More debate urged on Green Belt development

Local communities rather than ministers should decide if land in the Green Belt should be used for new housing, the senior economist at an influential think-tank has urged.

Dr Marc Hartwich, chief economist at the Policy Exchange, argued in an article in Total Politics magazine that the debate over safeguarding the Green Belt had become too emotional and argued that the designation "had elevated imagination over reality in Britain's planning system".

He said the public mistakenly believed that Green Belt areas were "the last remnants of what was once England's green and pleasant land".

In fact, he said, much of the Green Belt was "home to industrialised agriculture" rather than full of "birds, bugs and gentle hedgerows".

He wrote: "We need some hard-headed thought about how and why we need to protect land from the development we need."

Dr Hartwich, co-author of a recent report from the think tank which concluded that industrial heartlands such as Liverpool, Bradford and Sunderland did not deserve regeneration cash because they were beyond revival, estimated that even if England's urban areas were expanded by 10 per cent this would use up less than one per cent of the country's total landmass.

He said local communities should be allowed to "weigh up the pros and cons" of building new homes without being constrained by Green Belt designations.

Countryside campaigners have reacted angrily to Dr Hartwich's stance. Paul Miner from the Campaign to Protect Rural England said: "Far too much Green Belt has already been destroyed. The Policy Exchange might see the Green Belt as 'emotional' but most people see it as a much-loved part of the countryside."

Roger Milne

28 August 2008