sites.duke.edusites.duke.edu/urbaneconomics/.../2010/10/Andrew-Lynn-…  · Web viewEngland in the early 20th century experienced a rapidly changing national landscape. While historically

Temporal Changes and Local Variations inthe Functions of London’s Green Belt

Marco Amati and Makoto Yokohari

Andrew LynnOctober 10th, 2010Technical Paper

Econ 145: Urban Economics

Professor C. Becker

Introduction

England in the early 20th century experienced a rapidly changing national landscape. While historically its capitol, London, was the only sizeable urban area in the country, the industrial revolution brought with it the rapid rise of industrial hubs such as Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool. Then a combination of agricultural decline, rising tax and death duties, and the death of heirs during the First World War resulted in the breakup and sale of large land estates all over the country, effectively ending the era of country life encouraged by intellectuals from Adam Smith to Jane Austen (128). Due to the greatly increased supply, the middle and working classes were able to buy land for the first time, leading to rapid development of previously empty areas. Thus, English officials in the inter-war period were faced with the problem of a rapidly shrinking supply of undeveloped land combined with explosive urban and population growth. Their solution: the green belt.

Though the first government land purchase towards what would become London’s green belt was made in 1909, the idea did not come fully to fruition until the establishment of the Greater London Regional Planning Committee in 1929 (129). The motives behind the plan were not only conservationist, but also practical: the poor physical state of recruits for the Boer and First World Wars revealed the importance of maintaining a healthy working-class population (130). The GLRPC and the National Playing Fields Association, established in 1927, worked together to prepare a plan that would provide playing fields and recreational areas for urban residents, as well as preserving agricultural land. However, the plan was rejected by the Treasury, which not only could not give sole priority to London, but also did not think a belt the best model. Thus it was not until 1935, when the GLRPC convinced the London County Council to loan money to the county councils around the city for the project, that the green belt was first implemented (131).

The original metropolitan green belt consisted of 4,650 ha of land around the city; by the outbreak of the Second World War, the amount of land purchased had reached 28,600 ha. Due to the massive amounts of capital available for redevelopment after the war, the green belt continued to grow rapidly. Today, London’s green belt covers 513,330 ha, about one-third the total green belt area in England (127).

Fig. 1: Green belt areas in England (Source: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)

Table 1: Green belt surface area in England (Source: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)

Green Belt Area (ha)Change (%)

  1997 2000England 1,652,600 1,677,400 1.5Tyne and Wear (Newcastle, Sunderland) 53,350 66,330 24.3York 25,430 26,190 3South and West Yorkshire (Leeds, Sheffield) 249,240 255,620 2.6North West (Manchester, Liverpool) 253,290 257,790 1.8Stoke-on-Trent 44,090 44,080 0Nottingham and Derby 62,020 61,830 -0.3Burton and Swadlingcote 730 730 0West Midlands (Birmingham, Wolverhampton) 231,290 231,530 0.1Cambridge 26,690 26,690 0Gloucester and Cheltenham 7,030 7,030 0Oxford 35,010 35,000 0London 513,420 513,330 0Avon (Bristol, Bath) 68,660 68,780 0.2SW Hampshire and SE Dorset (Southampton, Portsmouth) 82,340 82,500 0.2

For those unfamiliar with English geography, I have added the names of the major cities in each urban area.

Green Belt Functions

The goal of Amati and Yokohari’s research is to explore the functions of London’s green belt and analyze for which roles it is best suited. When the green belt was first formed through the London County Council loan scheme, there was no specification for the green belt’s function. The council included only a broad stipulation: if playing fields were bought, they must not be reserved for the use of local players only, otherwise the land should be designated for people to ‘roam about in’ (131). The Abercrombie Plan, published in 1944, set three aims for London’s green belt: to restrict urban growth, to define an outer limit or boundary to restrictions, and for recreation to be the primary use for the land. It was not until 1955 that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government established offical aims for green belts at the national level. These were:

to check the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area; to prevent neighboring towns from merging into one another; and to preserve the special character of a town.

Two further aims were added in 1995:

to assist the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment; and to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of

derelict and other urban land.

In addition, the government suggests the following uses of land in the green belts:

to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population;

to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas;

to retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to where people live;

to improve damaged and derelict land around towns; to secure nature conservation interest; and to retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses (127).

However, Amati and Yokohari discovered that although there is a central government planning policy, local authorities are given a large amount of discretion in determining additional policies for their section of the green belt (132). Thus they set to work exhaustively researching the policies of the 58 local authorities that contain part of the London green belt in order to determine the differences in the functions of the green belt at a local level. Each local municipality was individually contacted and a copy of their development plan obtained. After careful reading of each, a list of keywords was drawn up. These keywords were then used to define twelve different types of policy in the London green belt. They found that preserving openness is overwhelmingly the most important policy group, appearing at least once in 84% of the local authority development plans (135).

