Misplaced Pages

#698301

64-550: The Metropolitan Green Belt is a statutory green belt around London , England. It comprises parts of Greater London , Berkshire , Buckinghamshire , Essex , Hertfordshire , Kent and Surrey , parts of two of the three districts of Bedfordshire and a small area in Copthorne , Sussex . As of 2017/18, Government statistics show the planning designation covered 513,860 hectares (1,269,800 acres) of land. For some years after 1580 Elizabeth I of England banned new building in

128-648: A 'green web' to replace the green belt in some locations. The ambition is to create a "multifunctional green infrastructure landscape" in which new-build and publicly accessible natural space sat side by side. Research undertaken by the London School of Economics in 2016 suggests that by 1979, the area covered by green belt in England comprised 721,500 hectares, and by 1993, this had been extended to 1,652,310 hectares. Several academics, policy groups and town planning organisations in recent years have criticised

192-536: A belt of all undeveloped land. As to London it was idealised to extend to land not earmarked for building "7 to 10 miles deep all around the built-up area of Greater London". New provisions for compensation in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 allowed local authorities to incorporate green belt proposals in their first development plans . The codification of Green Belt policy and its extension to areas other than London came with Sandys' annexed Circular 42/55 urging

256-625: A belt of some 7–10 miles wide). The motives for a green belt around London were not just environmental, Frank Pick the CEO of the London Passenger Transport Board made an economic case; he believed that London Underground had a finite potential capacity which would be breached by the growth of the city's population and overall physical size. Pick presented this case to the Barlow Commission (Royal Commission on

320-585: A belt of up to six miles, 9.7 km wide). After passage of the Green Belt Act 1938 , it took 14 years for the elected local authorities responsible for the area around London to define the area on scaled maps with some precision. Following the establishment of the belt around London, feedback being received, and statements and debates in the House of Commons, other authorities nationwide were similarly encouraged in 1955 by Minister Duncan Sandys to designate

384-487: A countryside interest group, Campaign to Protect Rural England ( CPRE ) continue to group these into 14 green belt areas, the North West green belt encompassing three urban cores. The area designated as green belt land in England as at 12 October 2023 was estimated at 1,638,420 hectares, about 13 per cent of the land area. The distribution of green belt designated land by region of England as in 2003, 2013 and 2023

448-645: A county which has never contributed to present definition of London and has just 3 local government units. Four of five districts in Buckinghamshire, 4 of 6 in Berkshire, 9 of 14 in Essex, 7 of 13 in Kent, 18 of the 32 London boroughs, and 1 of the 13 Sussex districts/boroughs/unitary authorities has Green Belt. Green belt (United Kingdom) The Metropolitan Green Belt around London was first proposed by

512-468: A more flexible policy which would allow the introduction of green wedge and strategic gap policies rather than green belts, and so permit the expansion of some urban areas. In October 2007, Sir Martin Doughty , then Chair of Natural England , argued for a review of green belts, saying: "The time has come for a greener green belt. We need a 21st century solution to England's housing needs which puts in place

576-428: A need to be met in locations with appropriate environmental capacity". The Economist has criticised green belt policy, saying that unless more houses are built through reforming planning laws and releasing green belt land, then housing space will need to be rationed out. In March 2014, it was noted that if general inflation had risen as fast as housing prices had since 1971, a chicken would cost £51; and that Britain

640-583: A network of green wedges, gaps and corridors, linking the natural environment and people.". Similarly, the London Society published a comprehensive history of the green belt (as it emerged in the first part of the twentieth century) in 2014. Authored by the influential English urbanist Jonathan Manns, this called for a "move away from the simplistic and naïve idea that countryside is a sacrosanct patchwork of medieval hedgerows and towards an empirically informed position which once more recognises housing as

