The Liverpool View – Should we loosen our green belts?

Dr John Sturzaker is a Lecturer in the University of Liverpool’s Department of Geography and Planning

“The green belts are probably the only part of the planning system that most people have heard of, and there is a strong attachment to them.

This is reflected in the positions of the three mainstream political parties, with all of them pledging to preserve green belts – and the coalition Government claiming to have changed planning guidance to give them more protection than under Labour.

So how big are the green belts?

They are estimated to cover more than 13% of the land in England, and the green belt in the North West of England is more than 1,000 square miles in area. Much of this land plays an arguably important role in separating the cities of Liverpool and Manchester becoming one giant conurbation, but what is more surprising is that the green belt extends, for example, along the length of the Sefton coast so that land to the north of Southport is included within it. Is that what was intended when Green Belts were set up more than 50 years ago?

Local Authorities have been able to introduce green belts since the 1947 Town & Country Planning Act, and in 1955 were encouraged to do so by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, because of the importance of “checking the unrestricted sprawl of the built-up areas, and of safeguarding the surrounding countryside against further encroachment”.

Measured against that criterion, green belts appear to have worked – less than 10% of land in England is developed – i.e. built upon with houses, factories, roads, etc. Interestingly, surveys show that most people think this figure is much higher (more than half of people think it is 50% or more), which probably reflects the fact that most of us live and work in towns and cities so our everyday experience is dominated by the urban.

At the same time, most people think that the purpose of green belts is not to stop urban sprawl, but instead to protect the environment and wildlife. How effective are Green Belts against these criteria?

The evidence is more mixed – 7% of green belt land, for example, is developed (remembering that for England as a whole it’s only 10%), which suggests that it is not necessarily as “green” as we might expect. The Government’s nature watchdog Natural England has said that “Much green belt land is of uninspiring quality”.

So whilst green belts might be working well in limiting the growth of towns and cities, they are perhaps working less well in providing access to high quality green space for those who live in those towns and cities – something that is commonly understood to be good for our mental and physical wellbeing.

So are there any alternatives?

One might be to think, instead of green belts, of Green Wedges or Green Ways – areas of land that run through, rather than around, our urban areas. We could plan to link our existing green spaces, such as the tremendously well-used public parks in Liverpool, with new provision to link them together.Boston’s “Emerald Necklace”, a seven mile long linear park, is one famous example of this kind of approach.

Creating new parks might be one alternative use for the large areas of vacant land created by the (now abandoned) Housing Market Renewal programme, as part of which many houses in the inner-city of Liverpool and other northern towns and cities were demolished.

Parks and other green spaces within our cities are more easily accessible than the green belt or other areas of land beyond the urban area – particularly for people without a car. So a Green Wedge might be more effective in allowing us to access green space on a regular basis, and the difference in house prices between, say, Toxteth and Blundellsands suggests that turning derelict inner city land into green space and turning some green belt land into housing might make economic sense too.

But will any politician be brave enough to promote a more nuanced approach?

In opinion polls, up to 85% of people support green belts, which suggests not. Mind you, 67% of people opposed the sell-off of Royal Mail, so opinion polls don’t tell us everything!

Why not come along to the Camp and Furnace and have your say? Or follow the debate on Twitter (@livuniheseltine and #policyprov) if you can’t make it in person.”

Policy Provocations’ Should we loosen our green belts? debate takes place at the Camp and Furnace on Wednesday 13 November and features Naomi Luhde-Thompson, Planning and Policy Advisor, Friends of the Earth; Professor Ian Wray, Trustee, Town & Country Planning Association and Visiting Professor, University of Liverpool; Dave Rudlin, Director, URBED (Urbanism Environment and Design) Trust and Alex Morton, Head of Housing, Planning and Urban Policy, Policy Exchange.

For more information,and to book (free) tickets, visit: http://www.liv.ac.uk/events/policy-provocations/green-belts.php