Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Seeing red over the green belt

  • 1 Comment

Britain is not an overcrowded island, but the green belt falsely inhibits house-building. It’s time to dismantle it, says Jules Lubbock

The Housing Crisis
Winter. A street in east London. White vans are parked, workers sleeping inside, engines running all night to keep themselves warm. They can’t afford to live in the city.

The housing crisis was Jeremy Corbyn’s very first question at his first prime minister’s questions, raised on behalf of Marie, one of thousands who had emailed him on the issue.

House prices have rocketed, sometimes tenfold in 20 years. Only the rich can afford to buy in London, whether city centre or suburbs. For the first time since the war the proportion of homeowners has fallen – from 70 per cent to 64 per cent. Private-sector rents are rising. People without the bank of mum and dad have to move out, not to suburbs but to exurbs and beyond. Towns with fast transport to London, such as Cambridge or even Colchester, are now unaffordable; people have to move to Ely or further afield. For the young, Thatcher’s 1975 vision of a home-owning democracy is a sick joke.



‘Much more needs to be done,’ agreed the prime minister: piecemeal planning reform, brownfield sites and so on. From Corbyn to UKIP, there is consensus. Each has similar solutions, from Corbyn’s commitment to more council housing to the Tories’ ragbag of incentives. That consensus extends to the shibboleth of the green belt. Yet no politician explains the cause of the crisis. If you don’t acknowledge – or don’t know – the cause of a problem, you can’t find a solution. It’s like denying that smoking causes cancer, and handing out cough sweets instead.

That cause is the green belt – shorthand for the planning system introduced by Labour’s 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, the foundation of the law controlling land use. It nationalised the owner’s right to develop.  Development is forbidden without consent from the local authority. It also created green belts. What was the point? To preserve the ‘countryside’ from the relentless ‘sprawl’ of suburban housebuilding in the interwar years, when more houses were built than at any time. God made the country and man made the town. That simple. Other aims included self-sufficiency in food; belief in the scientific planning of everything, from the economy to families and kitchens; bringing manufacturing industry to regions hit by the Great Depression, resulting in beautiful white elephants such as Brynmawr; and a general view among the policy-making elite that the gentleman in Whitehall really does know best. That elite included architects such as William Holford and Clough Williams Ellis and their lay spokesmen in the architectural press, including John ‘Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough’ Betjeman.

Urban containment was based on predictions that Britain’s population would not exceed 45 million

Unfortunately there was a fundamental flaw. Urban containment was based on the ‘scientific’ predictions of demographers who were adamant that Britain’s population would not exceed its 1939 peak of 45 million. Some even predicted a drop to 10 million by 2015. It seemed that the circle could be easily squared: inner-city slums could be demolished and suburbanised at low density with lovely parks and gardens; the ‘excess’ working class could be ‘decanted’ to overspill garden cities without losing much countryside. In the welfare state everything would be for the best in that best of all possible worlds.


TV series Show Me a Hero depicts a middle-class neighbourhood’s resistance to new social housing

In fact the population has risen by 50 per cent, to 65 million. The south of England has boomed, as it has done since 1920. Britain is not an overcrowded little island, there is plenty of land for homes, but supply has been constricted by green-belt planning. The result is that house prices have risen much faster than both earnings and inflation. Nothing more mysterious than supply and demand. Every serious politician understands, particularly since Kate Barker’s 2004 Review of Housing Supply, commissioned by Gordon Brown, the only senior politician to fully grasp the problem. 

Why the consensus?
Our planning system may be a pain for housebuilders and for homeowners who want to prune their trees, but an unintended consequence has been to create a large and powerful class of winners, jokingly nicknamed nimbys, who have benefited enormously. Those who bought homes in unrestricted, though not entirely unplanned, suburbs before the war, costing as little as £400 (say £25,000 today), with green fields at the bottom of their gardens, expected to lose their views when the next street was built. The green belt saved those views and hugely increased the value of their property. They gradually learned to play the process of objection and appeal to halt unwelcome schemes. Councillors who defy their constituents get kicked out. Planning created a nationwide cartel, more powerful than trade unions or companies, the more so for being amorphous and ubiquitous.

Current remedies amount to tinkering. Theoretically maybe 1.5 million homes can be built on brownfield sites, but since 1998 that policy has failed to deliver. It remains at the mercy of nimbyism. So does social housing, as admirably illustrated by HBO’s new mini‑series Show Me a Hero, set in the New York suburb of Yonkers.

The green belt planning system must be dismantled and replaced with the bylaw system it superseded, which produced affordable housing in abundance.


Nidderdale Way

Easier said than done. That’s why Kate Barker has recently been shorter on solutions than analysis. There would be an outcry from the home-owning majority were the artificial shortage of land to be unblocked and the market flooded with truly affordable homes. Existing house prices would plummet and all mortgage holders would find themselves in negative equity. Housebuilders’ land banks would be worthless so they would go bankrupt.

Catch 22? Not quite. First, governments have frequently acted against over-mighty subjects, such as agricultural landlords in the 19th century or trade unions and commercial monopolies more recently. Second, because there is an (albeit unspoken) political consensus that ‘planning is the problem’, a cross-party majority could override the nimbys in favour of the disenfranchised. Third, Adam Smith himself acknowledged the disastrous consequences of introducing free trade at a stroke; protectionism must be dismantled gradually. Finally, the fourth estate should hammer home the case against green belt planning. Something like the Anti‑Corn Law League is needed to change public opinion.

Jules Lubbock is an emeritus professor at the University of Essex and an expert on architecture and urbanism

  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • Ben Derbyshire

    The CPRE and other protagonists are apt to view criticism of the quality of countryside as a Trojan horse for development interests. But in any event it’s not acceptable to put up with the examples of rural degradation that are often cited as reasons for doing away with it: the scruffy fields of rusty containers, the monocultural agri-business, the failing golf courses. We should reaffirm our commitment to protect and enhance the Green Belt with a new charter that enables investment in its natural resources.

    London has a duty to offset the environmental impact of its growing population. We must invest in biodiversity to bring back the stag beetles, hawk moths, hedgehogs and other species whose populations have collapsed during my lifetime. At the same time we should harness the opportunity for human well-being by improving access to and appreciation of the natural environment. An audit of the capacity of London’s unbuilt land would reveal different degrees of suitability for environmental enhancement.

    The London Society has been thinking for a century about improving the relationship between London's built footprint and its rural context, and since long before town and country planning was even invented. Now that we have had the benefit of planning for more than half that time, now that we understand so much more about the need to minimise and mitigate our impact on the environment, and now that London's population is growing at the rate of 300 people every day - surely we should be debating an appropriate redefinition of the interface between town and country.

    Of course we should examine whether a new boundary should be a concentric enlargement, alignment with transport infrastructure to create green wedges, or isolated islands within a green sea - why would we not?

    Ben Derbyshire,
    Managing Partner HTA Design LLP
    Chair, The Housing Forum.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs

AJ Jobs