Sadiq Khan announcing plans to build on green belt

[Cotty]

Sadiq Khan is announcing plans to build on parts of London’s green belt, in a dramatic shift in housing policy aimed at tackling “the most profound housing crisis in the capital’s history”.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/09/sa...

All those fields, trees, woods etc absorbing CO2 and pumping out oxygen he wants to chop down and build houses. Because we all know he doesn't give a st about air quality. This guy has too much power and needs to be reined it by the government. If any of the mayors of those Greater London boroughs were to suggest this people would be up in arms.

[rscott]

His suggestion is to include the proposal to build on low quality green belt in the next consultation.

So far, it seems to have support from government and other local authorities in the area.

It may be a sensible policy, if it places tight restrictions on the type of green belt land they can use - there's some which isn't of any great agricultural or ecological value so could be used for development.

[Silvanus]

rscott said:

His suggestion is to include the proposal to build on low quality green belt in the next consultation.

So far, it seems to have support from government and other local authorities in the area.

It may be a sensible policy, if it places tight restrictions on the type of green belt land they can use - there's some which isn't of any great agricultural or ecological value so could be used for development.

I'm generally against building on green belt unless it's a last resort. Without defining how low quality green belt land is defined and how biodiversity net gain (BNG) fits in, it's difficult to comment. It could even improve the eco credentials of some sites or those nearby. To start going all irritate now without the details would be a bit shouting at clouds.

[valiant]

Not all the greenbelt is all woods and trees.

There's a fair amount of 'poor quality' green belt land that could be repurposed as housing.

[Greenmantle]

Sorry - why are we talking about land when it comes to a housing shortage. The two are NOT linked.
As pointed out by many organisations the amount of land held by developers is at a record high.
The housing shortage is caused by planning red tape and a woeful shortage of skilled trades.
The Mayor, Raynor and others should stop making excuses for their own failings and crack on and get building.

[JagLover]

valiant said:

Not all the greenbelt is all woods and trees.

There's a fair amount of 'poor quality' green belt land that could be repurposed as housing.

Yes this, depends on the location.

Some scrub land near to a train station then go ahead, just build/widen enough roads for any new demands on them and don't pretend people are going to be exclusively using buses on the fringes of London.

[andy43]

Greenmantle said:

Sorry - why are we talking about land when it comes to a housing shortage. The two are NOT linked.
As pointed out by many organisations the amount of land held by developers is at a record high.
The housing shortage is caused by planning red tape and a woeful shortage of skilled trades.
The Mayor, Raynor and others should stop making excuses for their own failings and crack on and get building.

This. You’ve only got to ask a builder to know lack of land isn’t the problem.

[JagLover]

Greenmantle said:

Sorry - why are we talking about land when it comes to a housing shortage. The two are NOT linked.
As pointed out by many organisations the amount of land held by developers is at a record high.
The housing shortage is caused by planning red tape and a woeful shortage of skilled trades.
The Mayor, Raynor and others should stop making excuses for their own failings and crack on and get building.

Well the big housebuilders always have a certain amount of land banks in place, so they can continue building into the future, and this seems to have been fallen back slightly recently after the increase seen.

https://ifamagazine.com/big-housebuilders-see-decl...

For comparison it was 441,702 plots in 2020, so it has gone up, but the increase is less than half of the annual housebuilding target. So expecting everything to be built from landbanks alone seems to completely ignore long term sustainability.

[Cotty]

JagLover said:

Some scrub land near to a train station then go ahead, just build/widen enough roads for any new demands on them and don't pretend people are going to be exclusively using buses on the fringes of London.

But Khan doesn't like cars, unless he can tax them. Oh so maybe thats the plan, more people = more people driving = more money in his pocket

On the train into London Bridge Station yesterday and the amount of flats being built next to the tracks is crazy. Its going to be like going though a tunnel in the future. Its going to end up looking like Coruscant

So what if there is not enough houses in London, not everyone can or has to live there. There are many other places to live.

[Gargamel]

Thin end of the wedge though.

Should be resisted at all costs.

[rscott]

Currently most planning permission just requires the work starts within 4 years, with no specified end date (at least they're the usual criteria in this district).
Perhaps changing that so work has to be started within 2 years and completed within 5 might help?

There are developments of 500+ homes near me which were started 10 years ago and still not completed - developers have slowed down construction as they found they weren't selling as quickly as they thought, rather that drop the prices.

[ATG]

Sounds entirely sensible to me. The boundaries and restrictions of the green belt made sense at the time it was imposed, but the demands for housing have changed dramatically since then and failure to adapt to that demand has caused staggering economic and social damage.

