Green Belt - what's it good for?

princeofpounds

Provocative title perhaps... I'm aware that green belt has the benefit of making sure there is green space around our cities. I live in a green belt, I like it.

However, when I got thinking about it, I started to wonder whether it's actually really the most intelligent way to be preserving and using green space.

- People talke a lot about preserving access to the countryside. It's actually an objective I agree with. But living in the greenbelt, I realise that actually it's really not that accessible at all, unless you just want to experience the countryside from your car. The vast majority of it is privately-owned and fenced off, with relatively few public footpaths.

Most people I know, if they want to enjoy the outdoors, end up going to one of the commons whether in the green belt or not, like Wimbledon common or Epping Forest. Or they end up going beyond the green belt to areas like the North Downs. Very few people actually get to enjoy the countryside in the green belt itself.

Wouldn't this social objective be better served by creating more common woodlands and heaths rather than preserving private farmer's fields in aspic?

- A similar argument goes for the ecological reasons for having a green belt. Most of the green belt ends up being monoculture grass for horse paddocks or similar, which has less ecological value than a garden.

- Some people support green belt for food security reasons.

Personally I think this is pretty nonsensical, because there is no serious food security issue in the UK based on land availability.

But in truth, much/most(?) of the green belt land is not used for intensive food production. Vast amounts of it are basically for equestrian use, as that is a higher-value activity given the accessibility.

Is it right that all the green belt is essentially doing is preserving land for Tarquin and Tamara's ponies?

- You'll also notice in the green belt that many of the so-called 'farms' in the green belt actually centre on other businesses. If they aren't equestrian stables, you'll frequently see them turning into mini scrapyards, or caravan storage sites (Sometimes with still-occupied caravans), builders yards or similar. Because of the bar on development, these activities are often being conducted in substandard facilities and actually blighting the lanscape they are supposed to preserve.

- There is another line of argument that it is important to preserve the rural character of the communities within the green belt.

But this doesn't really hold up. Why is it important to preserve the character of these villages, when it simply ends up displacing building to previously rural villages further out, or intensifying development in the previously-leafy suburbs?

Surely the green belt largely just acts as a 'NIMBY reserve' for rich commuters' housing?



I'd love to hear people's views on the subject. Personally I think the point about the use of commons is really important. The idea that the green belt itself provides accessible countryside is pretty much a fantasy, but I'd be a big supporter of creating more common spaces which can actually be used by the public.

Generali

...Absolutely Nothing! (Say it Again huh)

It's a stupid idea. The thought that you can limit the size of a city by diktat without forcing prices up is ridiculous.

princeofpounds

...Absolutely Nothing! (Say it Again huh)

Good god!

It's a stupid idea. The thought that you can limit the size of a city by diktat without forcing prices up is ridiculous.

True, but I'm open to the idea that there may be a social utility benefit to having the green space there that is worth some degree of accommodation price rises.

I'm approaching this less from a planning or house price angle, but more from the angle of how best to provide the benefits that the green belt is supposed to give us all. Surely it pretty much fails at all of them, except the opportunity for a scenic drive perhaps, relative to a commons-based concept?

WestonDave

Depends on its function - if its purely an arbitrary size limiter then its perhaps hard to defend but they sometimes have other reasons. For example part of the one around Bath stops Bath merging into Bristol. It is also there to protect a World Heritage site (the whole city of Bath is a WHS) by preventing a change which would see its setting go from being in a bowl of green topped hills to having those hills topped by buildings. So in our case the non planning benefits are the protection of heritage and also the retention of community by avoiding a smaller community being swallowed into a massive city. Now those may or may not be worth retaining if it means not building houses - however in practical terms if many more homes are built in Bath the central infrastructure already struggling under congestion and lack of space wouldn't cope with demand. Arguably therefore if there wasn't a greenbelt, planning would still need to consider the viability of more housing.


(Edited to add - when part of it was under threat recently one field was redesignated under the Town Green provisions so its long term use as an accessible green space has been formalised - picking up on the point about commons)

Generali

princeofpounds wrote: »

True, but I'm open to the idea that there may be a social utility benefit to having the green space there that is worth some degree of accommodation price rises.

I'm approaching this less from a planning or house price angle, but more from the angle of how best to provide the benefits that the green belt is supposed to give us all. Surely it pretty much fails at all of them, except the opportunity for a scenic drive perhaps, relative to a commons-based concept?

