If the green belt is sacrosanct where do we put our houses?

By Julian Ware-Lane / @warelane

Green belt designation for England was instigated in 1955 as a means of restricting urban growth. Green belts perform three principle functions:

1. They provide recreational open spaces
2. They contribute the concept of a sustainable environment
3. They provide a buffer between urban areas

With an ever growing population (and this week saw the release of the latest population estimate for the UK showing a substantial increase) the green belt, particularly near already densely populated areas, is coming under attack. Lifestyles choices mean that there are more singletons than ever before, and this means more homes are needed.

Those with inner-city constituencies might not be familiar with the stresses that accompany many development proposals. It does not overplay the reaction to describe anything that threatens the green belt as being amongst the most contentious of issues in many areas. This comes with the “Englishman’s castle” viewpoint – some feeling that their home comes with the view across fields or woods.

Population growth is inevitable, and despite what some hysterical commentators may have you think, the UK is far from crowded. Even with the drawbridge pulled up our population would grow in size. Longer life-spans and an existing housing shortage only exacerbate the problem.

So, short of advocating a cull, we have a problem. It would be easier if we could persuade people to move to some of the less crowded spots of our islands, but this has not worked in the past and is unlikely to bear fruit if tried again. Jobs, family, and amenities mean that most people are living where they want to be.

So where do we build? Despite the promotion of brown field projects, the green belt does get nibbled at, and once a small piece has gone, precedence (and the wearied acceptance of perceived inevitability by residents) means that the next nibble, and the next nibble, come following close at hand.

Sixties solutions, a la high-rise, are not in vogue at the moment, although I think we should revisit some of those ideas.

Of the green belt’s three main functions outlined above it could be argued that the third is nice to have, but not a necessity. Yet the idea of a buffer exists not just to enliven journeys between towns. The green buffer facilitates identity and preserves our heritage. Towns that merge into each other lose a major part of their identity and create that feeling of urban desert.

Recreational spaces could be argued as being a luxury, yet well-being (both physical and mental) is enhanced by exercise and fresh air. We already face an obesity time-bomb with predictions that the younger generation will be the first for centuries to witness a lowering of life expectancy. All of us need to get out more, and this could mean that more green belt is required, not less.

The sustainability argument surely needs no justifying, else why are we all banging on about the environment, global warming, etc?

So is the green belt sacrosanct? I think so. If it was considered important in a United Kingdom of half a century ago when there were less cars and people, then it must be more important than ever today.

(So, this leaves the most important question of all hanging..where do we put those homes?)

Related posts:

1. Eats green shoots and leaves
2. Cameron: “I don’t know how many houses I’ve got”
3. Labour must become a green party
4. Cameron’s green paper is a damp squib. Here’s why.
5. Green Designs