---

House-building Programme

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this debate and for giving us another opportunity to discuss this very important subject. I intend to focus my remarks this afternoon on the working of the green belt—a concept first established in 1955 and thus celebrating its 50th birthday this year. First, I must declare an interest as a landowner within the green belt in Hertfordshire. Few people would quarrel with the objectives of the green belt. They are set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The principal objectives are to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; and to preserve the countryside. During the past 50 years, those objectives have largely been achieved. However, there has been a downside. The rigid application of green belt designation has had the effect of freezing all development in rural villages and hamlets within the green belt boundaries. That has put a stop to the natural evolution of rural communities, which has been going on for centuries. Why, one might ask, should all development have been frozen in 1955? What was so special about 1955? The lack of natural evolution has contributed to the shortage of housing and to the huge rise in prices of existing stock. With the end of council house building, there has been a growing shortage of affordable housing. Villages have become commuter dormitories and village shops and post offices have closed down. As I said, few people can object to the basic principles of the green belt. The problem is its blanket application. Paragraph 1.7 of PPG2 states:"““the quality of the landscape is not relevant to the inclusion of land within a green belt””." If it is within the green belt boundaries; that is, it is green belt. There is no argument. I find that very hard to accept. That is inflexibility carried to extremes. Within the green belt, there are numerous small and medium-sized sites where appropriate, well designed development would in no way compromise the green belt objectives. It could ease the problems of housing supply; provide much-needed affordable housing; and permit a restart to the natural process of evolution of small rural communities. I fail to understand the Government’s refusal to contemplate any flexibility in green belt designation. Surely guidance could be given to local planning authorities to assess planning applications within the green belt on their individual merits as to design, quality, need and impact on green belt objectives. If the Government continue to object to all flexibility on this issue, I hope that the Minister will at least be able to give us a logical explanation for its reasons.