704-611: A paper under its core ethos of economic liberalism challenging the goals of nature and environmental protection groups who advocate greater urban density . The paper highlighted the Metropolitan Green Belt had land to build a million typical closer London fringe (low-to-medium) density homes within ten minutes walk (800m) of existing train stations, specifically circa 20,000 hectares (77 sq mi). It critiqued 10,000 hectares (39 sq mi) of golf course land. The Royal Town Planning Institute commissioned

SECTION 10

#1732765229699

768-560: A railway station actually travelled to London by train on a regular basis with the vast majority (72%) travelling by private vehicle to jobs in their hometown and to other places not within London. Thus the proposal put forward in the Adam Smith report could result in 3.96 to 7.45 million additional car journeys per week on already congested roads around London. CPRE say it is a myth to connect green belts to rising house prices, since there

832-476: A reserve supply of public open spaces and of recreational areas and to establish a green belt or girdle of open space". It was again included in an advisory Greater London Plan prepared by Patrick Abercrombie in 1944 (which sought a belt of up to six miles wide). However, it was some 14 years before the elected local authorities responsible for the area around London had all defined the area on scaled maps with some precision (encouraged by Duncan Sandys to designate

896-558: A three-mile wide belt around the City of London , in an attempt to stop the spread of plague. However, this was not widely enforced, relatively short-lived and it was possible to buy dispensations which reduced the effect. The concept was also inspired by those elsewhere in Europe, one being inner buffer zones and broad boulevards to separate non-ancient parts. One re-used extensive ramparts more like protective fields to serve old city walls ,

960-460: Is "building less homes today than at any point since the 1920s". According to the Institute of Economic Affairs , there is "overwhelming empirical evidence that that planning restrictions have a substantial impact on housing costs" and are the main reason why housing is two and a half times more expensive in 2011 than it was in 1975. The free market Adam Smith Institute is a particular critic of

1024-534: Is an important element of sustainable development and makes an essential contribution to Scotland's economy and cultural heritage.” The term emerged from continental Europe where broad boulevards were increasingly used to separate new development from the centre of historic towns; most notably the Ringstraße in Vienna . Various proposals were put forward from 1890 onwards but the first to garner widespread support

1088-588: Is clear that the purpose of green belt designation in the development plan as part of the settlement strategy for an area is to: However, the Scottish Government recognises that certain types of development might actually promote and support appropriate rural diversification: The Government requires that locally established green belt plans: maintain the identity of a city by the clearly establishing physical boundaries and preventing coalescence; provide countryside for recreation of denizens; and maintain

1152-661: Is no clear difference in house prices between cities with green belts and cities without them, and both land and house prices are inflated by other factors such as investment. Lewis Abbott has identified green belt barriers to urban expansion as one of several major protectionist political-economic barriers to house building with negative effects on the supply, cost/prices, and quality of new homes. (The others include new housing development taxes and quasi-taxes; political discrimination against particular classes of new housing supplier, household consumer, and housing product; and controls on housing technical-product development – in particular,

1216-535: Is payable, the amount has been agreed by the developer in over 95 per cent of the cases". Where the landowner refused to sell land at the "undeveloped" price, the Central Land Board had authority to purchase it compulsorily and resell it to the developer. In order to assist local authorities to carry out major redevelopment, the Act provided for extensive government grants. The Treasury would pay 50% to 80% of

1280-805: Is set out in Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 21, published by the Scottish Government in February 2010. On 29 November, the Government published "Green Belt Policy in Scotland 10/85" As of 2010 Scotland had 10 green belt areas: Aberdeen , Ayr , Clackmannanshire , East Lothian , Edinburgh , Falkirk and Grangemouth , Greater Glasgow , Midlothian and Stirling . There are also plans for green belts around Dunfermline , Perth and St Andrews . The Scottish Government

1344-596: Is the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 , supported by the National Policy Framework. In Northern Ireland it is the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 . The act established that planning permission was required for land development; ownership alone no longer conferred the right to develop the land. To control this, the Act reorganised

