The market

Middle England has always regarded the green belt as sacrosanct, a fact that has until quite recently been sufficient to deter governments and local authorities from sanctioning significant levels of development on this green, but not always particularly pleasant land. Since the first review by economist Kate Barker was published three years ago, however, the possibility of building on the 14 green belts around England’s towns and cities has been a matter for growing debate; prime minister Gordon Brown’s target that 20 million new homes be built by 2020 makes it pretty much inevitable.

July’s housing green paper noted that 980,000 homes can be built on brownfield land and a further 100,000 on surplus publicly owned land, leaving 2 million homes to be accommodated on greenfield and perhaps green belt. Since then, there have been two significant announcements: this month government agency Natural England has assessed the case for a review of green-belt policy; last month communities secretary Hazel Blears gave the go-ahead for Center Parcs to develop a resort village on 365 acres of green-belt land near Woburn, Bedfordshire. The holiday village had been vetoed by both the local planning authority and the planning inspector before the volte face, but the minister put economic prosperity and biodiversity before green-belt status.

While the green-belt principle was formulated to prevent urban sprawl, some argue that green belts may now be a constraint that should be loosened. Richard Donnell, director of research at housing data specialist Hometrack, says: “They are providing a barrier to cities growing, which may mean people have to commute longer distances to the city centre. But if we do build on the green belt, there is still the need to provide infrastructure alongside housing.”