The Green Belt: A Handsome subsidy to Horsey Culture and Golf

in housing •  last month 

I found a new 'house price hero' over the weekend - in the form of Emeritus Professor of Economic Geography, Paul Cheshire, based at the LSE.

Paul Cheshire argues that England doesn't have a housing affordability crisis because of immigrants and wealthy foreign speculators increasing demand, but rather it’s due to our restrictive planning laws restricting supply.

The main policy responsible for this is the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, which, since its implementation in 1955, has explicitly been used to prevent urban expansion by designating huge swathes of England as Green Belt, where it is very difficult if not impossible to get permission to construct new homes.

This is especially true around London, and you can really see the impact the Green Belt has on development:

This is the first time I’ve actually had a good look at a map of Greenbelt land, I’d never before realised it was such a wide band around the capital. Interestingly, my home town of Medway lies just a mile outside, and my Dad’s estate is literally a few hundred metres away from where it starts (on the other side)… no wonder the local running routes are so nice, if you head towards the Greenbelt of course, if you head the other way you get miles and miles or urban sprawl (funny that, eh?!?)

According to Paul Cheshire, what the greenbelt has done is turn any property already on Greenbelt land (which is still quite a lot, because look at the extent of it!) into a scarce commodity: houses on Greenbelt have become like pieces of rare art, as they have restricted supply which means their value has tended to go up over time.

And the last 80 years have seen a knock-on effect on property prices in London, as building plots in the capital have become scarcer.

If we contrast this to other countries on the continent where governments have made sure that the supply of housing has kept up with demand (i.e. by not having Greenbelts around cities) housing is much more affordable.

The original aim of the Greenbelt was to provide ‘breathing space for city dwellers’, but it hasn’t quite worked out like that. To quote Paul Cheshire (I like this guy!)

>The reality is that a child in Haringey gets no welfare from the fact that five miles away in Barnet, there are 2,380 hectares of greenbelt land; or in Havering another 6,010 hectares...What greenbelts really seem to be is a very British form of discriminatory zoning, keeping the urban unwashed out of the Home Counties.

Cheshire’s solution to the house-price crisis is simple: build on the greenbelt, but do it in a carefully managed way and build on the least environmentally sensitive bits of it.

All we’re doing by keeping our restrictive 1947 planning policies in place is providing a subsidy to horsy culture and golf – we’re keeping the property assets of the rich inflated. By allowing more development on the greenbelt we’d ease property prices for the majority while not impacting the environment that much.

Personally, I think this is a great idea – my experience of working in Reigate for 16 years which is a massive green belt area is that there’s far too much horsey wealth and privilege. A suitably massive house-building programme would benefit the majority while increasing diversity. Sure, it would bring down existing house-prices, but I doubt if they’d collapse, and the overall benefits to middle-income families being able to purchase in the area would outweigh the decrease in asset-value of the super-rich who already live there.

I think I might start campaigning for massive development on the Greenbelt. It's also a more effective way of irritating the rich than hunt-sabbing, warmer and much less physically tiring too.

Sources

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ipa/2014/10/17/gearty-grillings-episode-13-paul-cheshire-on-planning-the-housing-crisis/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2014/may/13/london-housing-crisis-building-greenbelt

PIC SOURCE https://hertsmere-consult.objective.co.uk/events/31566/popimage_d681346e743.html

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

makes sense, when I was a young kid we used to live in Surrey which is in that green belt. We lived in the middle of the woods, it was amazing but lucky the company paid for it

·

Oh really, do you remember where abouts?

Property prices wouldn't have been so bad back then, still expensive, but not hyper-inflated like now. It is beautiful in Surrey, but it is VERY horsey too!

I had no idea there was a Green Belt.
The only green belt I know is in Taekwondo! Just joking. Thanks for the good read. It was very informative.

Posted using Partiko Android

·

Lol,

I'd like to say it was contentious issue in the U.K. but it's not, the vast majority want to protect it, but I'm with this guy: it's not serving its purpose. I lived in Surrey for years, it really is horsey culture and golf. I say build on it!

Thank you so much for participating in the Partiko Delegation Plan Round 1! We really appreciate your support! As part of the delegation benefits, we just gave you a 3.00% upvote! Together, let’s change the world!

It almost reaches out to where I am. I think we need to minimise building on what is currently 'green'. There are a lot of big brownfield sites that could be recycled. There's a lot of big new developments going up around here, so we will have less countryside to enjoy.

This Nationwide plan at least takes on board what people actually want. Shared garden spaces are a good idea, but then most newbuilds have tiny gardens these days.

·

One thing that guy points out is that most of the greenbelt isn't really green. Its unsustainable intensive agriculture and people in four wheel diesel vehicles - well he points out the former, I point out the later.

And if we did develop the greenbelt I could run a new T.V. show: 'Escape from what was the country'. I'd be just as smug presenting it as those appearing on its current namesake.

I'll check out that plan, thanks for the link!

Hi @revisesociology!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 4.632 which ranks you at #1744 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 211 contributions, your post is ranked at #23.

Evaluation of your UA score:
  • Some people are already following you, keep going!
  • The readers appreciate your great work!
  • Great user engagement! You rock!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

Hi, @revisesociology!

You just got a 1.36% upvote from SteemPlus!
To get higher upvotes, earn more SteemPlus Points (SPP). On your Steemit wallet, check your SPP balance and click on "How to earn SPP?" to find out all the ways to earn.
If you're not using SteemPlus yet, please check our last posts in here to see the many ways in which SteemPlus can improve your Steem experience on Steemit and Busy.

You got a 50.30% upvote from @ocdb courtesy of @revisesociology! :)

@ocdb is a non-profit bidbot for whitelisted Steemians, current max bid is 45 SBD and the equivalent amount in STEEM.
Check our website https://thegoodwhales.io/ for the whitelist, queue and delegation info. Join our Discord channel for more information.

If you like what @ocd does, consider voting for ocd-witness through SteemConnect or on the Steemit Witnesses page. :)