A thinner green belt, but a bigger green heart

In 2001, I submitted an essay to the great European planner Andreas Faludi entitled “The Netherlands’ attachment to the green heart”. The premise was much the same as today’s UK-based debate about the green belt. The recent report by the London School of Economics calling for a serious review of London’s green belt brought back all the old memories of the essay, whose premise was the need to protect the rural area that separates Rotterdam, The Hague, Leiden, Haarlem, Amsterdam and Utrecht. Like the heart, the belt is a simple, easily understandable concept which, along with affordable housing, grabs headlines in a way that more technical, complex town planning issues do not. People visualise the green belt as open green fields that protect England’s green and pleasant land from the dreaded urban sprawl. In reality, some of the land within it fulfils none of the purpose that was originally intended for it. However, due to its relative simplicity and political support for its continued use by successive governments, the green belt is arguably one of the most effective tools in the current planning system in terms of achieving what has become its primary purpose of maintaining “openness” and containing urban areas. Much like the green heart, the belt’s success stems from the easy public consumption of a metaphor embedded in the naming. But has the metaphor been a victim of its own success? Has the original idea of a green belt lost its meaning and its identity? As all planning experts know, paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the five tests for including land in the holiest of the holy green belt. This is not a witch hunt. As a bona fide planning geek it is a point of pride that a planning tool has been so effective. But the question remains: is the green belt still fit for purpose? I share the LSE view that some of it is and some of it is not. What is required is a strategic review looking at which parts are not performing. The future of non-performing pieces of green belt land must be debated without politicians feeling the heat of an overbearing metaphor affecting their decision. Taking London as an example, with a new London Plan being prepared, a frequent question being asked is: “up or out?” Density in the outer boroughs or release of poor green belt land? With housing such a critical issue in the capital, the answer must be “both”. Cheaper development costs on greenfield sites mean more affordable housing (big tick for London mayor Sadiq Khan, and rightly so), meeting the ideals of larger family houses with gardens and more density in the outer boroughs as PRS becomes more prominent in desirable areas, bolstering housing numbers.  But the issues don’t end there. Khan wants a greener, cleaner London. London’s industrial estates and protected employment areas in central London would make fabulous residential sites that could help meet the growing demand for housing. But you can’t just displace these industrial buildings and hope a solution presents itself to meet the needs of industrial developers. They need to be encouraged to up sticks and leave the lucrative playground of central London.  Top of their list would be sites closer to the M25. But what protects development from the glamour of the world’s biggest loopy car park? Our old friend the green belt!    So, can we release the less sensitive areas of the green belt to reduce industrial travel times (the industrial life blood of this country), free up high-density sites in central London, and reduce carbon emissions, while creating more jobs in the outer boroughs so they don’t become dormitory towns? We all want a place to live, work and play and the green belt has been instrumental in assisting at least one of these desires. But it is now preventing the other two. If the success of the green belt has been in the metaphor, perhaps it is time we changed it. How about less belt and more green hearts? Jonathan Stoddart is senior planning director at CBRE