As a practitioner of more than 48 years’ standing, it is obvious to me that the proposition we have heard for this same 48 years - that there are enough brownfield sites to be developed without having to release green-belt sites - is one of the nation’s most enduring myths.
For a site to be developed, it has to appeal to the developer; the developer in turn has to have confidence that there are people prepared (and can afford) to live in the area and that the local infrastructure is sufficient to satisfy their requirements also. These criteria do not apply to the majority of brownfield sites, which tend to be in areas where demand is weak or in remote or unattractive locations.
For every year I have been in practice the country has failed to deliver the amount of housing necessary to meet people’s needs. The deficit is cumulative, which simply makes the housing that does exist less and less affordable, and forces more people into overcrowded and otherwise unsatisfactory living conditions.
There is only one solution to the crisis: release land in the green belt. The original purpose of the green belt was to provide local access to fresh air to those who lived in post-war cities. But people’s lifestyles have changed considerably - increased mobility means it is no longer necessary to provide facilities on their doorsteps.
The green belt is now used as a self-serving weapon by Tory councils to push the people further and further away from themselves. This causes huge additional cost in transportation and creates an ever-growing divide in society. Worse still, those who defend this segregation mechanism and the preservation of a green belt that no longer serves its original purpose are able to feel morally good about using it.
Unless the green belt is removed in whole or substantially in part, the housing crisis is going to get worse. There is no other viable solution. This need not be armageddon. Much of the green belt is very ordinary land; some is despoiled and ugly. The landscapes that matter can be protected.
This country will never be competitive with the burgeoning economies of other countries while it has these nonsensical restrictions attached to building more housing on greenfield sites. Perhaps even more importantly, we will not fulfil our humanitarian obligations to those in great need and to those who provide much-needed public services to the nation if we fail to provide them with proper housing and the basic facilities and amenities to which they are entitled.
David Cooper, David Cooper & Co
No comments yet