Given the requirement to deliver around 50,000 new homes within Greater London each year for the next decade, the choices facing the London mayor and the administrations of the city’s boroughs are quite straightforward, says Andrew Whitaker, planning director of the Home Builders Federation.
“Either London does a deal with its hinterland [the shire counties] or it accepts that the city has to accommodate growth within its own boundaries – and that can’t be done without reviewing the green belt boundaries,” he says.
Whitaker points out that the outer London boroughs, in particular, have so far failed to even start such a review process. “They could do with a steer from the mayor and the London Plan – if the latter doesn’t tell them to do it, they won’t do it,” he says.
Unfortunately, guidance from the London mayor is unlikely to come any time soon. As the election campaign for Boris Johnson’s successor kicks into gear, “anyone who campaigns to review the green belt will be on the back foot”, says Whitaker.
He adds that whoever takes the reins as mayor is likely to need to work closely with central government.
“Their blind adherence to protecting the green belt is a bit disappointing,” Whitaker says. “By saying the green belt is inviolate, they are effectively tying their hands behind their back.”
Although the HBF advocates a number of measures to increase the provision of new homes in London, including reducing the regulatory burden on housebuilders and more innovative use of existing buildings, it acknowledges that these alone will not be enough.
Whitaker suggests: “We need to have a grown-up discussion in the first year of government about what we want to achieve with green belt land and how we’re going to achieve it. So let’s have that discussion.”
What do other members of the London Forum think?
Adrian Owen, head of residential, BNP Paribas Real Estate
“With much of London, around 40%, already being ‘green’ in terms of parks, gardens and open spaces, it could be argued that having over 35,000ha of green belt around London is a luxury for a world city that desperately needs more homes. In theory, the entire green belt could provide between 5.3m and 24.6m new homes.
Research from BNP Paribas Real Estate linking the volume of green belt land to journey times into the centre from each London borough indicates where the possible release of land would be most beneficial, with Bromley (which has 7,730ha of green belt land within its borders), Hillingdon, Croydon, Havering and Enfield providing the most obvious choices of the 18 green belt boroughs.”
Simon Cookson, real estate partner, DLA Piper
“The many recent studies into the efficacy of green belt policy have laid bare an urgent need for greater public debate to demystify green belt at a practical and conceptual level and to debunk the public notion that all green belt is a bucolic paradise. Green belt policy is only one of several levers that can be influential in starting to solve London’s housing crisis. There is evidence, not only in London, that green belt policy has been successful in restricting development, exacerbating relative housing scarcity and contributing to house price inflation.
The selective but not wholesale relaxation of green belt to promote more and quicker housing development in London is a desirable common good. Central government intervention will be required to override nimbyism at the local level and speed up the process. This, though, is not a magic wand.
Taller and higher-density housing in London is a certainty. Changes in planning legislation would facilitate the private rented sector. And green belt’s near cousin, brownfield land, also has an important part to play in solving London’s housing crisis when it is suitably located and with the right infrastructure.”
Andrew Pepler, director, Indigo Planning
“Although the mayor has been firm in his wish not to take a strategic review of the green belt, he – and his successor – have no other practical option. The government’s move in its last Budget to relax planning and CPO powers on brownfield land would unlock sites and speed up delivery. But even with increasing densities in central London, coupled with better use of existing brownfield land, the reality is that this still wouldn’t provide enough viable land to meet the numbers needed.
The GLA’s promotion of outer London’s urban centres is important, but bringing high-rise buildings to surburbia is an understandably slow and political process. Much of the green belt was historically designated by location rather than quality. No one envisages that great swathes of green fields would be removed, but in the light of such a pressing need for housing, opportunities to extend into sustainable locations in a sensible way should be properly considered.
Given that 20% of London’s green belt sits within the GLA’s boundary, a review by City Hall would not require a national policy change, but it would mean that the mayor of London could be directly involved in helping to solve one of the city’s biggest issues.”
James Lidgate, head of residential, Legal & General Property
“The green belt is emotive terminology and tends to provoke a strong negative public reaction when discussed as part of the conversation about development. However, there is need for a degree of public education. Previously developed sites within the green belt can selectively form part of the solution, particularly where land could be considered spoilt due to a number of factors, including its close proximity to a major transport hub.
We need a quantitative and qualitative assessment of London’s green belt before development of this resource can be considered. There is certainly no need for the wholesale release of the green belt for development, provided previously developed land is used efficiently to deliver much-needed homes. However, where it can be undertaken sensitively and in highly sustainable locations, it should be used to enable boroughs to meet their housing targets.”
