Time to buckle down on green belt?
Tuesday 9th July, 2002
The time may have come to think the unthinkable about London's green and pleasant land. The mutually reinforcing problems of a shortage of homes and spiralling prices may finally force politicians into an assault on the much cherished green belt. Such ideas have been a policy no-go zone for decades. But unless radical solutions are considered, misery lies ahead for many lower-paid workers. Worse still, the capital's economy will be undermined.
It is easier to work out why London has such eyewatering housing costs than to propose palatable solutions. The British love for houses with gardens (coupled with an profoundly anti-urban distaste for flats) has made London a city with a tiny centre and massive, sprawling, suburbs. Even the names of the Tube stations in these suburbs - Arnos Grove, Mill Hill, Colliers Wood, Shepherd's Bush, Roding Valley or Parsons Green - are evidence of the aspirations of Londoners who moved out.
By far the most effective possible solution to London and the South-East's housing shortages and high prices would be the release of more land for development. Put brutally, is the green belt sacrosanct? However aesthetically desirable it is for London to have a bucolic doughnut, is it rational or fair in a part of the country with such high housing costs?
Efforts to protect green land extend well beyond the formal green belt which runs around the capital. The counties surrounding London have generally sought (with public support) to minimise incursions into agricultural land on the edges of towns and villages. Understandably, people who overlook the countryside want to keep their views.
But there is a cost to protecting green fields in the South-East. By rationing land, the value of existing housing is forced upwards, while those who do not own homes become relatively ever-poorer.
Even ardent green belt supporters know some of it is "grey" or "brown" rather than green. West of London, in an arc from Guildford to Watford, the countryside was eroded even before protective legislation was passed. Would similar levels of development to the east or south really be so dreadful?
Perhaps they would. In an apathetic age, few subjects stir voters more than a housingled threat to green fields. But if we are to keep every square inch of green belt, while also demanding houses with gardens, no intensification and maintaining snailspace planning rules, we will inevitably see sky-high prices.
Collectively, this may benefit existing property-owners. But for those trapped against their will in rented housing, or no housing, it will mean continuing misery.
Something will have to give - maybe the green belt.