© Henry Stewart Publications 1752-9638 (2019) Vol. 12, 3, 1–3 Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal 1 Jonathan Manns Rockwell Property, 23 King Street, London SW1Y 6QY, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 3705 5121; E-mail: jm@ rockwellproperty.co.uk Revived or retired, the green belt must be rethought Received: 10th January, 2019 Jonathan Manns is Board Director and Head of Planning at Rockwell Property. He is a writer, speaker, lecturer, campaigner and founder of the APPG for London’s Planning and Built Environment. Abstract Urban containment policies exist worldwide to restrict the expansion of settlements. England’s green belt is one such policy mechanism. Gaining popularity from the late 19th century onwards, local authorities have been able to designate green belt since 1955. The concept has proven popular with members of the general public and, as of March 2018, England’s green belt extended to 1,629,510 hectares (approximately 12.5 per cent of the nation’s land area). 1 There are some who contend that the green belt should be sacrosanct. This paper makes the opposite case. It is predicated on the view that public policy should be adaptable and that the emphasis should be firmly on securing the best outcomes. It should be possible to consider both whether the overall effects are beneficial and whether there is scope for improvement. If opportunities exist to deliver development more sustainably, the ability to explore and realise this should not be prevented by dogmatic defence of the status quo. England’s green belt should not be off the table for appraisal and, if appropriate, amendment. Keywords: England, green belt, real estate, urban containment, strategic planning, sustainable development INTRODUCTION England’s green belt is a perennial and politically charged topic. It is also an important one. Wherever we might stand personally, the debate is not something that should be shied away from; that is, at least, if we’re sincere in our efforts to do the best possible job of delivering sustainable development — the stated purpose of planning. 2 Even if, as Alice Roberts suggested in a previous issue of this journal, 3 you take the view that ‘it is hard to argue that green belts have not done a good job’, the question still remains as to whether we could do better. The planning system is a tool of public policy which exists to regulate the type of development that occurs and where. It follows that the function and implications of any policy must be properly evaluated. This is particularly where, as in the case of the green belt, it is applied so widely. Such critical reflection is not only necessary but positive and need not be overcomplicated. We might, for example, ask simply what we hope to achieve and why? What are the benefits and the opportunity costs? Who gains and who loses? WHERE TO START? It is imperative that we reset the discussion. Public appetite for information on the green belt clearly exists, but debate is too often polarised. It is widely framed as rational, evidence-based calls for review pitted against defiant and emotive calls for defence. Accusations abound of an ‘attack’ 4 on the green belt from industry Manns.indd 1 28/01/2019 13:40