Greenbelt - Greenfield
Those who have studied economics at some time will realise that there is a relationship between housing stock and land. In a large country like the USA, where there are wide expanses of land available, the cost of accommodation is not that high because there is little competition for the value of the land. On the other hand, in England a high price is placed on good building land, especially in the south-east of the country. This is because England is a small country with limited land available for building houses upon, unless we venture into the green belt - but should houses be built on green belt land at all?
The idea of a 'green belt' - a belt of land around a town or city which should remain undeveloped and unspoilt - is not new. It first gained prominence as long ago as 1902, when Ebenezer Howard put it forward as part of his garden cities plan. It remained a rather remote idea until 1938 when the pressures of housing development turned it from an ideal into a necessity.
The 'Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938' promoted the idea of a green belt around London. The preamble of the act stated that its intention was:
".to make provision for the preservation from industrial or building development of areas of land in and around the administrative county of London to confer powers for that purpose upon the London County Council and certain other authorities and persons and for other purposes."
Today the green belt is a 4.5 million acre ribbon of land surrounding the country's major cities. Although in theory green belt land should not be developed except in very special circumstances, in practice some of the land has been used for housing development. The pressure of an expanding population, which in turn creates pressures on housing, has made such development inevitable.
The green belt is of course a sensitive issue, but the argument at its core is straightforward enough: should the green belts be maintained, or should they give way to the need for more housing?
The argument for maintaining green belts is that they represent a relatively unspoilt part of the environment and make towns and cities a better place in which to live. Pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth subscribe to this view as do a vast number of the general public.
However, the argument against green belt land is that there is greater need for housing development than there is for unspoilt countryside. Certainly this is the view of property developers, who might also argue that houses could be constructed more quickly and more cheaply in green belt areas, using economies of scale. Presumably it is also the view of those who would like to move to a new house, rather than stay cooped up in old cities. Another argument against the green belt is that, if it were opened up for development it would provide not only housing but also an outlet for industry, and therefore result in the creation of new jobs.
The real certainty about the green belt land is that the pressure to develop is growing rapidly and the latest government housing target will be difficult to meet without substantial development on such land. Some say that given the rising population and increasing housing need green belt development is almost inevitable.
