12 COMMENT
NO FEWER THAN 60% OF THE JUNCTIONS ON THE M40 FALL WITHIN THE GREEN BELT
The amount of land designated as Green Belt has recently increased: in the two years to April 2023, it rose by 25,443 ha (1.6%), returning Green Belt coverage to 2004 levels.
The commitment to building 1.5 million homes this Parliament equates to 300,000 per annum over fi ve years. ssuming an average plot size of 0.033 hectares, and even on the (highly unlikely) assumption that all of these homes would be built in the Green Belt, meeting this target would only equate to 3% of the current extent of Green Belt. The reality is that any Green Belt ‘land take’ will be far lower, with brownfi eld and non reen elt locations being prioritised. Hence, the quantum of land to be removed from the Green Belt is likely to be pretty modest in the overall scheme of things. As of now, 6.8% of Green Belt land has been developed, compared to 9.0% for non Green Belt land. Of that land, the majority is used for transport and hardstanding, such as car parks, paved or tarmacked areas, accounting for 5.2% and 6.1% of Green Belt and non Green Belt land, respectively. Land developed for buildings accounts for just 1.2% of Green Belt land, and 2.5% of non-Green Belt. Furthermore, while 18.9% of the Green Belt is in the form of forest, open land and water, the proportion of land outside the reen elt within this classifi cation is only slightly greater, at 20.3%. These stats emphasise that the Green Belt is no more than a planning policy tool to be deployed
WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK
for specifi c purposes not a landscape or ecological designation, as some might incorrectly assume. This could lead to markedly different land use data. Furthermore, our research shows the extent of Green Belt release required by region if housing stock were increased by 6% (to align with the 1.5 million homes target, and again provided solely on the Green Belt). In London, a 6% increase in housing stock would require 21.1% of reen elt land. n contrast, in fi ve regions (South East, North West, North East, East of England, West Midlands, and Yorkshire and the Humber), a 6% increase in housing would equate to less than 3% of Green Belt land being released. While this modelling is interesting, it is only theoretical. Of course, we are not advocating all new homes being located on the Green Belt, but are suggesting that there are strategic benefi ts in releasing some Green Belt land for housing. For example, this approach could reduce the number of ‘leapfrogging’ developments, those located further from urban areas than is desirable, which increase residents’ carbon footprints through extensive commutes and impacts on both businesses’ and residents’ proximity to urban centres.
There are several options to address the urgent need for housing, each with its own benefi ts. For example, we have considered major transport routes running through Green Belt land, which present potential for sustainable development
and prevent both ‘leapfrogging’ and urban sprawl. This showed considerable potential: for example, no fewer than 60% of the junctions on the A40 fall within the Green Belt. Greater leniency in developing the Green Belt, particularly around these interchanges, would pave the way for much needed residential and commercial development, while helping to shorten journey times and reduce congestion. The modest release of land from the Green Belt, perhaps through the edge of town development or development along major transport arteries, is part of this solution. Selecting sites of lower environmental value which are not designated for conservation would ensure that the impact on the natural environment is minimised.
The reality is that any Green Belt ‘land take’ to meet housing needs will be far lower than the fi gures shown above, as brownfi eld and non-reen elt locations would remain the focus of new housing, as the revised NPPF makes clear. Building on the existing Green Belt will only ever be part of the solution. The Government has recognised this, and the development of new towns alongside urban extensions and regeneration projects will also be an option for planners and developers. Raising the rate of housebuilding is a major challenge, and a combination of all these approaches is necessary.
David Churchill is a partner at Carter Jonas
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