SECTION 20

#1732765229699

1408-621: The Ringstraße , in inner Vienna before 1900 in which numerous parks have been laid out. The first major proposals for a green belt were put forward from 1890 onward, but the first to garner widespread support was put forward by the London Society (LS) in its Development Plan of Greater London 1919. The LS, alongside the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), first lobbied for a belt (initially of up to two miles wide) to prevent urban sprawl, beyond which new development could occur; this

1472-569: The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947 ( 10 & 11 Geo. 6 . c. 53) was the foundation of modern town and country planning in the United Kingdom . Today the main statutes in England and Wales are the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 , supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) introduced in 2012. In Scotland the main statute

1536-735: The 21st century. However, while in general these concepts are quite distinct in the UK from the green belt as a statutory development plan designation, an exception occurs in London where land may be designated as " Metropolitan Open Land " (MOL). Areas of MOL are subject to the same planning restrictions as the green belt while lying within the urban area. In 2005, the European Commission 's COST Action C11 ( COST European Cooperation in Science and Technology) undertook in-depth city case studies into cities across 15 European countries. Sheffield

1600-503: The Building In The Green Belt? report to look into the commuting patterns in London's metropolitan green belt, to test the claims made in the Adam Smith report. Their study found only 7.4% of commuters, who lived near a railway station actually travelled to London by train on a regular basis with the vast majority (72%) travelling by private vehicle to jobs in their hometown and to other places not within London. Thus

1664-802: The Clerk of the Council of all local planning authorities (impliedly who had not done so already) to establish Green Belts "wherever it is desirable....(a) to check further growth of a large built-up area; (b) to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another ; or (c) preserve the special character of a town." This decision was made in tandem with the New Towns Act 1946 ( 9 & 10 Geo. 6 . c. 68), which accompanied other acts turning to commercial use or low density bomb-stricken parts of Inner London, providing new homes for residents in districts of Outer London which would accept social housing and founding

1728-519: The French government major policies to reduce "regional disparity". Labour's Attlee ministry acted similarly in Britain, first enacting the New Towns Act 1946 ( 9 & 10 Geo. 6 . c. 68) and issuing Circulars and Planning Policies for local government councils to implement including accelerating the designation of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The first policy groundwork to the Metropolitan Green Belt

1792-665: The Geographical Distribution of the Industrial Population) , arguing that if London's radius grew beyond 12–15 miles, the capital's commuter infrastructure could not cope in financial or capacity terms, to the detriment of city's overall economy. He instead made the case for a number of economically self-sufficient new towns beyond a new green belt. New provisions for compensation in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 allowed local authorities around

1856-552: The Greater London Regional Planning Committee in 1935. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 then allowed local authorities to include green belt proposals in their development plans. In 1955, Minister of Housing Duncan Sandys encouraged local authorities around the country to consider protecting land around their towns and cities by the formal designation of clearly defined green belts. Green belt policy has been criticised for reducing

1920-532: The Labour government announced plans to prioritise building on "poor quality and ugly areas" within England's green belt, including brownfield sites, which it termed the "grey belt". Wales has one green belt, between the cities of Cardiff and Newport . Northern Ireland has 30 green belt areas, accounting for approximately 226,600 hectares, about 16 percent of its total area. Green belt policy in Scotland

1984-453: The NPPF's detailed advice when considering whether to permit additional development in the green belt. In the green belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development, unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated to show that the benefits of the development will outweigh the harm caused to the green belt. The NPPF sets out what would constitute appropriate development in

Metropolitan Green Belt - Misplaced Pages Continue

2048-634: The amount of land available for building and therefore pushing up house prices, as 70% of the cost of building new houses is the purchase of the land (up from 25% in the late 1950s). The government formerly set out its policies and principles towards green belts in England and Wales in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts , but this planning guidance was superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012. Planning authorities are strongly urged to follow

2112-401: The annual expenditure for the first five years, depending on the financial situation of the authority; in exceptional cases, this could be increased to eight years. In areas of significant war damage, the rate was set at 90% of expenditure. After this initial period grants would continue, at a lower rate (50% in war-damaged areas, variable for others), for sixty years. Local authorities were given

