www.theguardian.com

Government’s Green Belt Policy Faces Backlash Over Conservation Concerns

Sir Humphrey Appleby might label the government’s newly proposed green belt policy as audacious. The plan suggests significant changes to one of the UK’s most cherished environmental protections, raising alarms about potentially severe electoral repercussions.

Recent reports from the Guardian highlight an alarming shift in government policy that appears to undermine the sanctity of the green belt, which has historically been protected by successive governments. Environmental advocates are accusing the government of intentionally misleading the public regarding the implications of these changes.

Just a quarter ago, Labour’s manifesto asserted a commitment to maintain the integrity of the green belt, promising not to alter its “purpose or general extent.” While the manifesto did mention the development of “lower-quality” protected lands labeled as “grey belt,” the government had previously indicated these would only include unattractive sites like disused car parks and derelict spaces.

However, the current proposal, now open for public consultation, threatens to strip away protections from extensive areas of valuable green space. Understanding this extensive plan necessitates delving into a glossary term buried in the 74th page of the proposed national policy planning framework.

Moreover, the policy hints that once local councils deplete their brownfield and “grey belt” sites, they will need to build on the best of their green belt lands. This concerning condition contradicts the green belt’s traditional role as a vital buffer against urban sprawl.

With ambitious housing targets in place, the pressure on local governments is mounting. For instance, the Sevenoaks district in Kent—where 93% of the land is protected—will be mandated to accommodate 1,113 new homes each year, highlighting a dramatic shift from its current average of 263 annual developments. The London Green Belt Council has warned of significant harm to the environment.

The green belt, which traces its origins back to the Attlee administration, has proven remarkably effective in curbing urban spread. In contrast to sprawling cities like Los Angeles, which lacks such protective measures and has expanded significantly since 1940, London’s green belt has preserved accessible and health-promoting green spaces for 30 million residents. This protective measure has also rejuvenated urban centers by encouraging concentrated development.

Public opinion seems to lean heavily towards preserving green-belt land. Current polls suggest that approximately two-thirds of the British populace favor protecting these lands over increasing housing availability, with only about a quarter opposing such measures.

Despite this prevailing sentiment, a notable consensus appears to exist across political and media circles advocating for the development of green-belt areas as a solution to mitigate soaring housing prices and address a significant housing crisis that disproportionately impacts younger generations.

The housing crisis is severe. Currently, only one in five individuals aged 18 to 34 own a home, indicating an urgent need for increased housing supply, particularly through innovative and cost-effective building methods to stimulate economic growth.

However, increasing the number of homes alone may not drastically affect housing prices. Empirical data suggests that the basic economic principles of supply and demand do not straightforwardly apply to housing markets, as seen with consumer goods like baked beans.

There are currently 25 million homes in England, and an increase to the government’s target of 300,000 new homes annually represents a mere 1.2% enhancement to supply. A significant portion of demand comes from multiple property ownership. Furthermore, homebuilding companies often do not construct dwellings at rates that would effectively reduce prices.

Studies indicate that meeting two decades’ worth of targets would yield a negligible 6% decrease in real housing prices, a fraction of the increases witnessed in recent decades. This potential reduction could easily be overshadowed by even a small decline in interest rates.

Moreover, building upon green-belt land tends to exacerbate the situation, as homes constructed there generally sell for 20% more than similar properties elsewhere. Builders frequently focus on premium housing, erecting fewer homes per acre compared to the national average, thus driving prices higher.

Although the government mandates that half of new homes built on green-belt land be affordable, the term “affordable” is crucially “subject to viability,” a loophole that developers routinely exploit to bypass actual compliance. The planning consultancy Lichfields has stated that most developments are unlikely to meet these affordability criteria.

Moreover, developing green-belt areas necessitates substantial investment in infrastructure to manage the increased population density, which could lead to heightened congestion and pollution. Additionally, homes in these areas often become car-dependent, causing residents to emit significantly more CO2 annually than typical urban households.

This is not to suggest opposition to all forms of development in the green belt. Many local residents desire affordable housing options for their families and show little resistance to improving unsightly locations. The main contention lies in the unauthorized development of high-priced properties on untouched landscapes.

As a resident of the green belt, I supported housing initiatives on an adjacent plot, advocating successfully for affordable options to be included.

While there may be some justification for allowing development on protected lands that no longer serve a vital purpose, the government’s current proposals exceed reasonable boundaries. Areas with existing infrastructure, especially urban locales, should be prioritized for development. Nonetheless, there is a troubling trend of ministers decreasing housing targets in cities while simultaneously ramping them up within the green belt.

Such policy directions may lead to significant pushback. Since the last election, Labour has gained representation in half of the constituencies that encompass green-belt areas, a notable rise from just 16% in the past. Within these regions, public support for developing green belt lands is markedly low, currently at a troubling negative 40%.

If constituents come to realize the full scope of the intended changes, they are likely to press their newly elected MPs for accountability, especially as dissatisfaction grows. The implications of this policy could lead the government, already facing dwindling popularity, into even deeper electoral jeopardy. Indeed, this initiative could turn out to be “brave” in the sense that Sir Humphrey might have warned against, underscoring the need for more thoughtful engagement with the electorate regarding such pivotal issues.

Source
www.theguardian.com