Boosting economic growth has become “the number one mission” of the newly elected Labour government. The key question is where that growth is going to come from. The Centre for Cities has the answer. In their view, our large cities “are the national economy”. They account for over:

• 60% of Gross Value Added (GVA).
• 60% of jobs.
• 64% of headquarters of major corporations.

To continue to drive the UK economy forward, cities need to continually attract new investment in high-growth industries from both the UK and international corporations.

To do that, cities need to be able to offer:

• Sufficient land at a reasonable cost.
• High-grade communications and transport links.
• Access to a highly skilled workforce.

However, a shortage of land means that high-performing cities like London, Cambridge, Oxford and Bristol are finding it an increasing struggle to attract skilled graduates because of the high cost of living, particularly housing.

Skyrocketing land costs are also strangling inward investment.

Most commentators agree that one of the main culprits is current green belt policy. Bristol is a case in point.

Bristol is located on the western limb of the M4 corridor, sometimes described as England’s “Silicon Valley”. It is home to a growing number of high-tech industries (see Image 1).

Over the last 20 years, the economy of Bristol has been booming. According to a recent briefing from Centre for Cities, Bristol is the strongest performer of all the UK’s large cities, with the highest productivity and the highest share of jobs in knowledge service industries.

Unsurprisingly, Bristol has become an attractive employment destination, especially for university graduates, and the population has grown by 30% since 2000 — well above the UK average.

However, according to Matt Griffith, Director of Policy at Business West, the region’s chamber of commerce, Bristol is currently experiencing two related problems which are hampering growth:

“Bristol’s productivity has been flat for the past ten years, partly because the city hasn’t been able to grow. Because we’re releasing employment land for housing and rental costs are high, it’s hard for companies to find space, and because of the green belt, much of the growth gets displaced to the other side of it, to unsustainable locations.”

“Twenty years ago, Bristol house prices were quite attractive compared with London, but now young people can’t get on the ladder here. That’s resulting in all kinds of pressures. It’s hard for companies to attract and retain young people, even to high-flying companies.”

Note: Average house prices in Bristol are 9.11 times higher than incomes (2017).

To meet current housing needs, Bristol needs to build over 2,400 new houses every year (source: Savills), a figure the council has yet to get close to. But options are limited.

Developing brownfield sites would only add an estimated 2,500–3,500 new homes. The only realistic solution is to release land within the current green belt for development, preferably close to existing transport infrastructure.

One such site is the area around Pilning station to the north of the city, which is designated as green belt but is a relatively low-value site (see Image 2).

Releasing just 800 m² of land around this station could provide 7,500 to 9,500 new homes. Doing this around all stations within 45 minutes of central Bristol would provide an extra 55,200 homes.

Will it happen? A great deal depends on the impact of the government’s proposed changes to current planning policies and how quickly Bristol authorities can respond.

If it does not, will Bristol’s growth stall?

City authorities seem to vary in their approach to releasing green belt land for development. Some, like Bristol and Oxford, have been resistant to change. Others, like Cambridge, have adopted a more flexible approach.

Cambridge, like Bristol, is facing several challenges which could limit future growth:

• Rapid population growth well above the UK average.
• Increasing shortage of land for commercial and residential development, leading to escalating costs of commercial land and increasingly unaffordable housing to buy or rent.
• Pressure on water supply and treatment.
• Severe congestion and poor public transport connectivity.

To meet those challenges, Cambridge is adopting a different planning approach, allowing the release of land for development at Eddington to the north-west of the city and Trumpington to the north-east (see Image 3).

The redevelopment of Eddington began in 2013 on university-owned land at a cost of £350 million. It included:

• 3,000 affordable homes for key workers and private sale.
• 100,000 square metres of research facilities.
• A school, nursery, shops, market square, community centre, sports facilities and green open spaces.
• An energy centre to produce electricity to meet increasing demand.

There are now plans to extend the Eddington development by adding a further 2,000 homes to the area.

Trumpington Meadows is located to the east of the city centre. In 2006, local planning inspectors approved the release of green belt land for 1,200 homes, which also included the creation of a wildlife country park and farming land. The country park at Trumpington Meadows has become home to a variety of wildlife including red clover, field scabious and wild carrot (see Image 4).

There is general agreement that the housing market in the UK is broken.

• Real house prices are up by 80% in the past 20 years, making them increasingly unaffordable for many.
• Around 300,000 households in England are homeless or at risk of it.

The government has set new targets for house building to gradually increase housing supply and, in doing so, bring down house prices. The question is: where to build?

As has been pointed out elsewhere, there are not enough brownfield sites for the purpose and, in any case, it would not be desirable to completely cover our cities with concrete.

Some development will have to occur on greenfield sites beyond the green belts and some of that will have to be on green belt land, which will no doubt provoke a strong reaction from the public. But resistance to development is often ill-informed, sometimes one suspects fed by local politicians chasing votes and even some environmental pressure groups.

Part of the problem is the misconceptions and myths that surround the green belt.

The public perception of the green belt as mostly pristine green space which is free for public use is inaccurate. About 7% of the belt is already built upon. Another 65% of it is monocultural farmland. Less than 7% is open for recreation.

Nor does the public grasp that the belt causes damage to the countryside elsewhere. Where builders lack brownfield space in cities, they jump the belt to put up commuter settlements farther afield.

Example: In Oxfordshire in the past nine years, some 26,000 homes, 71% of the total, were built on greenfield land outside the belt. These are low-density developments lacking public transport links, leading to more car use and inevitably congestion in the cities.

The problem is that the green belt has become a “brand”, as one retired planner put it, and one which is hard to change in the eyes of the public.

This may explain why only one-fifth of respondents to a survey by The Economist agreed with the idea of developing green belt land. Notably, younger age groups were more likely to favour development. Older age groups are more resistant, possibly because their housing needs are much less acute.

Local politicians, residents’ groups and conservationists love to frame the argument around the suggestion that planning changes will lead to vast swathes of green belt becoming concreted over. The reality is that a small amount of development of mainly grey belt land would be enough to begin to tackle the land shortages which are now strangling our cities.

The government has committed to building 1.5 million homes over five years. Meeting this target would equate to only 3% of the current extent of green belt land, assuming all new developments took place on green belt land. This is highly unlikely, given that the creation of new towns and urban regeneration projects are also on the agenda.

The fact is that the world of 1955, when green belts were established, has changed. The needs of society have changed and approaches to planning must adapt to the changing priorities of the 21st century.

• Selby, O. (2024) Ship Shape? How the Planning System Is Holding Back Bristol’s Economy. Centre for Cities.
• Savills (2018) Bristol: Entering a New Phase.
• CPRE. Cambridge Green Belt.
• Barber, O. (2024) University of Cambridge Considers Doubling Size of Development to 6,000 Homes. Housing Today, November 2024.
• Eddington Update (Cambridge City Council).
• Bakshi and McMenemy (2024) Is There a Way to Successfully Build on the Green Belt? BBC, August 2024.