Green Belt Policy is Not Fit for Purpose - Discuss

Someone once said to me that Green Belt was the one policy of which everyone was most aware but about which they knew the least. My conversations with both professionals and members of the public lead me to think that this hits the nail on the head. I think Green Belt is a much used and abused policy, especially by those who wish to use it to prevent new development. Now don’t get me wrong, despite the title, I’m not suggesting we get rid of Green Belt altogether or that we build on greenfield land before we build on brownfield sites. I have no intention of throwing that particular baby out with the bathwater. I don’t think that the principle of Green Belt (or similar) is irrelevant, I just think we need to review the details of the policy and how it is applied.

The following is my opinion. It is my professional opinion based on undertaking various Green Belt reviews for both private clients and other, larger, landscape practices and is born out of a concern about the way in which we develop and the way it impacts upon our crowded little island. There are two strands to this argument: a higher argument about the suitability of Green Belt as a whole and how we apply it; and the principles of the new Garden Cities supported by the coalition government and highlighted by such as the Wolfson Prize and how they impact upon the Green Belt.

As part of this exploration, I want to explore the following questions/issues:

·         The purposes of Green Belt need to be clarified for the general public and possibly professionals too – apparently they don’t all read the NPPF on a regular basis;

·         Green Belt is not a quality designation;

·         Green Belt is a blanket policy and is not as effective in some areas as it is on others;

·         The usefulness of Green Belt on urban fringes is being eroded along with its boundaries so that it’s not achieving what is intended;

·         Many Green Belts either lack defensible boundaries or include land which is not required, due to the use of historic boundaries;

·         Unlike LVIA, there is no guidance on methodology for Green Belt Review and no recommendation as to who should undertake them;

·         People who write GBR are rarer than those who write LVIA who, in turn, are rarer than rocking horse poo.

All of this leads on to the following point:

If we’re going to remove land from the Green Belt, why not do it in a single planned way in an area where that land is making less of a contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, rather than hacking away at the edge of towns and further separating people from the countryside?

Discussion

The NPPF devotes a whole chapter to Green Belt issues, stating ‘the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.’ It should be noted that the ‘permanence’ bit is a new addition since PPG2 and is debatable; in fact we are having that debate right now.

Next is the crux of the whole thing: the purposes of the Green Belt.

‘Green Belt serves five purposes:

·         To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

·         To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

·         To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

·         To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

·         To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.’

The last purpose is a key issue and links to the principle that brownfield land should be developed first before greenfield land. When comparing greenfield sites for potential development, this purpose is equally applicable to all and is usually scoped out of any assessment.

Although the NPPF states that, once Green Belts have been defined, local authorities should plan to enhance the beneficial use of the land through increased access, providing opportunities for recreation and to improve the landscape and biodiversity. There is no obligation for them to do so and no recourse if they don’t. Green Belt is not a quality designation. They may contain schools, allotments or even nurseries and areas of stabling for horses. Although these things sound green and pleasant, the reality is that they are often not. Schools contain a variety of buildings of varying quality and often other built structures which can form visual detractors. Many schools have little space which is ‘natural’ and may be limited to mown playing fields and a few lollipop trees. Allotments, whilst wonderful, can often contain visual detractors, albeit it on a smaller scale. Nurseries are no longer rows and rows of lovely green plants but may contain vast areas of polytunnels and greenhouses in varying states of repair. Stable areas are often scrappy and visually detracting with few landscape features and boundaries made up of post and wire or other materials. None of these areas will necessarily contribute to landscape character and may even detract. Green Belt is not necessarily pretty and is not necessarily publically accessible.

Green Belts, according to the NPPF, are not to include land ‘which it is unnecessary to keep open’ but, unless land is under pressure for development, no-one reviews these things. Areas of land are included within the Green Belt which are not necessary, unlikely to be a significant proportion, but they are there. In my experience, this has often stemmed from another key element of Green Belts: boundaries. Green Belt boundaries should be defined clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.’ Such boundaries are often referred to as being ‘defensible.’ The extents of many Green Belts were defined in the 1950s when many current defensible boundaries did not exist. I assessed an area of land where the railway line was the defensible boundary. Since the land was designated, someone built the M6, a fairly substantial defensible boundary. The land between the two transport routes is still allocated as Green Belt but performs none of the functions of the designation. In this case, it is the M6 which prevents sprawl and which protects the countryside from encroachment and not the railway line or the land in between. Now this isn’t to say that this land is not attractive and that it is suitable for development: that is a separate issue. What it does say is that it is not necessary for this land to be included within the Green Belt.

The Green Belt does bring people closer to the countryside, or at least that is the theory. By keeping development in check, the theory is that there will be open countryside close to people’s homes. However, if we keep eroding at the edges of the Green Belt with piecemeal (albeit considered) release, people will gradually become further distanced from the countryside. This is part of the argument behind Green Wedge theory, i.e. that ‘fingers’ of green belt should extend into settlements, ensuring that, however much a settlement extends, there will always be open space nearby. By continually nibbling at the edge of the Green Belt, we make it less effective and take it further away from communities.