Think about around London, those bits of inner Kent for example. All the Green Belt does really is maintain a bunch of economically useless smallholdings, which bankers use to pass on wealth tax-free to their kids, and some quite pretty villages.

The benefits of being able to extend Bromley out as far as Sevenoaks would be huge. You could fit another 1-200,000 people in that space alone I would guess if you set plots at 400m^2. That's a pretty decent plot by English standards (~1/6th acre).

If the Government bought up the farm land via Dutch Auction and then sold it off in individual plots to people wanting to build, the profit realised could be used to upgrade local infrastructure, house price rises could moderate or prices could even fall a little. Builders and architects would get more work, people could live in nice new houses. What's not to like?

princeofpounds

If the Government bought up the farm land via Dutch Auction and then sold it off in individual plots to people wanting to build, the profit realised could be used to upgrade local infrastructure, house price rises could moderate or prices could even fall a little. Builders and architects would get more work, people could live in nice new houses. What's not to like?

Well I guess I'd have to find a new place to buy an economically useless smallholding... ;-)

Running_Horse

Have you ever visited New Jersey? Look at it on a map. Sure, the towns have names, but it is endless sprawl with no identity. People leave London for the Home Counties because they no longer wish to live in London. They don't expect London to follow them. It is great most people in this country live a few minutes from countryside.

Why does London need ever more housing? Because a huge percentage of its population has arrived from abroad. Is it sustainable to simply keep gobbling up surrounding green belt for a permanently expanding megalopolis? I would set the boundary of London at the M25. London could build as much or as little within that boundary as it needs or wishes, but leave the rest of us alone.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Think about around London, those bits of inner Kent for example. All the Green Belt does really is maintain a bunch of economically useless smallholdings, which bankers use to pass on wealth tax-free to their kids, and some quite pretty villages.

The benefits of being able to extend Bromley out as far as Sevenoaks would be huge. You could fit another 1-200,000 people in that space alone I would guess if you set plots at 400m^2. That's a pretty decent plot by English standards (~1/6th acre).

If the Government bought up the farm land via Dutch Auction and then sold it off in individual plots to people wanting to build, the profit realised could be used to upgrade local infrastructure, house price rises could moderate or prices could even fall a little. Builders and architects would get more work, people could live in nice new houses. What's not to like?

London has a massive demand issue; it's about making people realise they face difficult choices - a bit of green belt space or better property supply and a potential easing in prices and rent.

There are plans to build between 70K and 100K houses in the belt along the West Yorkshire corridor (Leeds, Bradford back to Manchester). That's a pragmatic response to rising demand; why can't a similar positive attitude be adopted in our capital?

kwmlondon

My feeling is that preserving the green belt isn't just about keeping some nice pretty spaces for us all go to picnicking in, but to maintain some kind of biodiversity close to us. It will help keep the air clean and the ground can absorb water so it will help lower the risk of flooding. Or rather, it ought to.

I would be happy for some considered development to take place on greenbelt land, but only if we ensure that there's infrastructure in place to serve the developments and the environmental impact understood.

I'm not being wishy-washy about the newts, I thinking about self-preservation - we need a diversity of wildlife to support bees as that's vital for pollination of crops (and London is excellent for bees because of all the railway lines so it's not like this is incompatible with development), land must be able to absorb the increase in rainfall that is occurring etc. Sustainability means making the environment fit for habitation for years to come.

Carl31

Why is there this view that we need to concrete over everything all the time? Why cant we just use the space that we have already set aside in a better fashion? Any building thats been left empty for a fixed period should be pulled down and the area better utilised, theres loads of empty shops and industrial units around, just use them up

princeofpounds

Interesting how this has immediately gone over to a housing vs. greenbelt debate, when really I meant it to be a greenbelt vs. something debate.

My feeling is that preserving the green belt isn't just about keeping some nice pretty spaces for us all go to picnicking in, but to maintain some kind of biodiversity close to us.

If you read my initial post, you'll realise that actually the green belt is pretty hopeless at providing biodiversity. Most of it is paddock land monoculture, which is just grass mown short by horses and the odd cow. The hedgerows have a bit of value, but that's about it.

It is great most people in this country live a few minutes from countryside.

I live in the middle of it. It's a bit of a fiction, as I said unless you are into driving or horse riding. It's mostly private fields that you cannot access. Most people looking for the countryside either go to one of the commons/heaths/woods, or zoom on past to the hills beyond. At weekends certain routes on the greenbelt just become trunk roads for people passing through.