2176-412: The areas designated as the Metropolitan Green Belt in 2014. Between 2009 and 2014 there was a reduction of 435 hectares (1,070 acres; 1.68 sq mi). By 2014 the only Inner London Borough to have had Green Belt, Greenwich , had lost its few acres of green belt designation. Every borough or equivalent district of the reduced counties of Surrey and Hertfordshire has Green Belt as does Bedfordshire,

2240-402: The blocking of innovative low-cost house building using new materials and production technologies). Abbott argues that the greenbelts actually defeat their own stated objective of saving the countryside and open spaces. By preventing existing towns and cities from extending normally and organically, they result in more land-extensive housing developments further out – i.e., the establishment beyond

2304-639: The city's green belt in 2014 with publication of a report entitled "Green Sprawl". Other organisations, including the Planning Officers Society, have since responded with specific calls for a review and proposals to balance land release with environmental protection. In 2016, the London Society and the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for London's Planning and Built Environment published plans for

2368-682: The country to incorporate green belt proposals in their first development plans . The codification of Green Belt policy and its extension to areas other than London came with the historic Circular 42/55 inviting local planning authorities to consider the establishment of green belts. This decision was made in tandem with the 1946 New Towns Act, which sought to depopulate urban centres in the South East of England and accommodate people in new settlements elsewhere. Green belt could therefore be designated by local authorities without worry that it would come into conflict with pressure from population growth. As

2432-607: The green belt, and has claimed that removing the green belt from land within ten minutes walk of a railway station would release enough land to build 1 million homes. In response to the claims made by the Adams Smith Institute, the Royal Town Planning Institute commissioned the Building In The Green Belt? report to look into the commuting patterns in London's metropolitan green belt. The study found only 7.4% of commuters, who lived near

2496-489: The green belt. According to the NPPF, there are five stated purposes of including land within the green belt: Once an area of land has been defined as green belt, the stated opportunities and benefits include: Although 16 city and town urban cores are identified by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) who are the present central government department maintaining responsibility for green belts,

2560-472: The greenbelts of new communities with lower building densities, their own built infrastructure and other facilities, and greater dependence on cars and commuting, etc. Meanwhile, valuable urban green space and brownfield sites best suited to industry and commerce are lost in existing conurbations as more and more new housing is crammed into them. Commentators such as Alan Evans and Tom Papworth have called for outright abolition of green belts, principally on

2624-664: The grounds that by inhibiting the free use of land they restrict home ownership. However, in England, where 65% of people are property-owners who benefit from scarcity of building land, the concept of "green belt" has become entrenched as a fundamental part of government policy, and the possibility of reviewing boundaries is often viewed with considerable hostility by environmental charities, neighbouring communities and their elected representatives. The general concept of "green belt" has evolved in recent years to encompass "Greenspace" and "Greenstructure", taking into account urban greenspace, an important aspect of sustainable development in

Metropolitan Green Belt - Misplaced Pages Continue

2688-413: The idea and implementation of green belts in the UK. Green belt policy has been attacked as too rigid in the face of new urban and environmental challenges, principally the lack of housing available in many cities in the UK. The policy has been criticised for reducing the amount of land available for building and therefore pushing up house prices, as 70% of the cost of building new houses is the purchase of

2752-473: The initial price and the final value of the land. This charge was not payable in all cases – for example, cottages for agricultural workers, or limited enlargements to houses, were exempt. These charges were theoretically assessed by the Central Land Board , but it was intended that local district valuers would work with developers to agree a fair value; it was reported in 1949 that "where [a charge]

2816-418: The land (up from 25% in the late 1950s). It has also been claimed that areas of green belt can be of unremarkable environmental quality, and may not be well managed or provide the recreational opportunities originally envisaged. The Town and Country Planning Association , an organisation heavily involved in initiating the concept several decades previously, published a policy statement in 2002, which proposed

2880-526: The landscape setting of the city in question. In its Planning Policy (129), the Scottish Government states that: “All public bodies, including planning authorities, have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, and this should be reflected in development plans and development management decisions. Biodiversity is important because it provides natural services and products that we rely on,

2944-400: The latter the beginning of the modern listed building system. The act provided that all development values were vested in the state, with £300 million set aside for compensation of landowners. Any land would be purchased by a developer at its existing-use value; after permission to develop was granted, the developer would be assessed a "development charge" based on the difference between

3008-404: The most affected areas, think the trend towards ever taller, bolder skyscrapers has gone too far. More than 400 buildings of more than 20 floors in 2016 were tentatively proposed by developers in London. Among respondents, six out of ten backed a limit on the height of new skyscrapers, with the same proportion backing restrictions on the number of buildings with more than 50 floors. The table lists

3072-499: The new Green Belt which almost unwaveringly elected majority- Conservative councils. Such private housing-dominant bastions of the Green Belt being Edgware , Amersham , Staines upon Thames , Surbiton , Sevenoaks and Epping . In the 1938–1950s period, earmarking of the Green Belt intra-London infill areas continued to be earmarked for housing and those to "round off" the shape of London as official policy. A direct consequence

3136-488: The new towns in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, the government decided to extend the Metropolitan Green Belt northwards to include almost all of Hertfordshire . The Metropolitan Green Belt now covers parts of 68 different Districts or Boroughs. London's green belt was extended after 1955, in places to a distance of 35 miles out. The belt is subject to minor annual variations, and covers an area approximately three times

3200-574: The option of limited green belt land release in their Local Plans, according to legally necessary "exceptional circumstances" envisioned by the 1955 Act. The London Society heightened debate about the city's green belt, in 2014 in its report entitled "Green Sprawl". Other organisations, including the Planning Officers Society, echoed with specific calls for a UK Governmental review and proposals to balance land release for with concepts to compensate habitat loss and mitigate pollution, restitutionally (as if never converted). The Adam Smith Institute wrote

3264-824: The outward growth of London was seen to be firmly repressed, residents owning properties further from the built-up area also campaigned for this policy of urban restraint, partly to safeguard their own investments but often invoking an idealised scenic/rustic argument which laid the blame for most social ills upon urban influences. In mid-1971, for example, the government decided to extend the Metropolitan Green Belt northwards to include almost all of Hertfordshire . The Metropolitan Green Belt now covers parts of 68 different Districts or Boroughs. Since 1955 London's green belt has extended significantly, stretching some 35 miles out in places. London's green belt now covers an area of 516,000 hectares, an area broadly three times larger than that of London itself. The London Society began debate about

SECTION 50

#1732765229699

3328-486: The outward growth of London was seen to be firmly repressed, residents owning properties further from the built-up area also campaigned for this policy of urban restraint, partly to safeguard their own investments but often invoking the paradigm English thinking running from John Ruskin to at least John Betjeman , a scenic/rustic argument which lays the blame for most social ills upon urban influences and which leads few retired people to live in London. In mid-1971, mindful of

3392-562: The planning system from the 1,400 existing planning authorities to 145 (formed from county and borough councils), and required them all to prepare a comprehensive development plan. These local authorities were given wide-ranging powers in addition to approval of planning proposals; they could carry out redevelopment of land themselves, or use compulsory purchase orders to buy land and lease it to private developers. They were also given powers to control outdoor advertising, and to preserve woodland or buildings of architectural or historic interest –

3456-508: The post-war new towns. Created under the New Towns Act outside of the belt were Basildon , Bracknell , Harlow , Hatfield , Hemel Hempstead , Milton Keynes and Stevenage . Much funding was outlaid in new roads, railway stations and social housing . Contrasting to these new towns such a degree of social housing was still as strongly resisted as possible in upmarket suburbs and most of the existing exurbs well-connected to London in

