Big estate agency urges Labour to build homes on Green Belt
Carter Jonas says not all the 1.5 million homes the Government hopes to build should be on this kind of land, but says some should be released for property development.
National estate agency Carter Jonas has caused a stir by suggesting that Green Belt land is ‘not especially unique’ and has backed those who say homes should be built within them.
The comments have been made within new research which shows both Green Belt land and non-Green Belt land feature almost identical proportions of forest, open land and as well as agricultural land, car parks and recreational spaces.
More controversially, Carter Jonas has also questioned whether it’s even ‘fit for purpose’.
Debunking
The agency says that while people are under the false impression it was created to preserve ‘green’ land it was not and was instead a ‘planning tool’ to restrict urban sprawl and encourage the re-use of derelict land within towns and cities.
The protection of ‘green’ land is the job of National Parks and National Landscapes which comprises around one-fifth of green belt land.
Priorities have changed since its inception, says Carter Jonas and for example building on the edge of towns is now seen as desirable as it reduces commuters’ carbon footprints.
Carter Jonas also points out that even if Labour were to build exclusively on this kind of land, 1.5 million homes would only take up 3% of it.
In reality brownfield, grey belt and non-Green Belt locations will be prioritised, so it is likely to be a far lower figure than that.
Substantial
Spokesperson David Churchill says: “Our research shows that housing need can be met without substantial loss to the Green Belt.
“We are not advocating all new homes being located on the green belt but are suggesting that there are strategic benefits in releasing some Green Belt land for housing.
“For example, it could reduce the number of ‘leapfrogging’ developments – those located further from urban areas than is desirable, which increase residents’ carbon footprints through extensive commutes and impacts on both businesses’ and residents’ proximity to urban centres.”
Destroying our country’s heritage and the Green Belt is a massive no-no. It appears that Carter Jonas is not interested in preserving and protecting our land for future generations, but rather in financial gain.
The Green Belt is not merely a ‘planning tool’; it has become an essential resource for protecting our natural environment and providing green spaces for our communities. The idea that only a small percentage of Green Belt land would be affected by new developments ignores the cumulative impact of such actions. Once developed, these areas and their biodiversity are lost forever.
Moreover, the Green Belt contains some of the best and most versatile land for agricultural farming, which is crucial for feeding the majority of our country. According to the House of Commons Library, 65.6% of Green Belt land is used for agriculture, which significantly contributes to local food production and food security . Sacrificing this land for development jeopardises our ability to sustain ourselves and undermines food security.
Instead of advocating for the destruction of these precious areas, we should be urging the government to protect and enhance our Green Belt. There are many brownfield and grey belt locations available for development that do not compromise our green spaces. Sustainable development should not come at the expense of our natural heritage.
We must prioritise the protection of our Green Belt and work towards solutions that balance housing needs with environmental preservation, ensuring a greener, healthier future for all.