In England's Green and Pleasant Land

An Ipsos survey conducted for the Economist earlier this year revealed that 60% of people would retain Green Belts even if it would restrict the country's ability to meet housing needs. This is despite the majority of the people surveyed agreeing that housing is unaffordable, and that housing will not be made more affordable unless we increase the number of new homes built each year. So, why is the Green Belt so sacrosanct?

Green Belt conundrum

I grew up in York in a suburban area within the outer ring road. Long before I fell into the world of planning, I noticed that residents of a nearby "new build" housing estate on the other side of the outer ring road had erected signs around their estate objecting to the council's proposals to allocate the field opposite them for future development. The signs read "Save Our Green Belt". The principle of York's Green Belt was first established in 1980. These residents' homes were built 20 years later via a release of Green Belt land.  The irony (and nimbyism) was not lost on me.

Many years later, I decided to investigate the extent of York's Green Belt. I had always assumed that the Green Belt started at the outer ring road where the outskirts of York began to feel more rural. I was wrong. Large swathes of York were – and continue to be – earmarked as Green Belt, including the house in which I grew up despite its undeniably suburban location and feel.

Whilst the detail of the "inner boundaries" of York's Green Belt have not been settled upon (York's local plan saga is another story altogether), the relevance of my neighbourhood and the surrounding built up area to the Green Belt left me perplexed.

History of the Green Belt

The term "Green Belt" was first coined by Octavia Hill, the social reformer and co-founder of the National Trust. Hill wrote in "Spaces for People" in 1883 that "we all need space [for the] refreshment of our souls" because "our lives in London are over-crowded, over-excited, over-strained."

In the 1930s, the Green Belt concept made its way into the statute book. The Green Belt (London and Home Countries) Act 1938 empowered London's local authorities to buy land for the "preservation from industrial or building development" for the purpose of "enhancing the amenities of the administrative county of London and in the interests of the health of the inhabitants of that county", paving the way for the formal designation of London's Green Belt.

The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 then established the framework for development plans, requiring them to define the sites of various land uses including "open spaces" or "other purposes of any class".

Then in August 1955, Government Circular 42/55 reminded local planning authorities across the rest of the country of "the importance of checking the unrestricted sprawl of the built-up areas, and of safeguarding the surrounding countryside against further encroachment".

70 years later and the Green Belt's purposes are written into national policy relatively unchanged from the 1955 Circular. It is only in "exceptional circumstances" that are "fully evidenced and justified" that Green Belt boundaries can be altered and, save for a few limited exceptions, new development in the Green Belt is to be regarded as inappropriate except in "very special circumstances". So the fortresses of green space surrounding – and in some cases interweaving – our towns and cities are creatures of planning policy, not planning law.

However, where a Green Belt is designated in an area’s development plan, it is afforded legal protection via section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This provides that all planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. And, so, where a Green Belt forms part of the development plan, it acts as a significant obstacle to future development proposals.

Protected areas

The extent of the Green Belt has changed over time, with fluctuations in its size mostly due to local authorities adopting new local plans that alter the area of that authority's Green Belt. As at the end of March 2023, the Green Belt in England was estimated to be 1,638,420 hectares. That's 12.6% of the land area of England. A further 26.4% of land in England is designated as a National Park, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) or a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). These other designations are, unlike the Green Belt, creations of statute (the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Countryside Act 1968 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981).

Interestingly, designation as a National Park, AONB or SSSI renders many permitted development rights unavailable or subject to limitations whereas a Green Belt designation has no bearing on the availability of such rights. The Green Belt could therefore easily be regarded as a lesser designation compared to its statutory siblings: it's a creature of policy, not law; it comprises a smaller percentage of land than other protected areas; permitted development rights apply in it; and more than half of it isn't actually green. Nevertheless, the Green Belt carries a special status, especially in the political discourse.

The Green Belt discourse

The issue of planning and housebuilding is emerging as a key dividing line between the Conservative and Labour Parties in the run-up to the next election, and the Green Belt debate is at the heart of this.

At the end of 2022, the Government launched a consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy, including a change which would make it clear that local authorities need not review or alter Green Belts when making local plans, even if this would be the only means of meeting housing need. This proposed strengthening of Green Belt policy represented an attempt to assuage apparent paranoia that our green spaces are at threat.

In contrast, Sir Keir Starmer has been outspoken on the matter, stating that a Labour government would be on the side of the “builders not the blockers” by developing certain areas of poor quality Green Belt – the "Grey Belt" – where it would not affect the beauty of the countryside.

It remains to be seen whether Labour's vision represents a genuine intention to rethink Green Belt protections or merely political opportunism in light of the housing crisis. But the dial is turning on the nature of the debate. Traditionally, to call into question the efficacy of the Green Belt would have been political suicide, but the Labour party has broken the taboo.

What's next?

Green Belts have shaped towns and cities across the country over many decades. They have performed an effective role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban development. They have delivered on the purposes set out in Circular 42/55.

But we should remind ourselves why the Green Belt was conceived in the first place. Octavia Hill was a social reformer concerned about poor housing conditions and the impacts of urban densification on the underprivileged. In the context of the current housing crisis, the effect of an increasingly rigid policy constraint on land use surely runs counter to these original aims. Perhaps instead, to continue to serve their intended purpose, there is argument to say that Green Belts should be regularly reviewed and be reactive to the ever-changing needs of the relevant local area and region.

And, what about my childhood home?  Well, if York's local plan is ever adopted it's going to be stuck in the Green Belt within a "green wedge". Alas, I remain perplexed.

For more information please contact: