It points out that a million new homes could be built by sacrificing 3.7 per cent of greenfield land — the belt of green space around big cities that local authorities have been able to keep free from development since 1947. Indeed one option it suggests is to open up greenfield land for building within half a mile of a railway station. It is an idea gaining currency across the political spectrum: Labour mayoral hopeful David Lammy, for example, has suggested that we must consider building on the green belt.
Demand for housing in London has increased dramatically and supply has simply failed to keep up with it. The green belt serves a useful purpose —to prevent urban sprawl — but should not be sacrosanct. In terms of environmental diversity, not all green spaces are of equal worth: some brownfield sites are far more valuable as habitat than intensively farmed land. It is worth considering whether building on land around railway stations could meet demand for commuter homes.
At the same time, there are other options than giving up the green belt to increase the housing supply. Many developers sit on land they already own in order to maximise its future value rather than using it. There are other ways of creating sustainable housing, such as plans for new “garden cities”. There are also ways of building more intensively within London that could use space far more productively.
The suggestion of building on the green belt is inevitably controversial and would trigger major local battles were any government to pursue it. But this is a debate we need to have: to meet demand for housing, we must now look at every possible option open.