There is virtually no sound environmental argument for NOT converting farmland into housing. The environmental benefit of having, say, a wheat field that is sprayed off every year, fertilised, then sown with a single crop is less than having a collection of small domestic gardens and some communal areas with some native scrub allowed to develop around the edges. And the food production lost by even losing thousands of acres of land is minimal compared to our total food production and demand.

The problem of current farming practice being bad for the environment is separate from providing land for development. The former needs a the farming subsidy framework to be sorted out. Farmers have been in limbo since Brexit. They need clear, long-term, stable frameworks from Westminster, the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd and there has been a complete political failure to deliver this. It is no wonder that farmers think politicians don't understand or care about them when successive governments fail to provide the industry's most basic policy requirement. It is a complete fking disgrace.

Allowing the entirely predictable housing crisis to unfold is another abject political failure. We are now deep in the st because unwinding the crisis for the sake of the young and future generations inevitably comes at the cost of buggering up the finances of those who currently own property. It's a Catch 22 so successive governments do fk all. And so the general public lose faith in our political system and start voting for grifters promising them fantasies.

So when you see a politician actually trying to change things, even just a fraction, to improve the housing problem ... maybe give them a fair hearing?

[Crudeoink]

JagLover said:

Well the big housebuilders always have a certain amount of land banks in place so they can continue building into the future and seems to have been fallen back slightly recently after the increase seen.

https://ifamagazine.com/big-housebuilders-see-decl...

For comparison it was 441,702 plots in 2020, so it has gone up, but the increase is less than half of the annual housebuilding target. So expecting everything to be built from landbanks alone seems to completely ignore long term sustainability.

Was just about to post the same! It's staggering to read about the size of some of the land banks, but it's dwarfed by the numbers Rayner is hoping to achieve.

This is an interesting read: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65d...

It seems to me that the bottlenecks sit with planning, the physical building and the big housebuilders controlling the market (The top 11 build about 40% of new homes). They restrict supply to keep profit levels high, own massive swathes of land and IME do little to actuall improve infrastructure when building huge developments. There's plans near my town of 14,000 homes to build a further 9000 homes in the next 8 years, in the proposed plans are no improvements to road networks, doctors surgeries or dentists etc, madness.

[JagLover]

rscott said:

Currently most planning permission just requires the work starts within 4 years, with no specified end date (at least they're the usual criteria in this district).
Perhaps changing that so work has to be started within 2 years and completed within 5 might help?

There are developments of 500+ homes near me which were started 10 years ago and still not completed - developers have slowed down construction as they found they weren't selling as quickly as they thought, rather that drop the prices.

A proportion of land banks represents plots where building cannot be started as agreement has not yet been reached yet on all aspects, including affordable homes under S106 agreements, or a development can only reach a certain stage before affordable housing is built.

Also this does seem to have the assumption that the way to have more housing is for housebuilders to effectively flood a local market with new housing, and so earn a lower return, without looking at the longer term outcomes for the sector.

[Gargamel]

ATG said:

Sounds entirely sensible to me. The boundaries and restrictions of the green belt made sense at the time it was imposed, but the demands for housing have changed dramatically since then and failure to adapt to that demand has caused staggering economic and social damage.

There is virtually no sound environmental argument for NOT converting farmland into housing. The environmental benefit of having, say, a wheat field that is sprayed off every year, fertilised, then sown with a single crop is less than having a collection of small domestic gardens and some communal areas with some native scrub allowed to develop around the edges. And the food production lost by even losing thousands of acres of land is minimal compared to our total food production and demand.

The problem of current farming practice being bad for the environment is separate from providing land for development. The former needs a the farming subsidy framework to be sorted out. Farmers have been in limbo since Brexit. They need clear, long-term, stable frameworks from Westminster, the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd and there has been a complete political failure to deliver this. It is no wonder that farmers think politicians don't understand or care about them when successive governments fail to provide the industry's most basic policy requirement. It is a complete fking disgrace.

Allowing the entirely predictable housing crisis to unfold is another abject political failure. We are now deep in the st because unwinding the crisis for the sake of the young and future generations inevitably comes at the cost of buggering up the finances of those who currently own property. It's a Catch 22 so successive governments do fk all. And so the general public lose faith in our political system and start voting for grifters promising them fantasies.

So when you see a politician actually trying to change things, even just a fraction, to improve the housing problem ... maybe give them a fair hearing?

There are many other policies that could impact housing demand, sadly they all less profit in them than just building.

Tax break for families caring for a parent / grandparent
Reduction in stamp duty, so its easier / lower cost for people to move out of houses they no longer need (sizing)
Better use of brownfield
Faster action on empty/derelict property
Reduction in migration
Some easing of restrictions on extensions

As for your contention on farm land and environment. What will you eat in the future when you have built on all the farmland? At this point, any attempt to build on green spaces should be resisted - certainly for housing - I think infrastucture can be different.

The need for housing is a social trend based on fewer people sharing homes intergenerationally and more people living alone. Building on green belt or relaxing these space in the south east means we connect more and more towns and make more urban environment. Its a poor choice and poor response to the problem

In addition its coming from the wrong messenger in Sadiq Khan, you can't pretend you are all about air quality on one topic and then concrete over every natural space on the other.

[Greenmantle]

JagLover said:

rscott said:

Currently most planning permission just requires the work starts within 4 years, with no specified end date (at least they're the usual criteria in this district).
Perhaps changing that so work has to be started within 2 years and completed within 5 might help?

There are developments of 500+ homes near me which were started 10 years ago and still not completed - developers have slowed down construction as they found they weren't selling as quickly as they thought, rather that drop the prices.

A proportion of land banks represents plots where building cannot be started as agreement has not yet been reached yet on all aspects, including affordable homes under S106 agreements, or a development can only reach a certain stage before affordable housing is built.

Also this does seem to have the assumption that the way to have more housing is for housebuilders to effectively flood a local market with new housing, and so earn a lower return, without looking at the longer term outcomes for the sector.

Yes flooding the market and causing a slump in price is an issue for developers who want to maximise profit but just like how clothing is dictated by brand developers have to invest in their brand. Incentivise the house buyer. Instead of looking at cost versus price do market research and offer things not commonly found in new builds. We all know that it is the female that will usually get the say on house purchase so put in the work. I'm not talking rocket science here this has been the case for decades.

[ATG]

Gargamel said:

There are many other policies that could impact housing demand, sadly they all less profit in them than just building.

Tax break for families caring for a parent / grandparent
Reduction in stamp duty, so its easier / lower cost for people to move out of houses they no longer need (sizing)
Better use of brownfield
Faster action on empty/derelict property
Reduction in migration
Some easing of restrictions on extensions

As for your contention on farm land and environment. What will you eat in the future when you have built on all the farmland? At this point, any attempt to build on green spaces should be resisted - certainly for housing - I think infrastucture can be different.

The need for housing is a social trend based on fewer people sharing homes intergenerationally and more people living alone. Building on green belt or relaxing these space in the south east means we connect more and more towns and make more urban environment. Its a poor choice and poor response to the problem

In addition its coming from the wrong messenger in Sadiq Khan, you can't pretend you are all about air quality on one topic and then concrete over every natural space on the other.

The "what will you eat" argument doesn't stack up. Look at the amount of land that is being farmed. Look how little is needed for housing. If you want to boost domestic UK food production, you making farming MORE PRODUCTIVE, you don't worry about the use of a tiny percentage of the available land.

Similarly claiming there would be an air quality impact doesn't make sense when you look at the actual mechanisms involved.

Social trends are REAL. They reflect people's choices. If those choices can be accommodated then they should be accommodated. That's what government is supposed to do. What we've collectively done to date is allow a housing crisis to unfold over several decades that has caused profound social and economic damage. You cannot pretend that is not the case. You cannot pretend that fiddling around with extensions or stamp duty is going to have a material impact. If it were that simple, don't you think someone would have implemented those changes already?

Edited by ATG on Friday 9th May 10:41

[otolith]

valiant said:

Not all the greenbelt is all woods and trees.

There's a fair amount of 'poor quality' green belt land that could be repurposed as housing.

I'm slightly concerned by the way that he is defining that. "The green belt can often be low-quality land, poorly maintained and rarely enjoyed by Londoners. Only around 13% is made up of parks and areas that the public can access." - the value of open green space is not entirely defined by public amenity.

[Countdown]

An increase in the supply of "Land" will reduce the cost of land, theoretically making houses cheaper to build.

Also my guess is that it will be easier to source single large areas of land which will make building houses cheaper than 10 houses here, 5 over there, another 3 round the back of Mrs Miggins.......

[TownIdiot]

otolith said:

valiant said:

Not all the greenbelt is all woods and trees.

There's a fair amount of 'poor quality' green belt land that could be repurposed as housing.

I'm slightly concerned by the way that he is defining that. "The green belt can often be low-quality land, poorly maintained and rarely enjoyed by Londoners. Only around 13% is made up of parks and areas that the public can access." - the value of open green space is not entirely defined by public amenity.

This is absolutely true - I have a plot of land that is in the green belt on the edge of a village.

Part of it is a yard with garages and a derelict shed. Absolutely zero chance currently.