3520-532: The power to raise loans to pay for this redevelopment, repayable over the same sixty-year period. Grants of 20–50% were available for related expenditure, such as the cost of acquiring land outside the main redevelopment areas. Later revisions of the Act were legislated in 1962, 1971 and 1990. Whilst the 1990 Act is the current legislation in England and Wales, this Act has been substantially amended and added to, especially in 1991, 2004, 2008 and 2011. Devolution in Scotland has resulted in separate legislation, as has

3584-516: The proposal put forward in the Adam Smith report could result in 3.96 to 7.45 million additional car journeys per week on already congested roads around London. CPRE say it is a myth to connect green belts to rising house prices, since there is no clear difference in house prices between cities with green belts and cities without them, and both land and house prices are inflated by other factors such as investment. A survey in 2016, by Ipsos Mori , found that many Londoners, particularly those who live in

3648-740: The size of London. Extension has taken place to take in large parts of the Surrey Hills , Chiltern Hills and three of the areas known as various Wealds including Epping Forest , as such extension pre-dates certain largely duplicative protections which cover those areas, particularly Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty . Redesignation includes for transport or civil engineering infrastructure, housing and non-agricultural industry, retail and non-green or blue buffer leisure. In general agriculture and open-air leisure uses, including golf courses, and fresh water reservoirs (often used for sailing), can be designated green belt land. All Local Authorities have

3712-616: Was as follows: * Counts are rounded The total area of green belt land in England since 2003 was as follows: As well as any underlying re-designations, changes in green belt area are explained in part by alterations in land designation by local authorities, and may also be influenced by improvements with measurement associated with digital mapping. Note that from 2006, estimates exclude the area of Green Belt land in New Forest DC and Test Valley BC (47,300 hectares) which were designated as New Forest National Park in 2005. In July 2024

3776-457: Was forecast to become highly problematic unless development could be encouraged outside of a contiguous capital city. A solution emerged from study of the localised preservation of the character of the couronne périurbaine (around-town crown) surrounding Paris, and a movement to expand instead satellite towns and other towns in France. In 1947, Jean-François Gravier successfully advocated to

3840-590: Was in Herbert Morrison 's 1934 leadership of the London County Council . It was first formally proposed by the Greater London Regional Planning Committee in 1935, "to provide a reserve supply of public open spaces and of recreational areas and to establish a green belt or girdle of open space". The ongoing policy decisions made were approved and entrenched in an advisory Greater London Plan prepared by Patrick Abercrombie in 1944 (which sought

3904-481: Was not realised. The great interwar Britain housing boom, from 8 million homes in 1921 to 11.3 million in 1939, saw most of today's Greater London apart from its very edge developed too densely to be conferred any near-contiguous green belt status. The great increase in private motor transport continued into the 1950s. Despite new roads and the London Underground , London traffic congestion and pollution

SECTION 60

#1732765229699

3968-538: Was one such case study city for the UK. Conclusions were published in "Case studies in Greenstructure Planning" . Town and Country Planning Act 1947 The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 ( 10 & 11 Geo. 6 . c. 51) was an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom passed by the Labour government led by Clement Attlee . It came into effect on 1 July 1948, and along with

4032-501: Was put forward by the London Society in its "Development Plan of Greater London" 1919. Alongside the CPRE they lobbied for a continuous belt (of up to two miles wide) to prevent urban sprawl, beyond which new development could occur. Implementation of the notion dated from Herbert Morrison 's 1934 leadership of the London County Council . It was first formally proposed by the Greater London Regional Planning Committee in 1935, "to provide

4096-525: Was that when London was redrawn (namely from the 1889 County of London to Greater London ) its area in 1965 was made five times greater. This selective and encouraged urbanisation, coupled with the New Towns, ensured authorities did not need to expect a shortage of housing and were centrally lobbied (and in some cases also locally lobbied) to designate land as Green Belt in order to offset congestion and pollution consequent upon their policies of growth. As

#698301