Politics and Economics
In a speech to the British Chambers of Commerce in early May, The Labour Party’s leader, Kier Starmer, pledged to scrap regulation that restricts development on the protected greenbelt, in a bid to reduce the housing shortage faced in the UK, allowing the development of up to 150,000 new homes. The policy aims to ‘back the builders, not the blockers’ to both increase the supply and reduce the price of homes in the UK, allowing young adults, low-income households, and those with housing needs to more accessibly enter and climb the property ladder. However, will this policy prove to be as impactful on the housing market as the Labour Party wishes us to believe, and what will be the environmental implications of such development on the protected countryside?
To begin, we must first look at the purpose and origin of the Greenbelt scheme, evaluating whether it is still relevant today. First introduced in the 1950’s, a greenbelt is the segment of land surrounding an urban area, kept largely undeveloped or prioritised for agricultural use (through strict planning regulation) to serve 5 primary purposes. These key purposes include; reducing urban sprawl, preventing conurbation, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, preserving the characteristics of historic towns, and aiding urban regeneration (encouraging brownfield development). Current greenbelts exist around the majority of the UK’s major cities, with London's 'metropolitan greenbelt' being the largest, with 515,000 hectares. It is evident that the greenbelt has maintained its purpose even after 7.5 decades, with 93.2% of the area being undeveloped and principally utilised for agriculture (65.6%), with residential buildings accounting for just 0.3% of the 6.7% of developed land (with the latter being primarily transport networks). Despite this, the greenbelt has engendered the unintended consequence of increased socio economic segregation, commonly referred to as the ‘leap-frog effect’. This is the socio-economic phenomenon where cheaper, low-cost homes are situated furthest from the Central Business District (CBD), as strict planning regulations surrounding the primary urban area increase the scarcity and therefore price of housing in greenbelt areas; as seen in West Oxfordshire. Moreover, the greenbelt policy has not always been successful in preventing urban sprawl and protecting the rural idyll, as experienced through the construction of the Kassam football stadium (2001) and the Oxford nano-technology park (2005) - although these exceptions are exceedingly rare. We can infer from this that Kier Starmer's Labour party has little precedent to uphold their promised greenbelt policy; however, with the state of the current UK housing market and economic side shocks faced by the UK (principally the Coronavirus and Ukraine War), this profound policy may well be justified.
The UK housing market is in significant turmoil, where a mass housing shortage accompanied by rising house prices has placed a strain on various demographics across the nation, but most severely on lower-income households and those awaiting social housing. ‘Shelter’, a British pressure group campaigning for the expedited development of social housing state that “over 1 million households are waiting for social homes”, yet 29,000 social homes were sold or demolished, and only 7,000 were built in 2022. This adverse circumstance is exacerbated by the fact that over 8 million people in the UK have housing needs (needing shelter, living in overcrowded homes, or generally possess housing that does facilitate their basic needs) and that there are over 676,000 empty houses that could be allocated to those in need, but are owned by the wealthiest in society as holiday homes and investment properties.
That being said, Labour’s plan to expand development onto the greenbelt has the potential to resolve this issue. By withdrawing certain powers held by Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s), planning regulation will be far less rigorous, allowing for the construction of a greater volume of private and social housing, reducing both the housing shortage and general housing prices within the UK (see figure 1).
Figure 1 conveys that as a result of this proposed government intervention and a decrease in regulation regarding construction on the Greenbelt, the supply of homes is able to shift from the allocative inefficient free market equilibrium (E1) to the social optimum equilibrium (E2). This shift incurs the positive effects of an increased supply of housing (Q1 to Q2), a fall in the general price of homes (P1 to P2), and a reduction in the deadweight welfare loss (Q1-E1-E2). We can infer from this that families across the nation can now access the property ladder and fulfil their housing needs (through both private and social housing) as a result of an increased supply, and reduced price of housing.
However, this housing benefit comes with the cost of disrupting the aesthetic of the British countryside, undermining the original purpose of the greenbelt (to prevent urban sprawl and maintain the rural idyll), and introduces a further strain on the over-exploited environment. Moreover, this policy to increase development on the greenbelt would worsen the government budget deficit, shown through the fact that the 2021 Conservative pledge to construct just 35,000 new homes by 2026 would cost an astonishing £4bn of government funding; ultimately financed by placing a regressive strain on the taxpayer (low-income households disproportionately pay a greater % of their income) or reducing investment in other vital sectors of the economy.
Additionally, critics of Starmer’s proposed policy highlight the adverse environmental impacts that would ensue reduced planning regulation on the greenbelt. There is no doubt that increased development on protected rural land would result in an increased strain on the natural environment, both through the construction and utilisation of homes. Statistics released by the property developer 'Citu Group’ indicates that the construction of an average home in the UK produces 50-80 tonnes of CO2 (for reference, a typical car produces 4.6 tonnes of CO2 per year), with the average home annually emitting 2.7 tonnes of CO2 per year from heating alone. We can infer from this that the 300,000 homes (150,000 on the greenbelt) promised to be constructed by the Labour Party if elected would contribute greatly to climate change through the release of significant volumes of carbon dioxide, as well as disrupting the aesthetic and heritage of the rural British countryside.
On the other hand, Starmer emphasised the fact that development on the greenbelt would occur primarily on brownfield sites/areas which have already experienced development, highlighting the example of a potential development on a car-park within the greenbelt, and a playing field that is not (with the latter site chosen for development without planning reforms). Starmer reinforced this idea in an interview with the BBC, stating that “if it is land which doesn’t affect the beauty of our countryside, then we’ll change the planning rules”.
All things considered; it is evident that the Labour Party’s initiative, spearheaded by Kier Starmer, to reduce planning regulation on the greenbelt to allow for the construction of over 300,000 homes will partially, but not wholly resolve the housing crisis faced by the UK. This is since the construction of 300,000 affordable homes will lessen the housing shortage, but not satisfy the over 8 million people in the UK that have housing needs. Moreover, this proposed policy presents a significant future strain on the environment through the mass release of carbon dioxide throughout both the construction and usage of these future homes; as well as disrupting the aesthetic of the rural British countryside – however, this adverse impact is dwindled by the fact that the party pledges to develop primarily on brownfield sites, lessening the negative impact of this policy on the environment.