Yet again there are new threats to the already massively shrunken Green Belts. Labour leader Keir Starmer has said that, as prime minister, he would permit further encroachment. He has been joined by the ‘Observer’s’ architectural and planning critic, Rowan Moore (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/21/keir-starmer-labour-housebuilding-green-belts-new-towns ). Sadly, it is not surprising that the Green Party, national or locally, has failed to challenge such arguments and take up the cudgels on behalf of critical green spaces.
Since the war, a giant chunk has been bitten out of the countryside. The total area of rural land lost to urban use between 1945-1990 was equal to an area the size of Greater London, Berkshire, Herefordshire and Oxfordshire combined. The loss of agricultural land to development is continuing with about 11,000 hectares developed from 2001-2009. It has gone on:https://www.cpre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CPRE-State-of-the-Green-Belt-report_February-2021.pdf and, for just London, https://londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk/number-of-threats-to-londons-green-belt-doubles-in-just-one-year/ .
Of course there is the idiotic argument that urban areas still only occupy a small percentage of total land mass. But that is to ignore the simple fact of life that the built-up area has an ecological footprint far, far bigger than the space it actually sits upon, ie appropriated carrying capacity. [See the diagram here for an assessment of London’s metabolism’: https://archive.metabolismofcities.org/publication/414 ]
Green Belts have acted as a barrier to slow down such losses.
It is true, of course, that many patches of Green Belts in the UK are not very green in the sense of being covered with verdant woodland, flowering meadows, ponds and so forth. The challenge is not to cover such land, no matter how degraded, with more tarmac, brick and concrete. Rather, it is to restore such areas to ecological vitality.
It is also true most farmland is very inhospitable to wildlife due to chemicalised monocultures, planting cycles, and intensive biocide spraying. But, again, the real challenge is to switch to more sustainable forms of food production, not to facilitate more urban sprawl (and, in practice, greater car dependency).
We ignore the value of all farmland at our peril. Back in 2009, the former chief government scientist Sir John Beddington warned that any current food problems, not least rising prices, are only a mild foretaste of the storm to come, suggesting a crunch year of 2030. All the signs are that Beddington’s prognosis was all too correct. Studies such as Cambridge University’s ‘The Best Use of UK Agricultural Land’ report have confirmed the robust nature of such warnings.
The issue is not just the very best agricultural land. Such reports highlight the importance of conserving ALL agricultural land. The issue is not just the loss of this or that single field for another housing estate. Rather it is the cumulative losses and their consequences that really count. Every little does indeed help and especially so in a world where human numbers press yet more heavily on a shrinking agricultural resource base. We cannot assume that past patterns of food imports can be sustained.
Take the fields next to Heathery Lane in north Gosforth, Newcastle, part of the city’s Green Belt. It is not the best land but it is still good wheat land, yielding some 9 tonnes per hectare), or approximately a total harvest of 270 tonnes per annum. This roughly amounts to enough wheat for over 1,000 households. Human consumption of wheat in the UK is 6.35 million tonnes a year, which works out at almost exactly a quarter of a ton for every household (assuming 2.4 persons). Yet Newcastle Council and Persimmon planned to cover that land with housing (which would have also threatened Gosforth Nature Reserve by its very proximity.
Green Belt critics such as Rowan Moore portray such protection as some sort of sacred cow, best sacrificed. Yet, in lieu of anything better, Green Belts remain the best defence we’ve currently got against urban sprawl, arguably the biggest land use disaster since World War 2 (see: https://scholarworks.harding.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=tenor ). Of course, developers can ‘jump’ Green Belts and buy up cheaper land beyond. But Moore does not address the fundamental problem of land ownership, and associated exorbitant value, not least within the Green Belt eg https://whoownsengland.org/2017/10/28/who-owns-central-london/
We need land reform, not destruction of open land. A walk around most cities will reveal how much land is wasted on quite unnecessary, indeed irrational, ways, often sacrificed on the altar of the private motor car (eg https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/property-news/world-car-free-day-2019-80-000-homes-could-be-built-on-london-car-parking-spaces-within-a-mile-of-a-tube-or-train-station-a133491.html ) We should be targeting such land abuse, including wasted space above current buildings, empty properties, car parks, and truly derelict land (as opposed to sites colonised by wildlife).
In other words, we should be looking at the sustainable redevelopment of the existing built-up area, not its expansion (https://edmontonsocialplanning.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/edmontonsocialplanning.ca_joomlatools-files_docman-files_E.-URBAN-ISSUES_E.01-PLANNING_2010-sustainable_city.pdf ). We should be seeking to replicate some of the more imaginative schemes such as: (more background here: https://www.greencitytimes.com/europe-s-most-sustainable-city/https://www.academia.edu/7662360/THE_SUSTAINABLE_URBAN_DISTRICT_OF_VAUBAN_IN_FREIBURG_GERMANY ); https://za.allacortedifederico.com/2802-clichy-batignolles-paris-miniature-eco-city-of-the-fu.html and https://www.treehugger.com/plan-build-15-minute-city-wins-design-award-6754866 . There will be some densification, but always remembering the Goldilocks principle: not too big, not too small, not too high, not too low density…
But housing problems can be but aggravated from too many people seeking accommodation, ie population levels (https://populationmatters.org/news/2018/08/population-growth-puts-green-belts-under-housing-pressure/ ), However, if net migration continues to run at the high level recorded in 2019 – 263,000 additional people a year – then there will be demand for 27.9million homes in 2043, an increase of 4.7million. Immigration accounts for 57 per cent of additional homes projected to be needed under the high migration scenario.
But debate on immigration has degenerated into arguments about just labour supply. Ecological impact and sustainable provision of housing, schooling, and other such basic requirements are left out of the picture. Ecology must come before economy for anything to be sustainable. Rational discussion is however prevented by accusations of racism, nationalism and the like. Debate about planning controls such as Green Belts is also hindered by similarly lazy smears such as ‘Nimby’. So here is a good response, albeit using the situation in Canada where there is tidal wave of sprawl in areas such as Lower Ontario and the Fraser Valley: https://populationinstitutecanada.ca/in-praise-of-nimby/
Sandy Irvine's green blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.