The UK’s housing shortage is well documented. As a country we are simply not building enough new homes to cater for the increasing demand.
With issues including a skills shortage and opaque planning legislation, constraints to development are numerous. However, one is paramount – the availability of development land.
First introduced in the 1940s, the policy of restricting development on green belt land is a noble proposition. Yet in the modern market is it not outdated, or even still required? As house prices continue to rise, driven by a chronic supply/demand imbalance, tenants and first-time buyers are increasingly unable to step onto the property ladder. The lack of available space on brownfield sites has fuelled increased property values and inspired smaller dwellings, decreasing quality of life for the younger generations.
It is therefore crucial that the availability of land is reviewed and that the present green belt definition is revisited, giving a greater impetus to developers to incorporate high-quality landscaping and public realm in new developments. An improved and updated system around development and more careful green belt planning could result in a far more pleasant and diverse local community, while unlocking much-needed new homes.
One barrier to challenge is the common perception that green belt land exclusively comprises green fields and expansive countryside. Arguing that such a vision should be destroyed in favour of a block of flats is always going to be controversial. However, green belt land can often be far from rolling hills and in fact encompass industrial units, schools, residential units and even scrapyards.
From analysis into a series of potential development sites we can see that green belt land is too often allocated incorrectly, as demonstrated by a green belt site in Barnet, north London. The site is on the very edge of Greater London and within a narrow strip of the green belt. It is classified as derelict land and the daily traffic count at the roundabout neighbouring the site is in excess of 56,000, making it well suited to development, as opposed to being classified as protected countryside.
A high traffic count is not necessarily the only indicator of suitability of green belt land for development – other assessments could be used, such as the way agricultural land is graded. Grade four or five agricultural land, which is severely limited for farming purposes, could be surveyed and considered for development.
The sustainability of a location in terms of access to public transport and local amenities is also crucial. Opportunities closer to transport links should be put forward for development over potential land that is more remote and reliant on greater car use.
In conclusion, it is felt that a review of local green belt land is required and a more concentrated and better quality green belt scheme considered. Green belt land clearly has its place and makes towns more pleasant to live in. However, we need to strike a balance by introducing sympathetic development. This will be far more effective in complementing local surroundings and delivering high-quality new homes.
In cases where an environmental and green belt review has proven that development would be detrimental to the local environment, it should be quelled. However, where land is deemed to be insignificant from both a town planning and environmental perspective, then it can only enhance the area, facilitating responsible, considered residential and mixed-use development.
Daniel Ward is a partner at Knight Frank Residential Development
