Green belts, grey belts, brown fields, red tape

Battle lines are drawn, and the exchange of slogans has begun. For Labour it’s “builders not blockers”, the Conservatives reply with “protect our greenbelt”. But will this binary debate really lead to a sensible balance between the complex demands of housing, farming, green spaces, and economic growth?

The idea of greenbelts originated with the 19th century social reformer Octavia Hill, who also co-founded the National Trust. A great advocate of social housing, she was motivated by a deep concern for the people working in those dark satanic mills, so recently exiled from England’s green and pleasant land. The idea was taken up in the 1930s to limit urban sprawl and fragmentation of green space due to ribbon development along London’s main transport routes. There are now fourteen greenbelts in England including substantial areas around Newcastle-Gateshead.

The term “greybelt” was coined by Keir Starmer to describe areas of poor-quality land within notional greenbelt boundaries but lacking significant agricultural or amenity value. Actual examples included a petrol station forecourt and a disused car park. Brownfield land is disused, contaminated urban land which needs specialist treatment before it can be developed.

People are naturally very protective of greenbelts, especially if they are fortunate enough to live in or close to them, so it is right to build houses on brownfield or greybelt land wherever possible. There is, however, a real housing crisis, and home ownership or even affordable rent has become an impossible dream for many. Housebuilders and politicians have identified planning red tape as the main obstacle to solving this crisis. How can these competing demands be balanced?

Environmentalist Tony Juniper, chair of Natural England, suggests that "The green belt should not be sacrosanct. England could end up with less greenbelt than it has currently, but better quality......quite a lot [of greenbelts] are pretty bereft of wildlife and not very accessible. Some of them are not producing much food either.”

Contrary to Conservative claims, there are no “Labour plans to build on Ponteland’s greenbelt”, but there is an urgent need for more homes. With a different style of politics could communities agree how to meet this need with carbon neutral housing designed actually to improve the environment, biodiversity and access to green space?

Bob Turner