Table 2: Types of Policies Observed in the London Green BeltGroup Policy category Explanation

I Preserve openness

The main aim of the green belt is to preserve ‘openness’ – any development which infringes this, e.g. large agricultural buildings are rarely permitted

IIAllows/controls some growth

Some of the local authorities use the green belt to direct development into certain areas. This group of policies makes provisions for ‘white land’ – i.e. land that may be built on at some in the future stage

III Anti-speculation

Development for agricultural or forestry use is generally permitted in the green belt. Developers seek planning permission by building a residence which is ostensibly for a farm but then change this designation with comparative ease. These policies aim to prevent this change

IV Rural character

The plans looked at still view the green belt as having a rural preservation function. This group includes policies that prevent high-grade agricultural land from being built-on, controls the size and function of farm shops and controls the conversion of rural buildings into other uses

V Amenity

This includes provisions for using open space in non-agricultural uses, including country parks, allotments, leisure facilities

VI Landscape protection

These policies protect the landscape by regulating equestrian activities which have a negative effect on the landscape. Also, the green belt is used to give extra development control to areas of outstanding natural beauty

VIILandscape restoration

Some of the local authorities contain areas in the urban fringe with a degraded landscape. These policies aim to encourage the restoration of landscapes, e.g. through the use of community forests

VIII Nature conservationThese policies aim to maintain biodiversity and rural sustainability

IX Liminal development

Often the urban fringe is also a place for development that is difficult to define. Caravans and gypsy sites fall into this category; these policies control the permanence of such settlements and their location

X Infrastructure

These policies control the infrastructure developments such as airports and motorways and the added development control that is needed around them

XI Local facilitiesThese policies encourage low-cost housing in rural areas and to promote community facilities

XIIUnavoidable urban fringe development

Certain activities – e.g. a waste development site, require an urban fringe location. Others, e.g., mineral extraction cannot take place elsewhere. These policies are intended to control such development

AnalysisArmed with these twelve groups of policies, Amati and Yokohari set

out to perform a cluster analysis on the 58 local authorities. They began by calculating the percentage of policies in the development plans that falls into each of the groups above, assuming that this percentage represents the emphasis that each local authority puts on each function of the green belt. They then used a Ward-method cluster analysis to arrange the different municipalities into five groups based on the pattern of their emphasis on different green belt functions. Group A, consisting of eight municipalities, has policies concentrating on the allowance of growth. Group B, with only four authorities, emphasizes preservation of openness. Group C, the largest cluster with 24 councils, concentrates on anti-speculation. Group D, which

contains 14 municipalities, stresses rural character, landscape protection, and amenity. Group E, which emphasizes infrastructure, has only one member, Luton, because Luton’s green belt area consists almost entirely of land surrounding its international airport.

Figure 2: Map Showing Distribution of Classes of Local AuthoritiesDiscussion

The most important debate today about English green belts in general, and London’s in particular, is preservation versus development. Group A represents this schism. The eight municipalities in this group, which are clustered either to the north or south-east of the city, defy national policy by allowing and aiming to control development in their sections of the green belt. This group is of particular interest to me, as I was born in South Bedfordshire (34 on the map above). South Bedfordshire, a historically agricultural area, has been designated as a “Priority Area for

Economic Regeneration” by the national government (135). It lies on the commuter belt; my father took the M1—England’s oldest motorway, which runs from London to Leeds—to work in the city every morning. The Silver Line, a railway that was still under construction when Amati and Yokohari wrote their paper, now also connects South Bedfordshire to the city and the communities further north. As one of the poorer regions of south-east England, South Bedfordshire’s municipal development plan, and those of its neighbors, understandably concentrate more on development than preservation of the green belt.

The plans for the municipalities in Group B emphasize preserving openness because that is the function approved by the government that requires the least money and effort. These municipalities, which lie on the edges of the green belt, see it as a minor issue. This is because 46% of Group B’s land lies outside the green belt, meaning they have spare room for development in the urban parts of their land (137).

Group C consists of many of London’s wealthiest and most densely populated municipalities. Because the property market in these regions is so tight, due at least partially to the existence of the green belt, developers are more likely to resort to circumventing the green belt restrictions. Thus the policies of these local authorities concentrate on combating speculation. Another reason these areas wish to preserve the green belt is purely aesthetic. This region consists of largely of wetlands, and historically has been distinguished by features such as hedgerows, walls, and ditches (137). The English wealthy favor such rural aesthetics while still wanting to be close to the city; green belt policy helps preserve this.

The municipalities in Group D are the most urbanized of the groups (138). Because of this, their policies concentrate not only on preserving the green belt, but actively improving it by constructing greenways and nature

trails. The primary aim of these authorities is to allow the green belt to be used by their citizens, not merely preserve its beauty.Conclusion

To an economist, the idea of a green belt sounds like a poor one: it strangles urban development and growth, drives up property values, etc. However, the strength of England’s green belt policy lies in its flexibility (139). The original planners of the green belt were purposefully vague when describing its functions because they knew they could not foresee everything the land would be used for. Because of the flexibility of the policy, local authorities have been able to shape it to suit their specific municipality. However, this flexibility inevitably leads to conflicts. In some cases the local authority’s green belt functions correspond with the national government’s, but in some they do not. In these cases, the policy’s flexibility and the power it grants local planners could be an impediment to nation-wide reform.

Amati and Yokohari conclude that green belt reform must concentrate not on national government policy, but on the underlying motivations and values that shape municipal government policy. They recommend that new green zones, be they belts, wedges, or corridors, be implemented in a similarly flexible way to London’s if they are to cover as large an area. They also propose that official green zone policy should at least mention, if not concentrate on, restoring landscapes, as this was the most popular local policy not mentioned in the official description of the green belt’s functions.

References

Amati, Marco and Makoto Yokohari. “Temporal Changes and Local Variations in the Functions of

London’s Green Belt.” Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (2006): 125–142.

Local Planning Authority Green Belt Statistics. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2010.

<http://www.odpm.gov.uk/>. Accessed 10 Oct. 2010