Greenbelts are the rings of countryside surrounding London and other large UK cities, designed to contain urban sprawl and preserve green spaces for the citizenry’s casual pursuit of outdoor leisure activities. They are also a major reason behind the UK’s infamous housing crisis and in the upcoming local elections, they are giving the Conservative party a headache: single-issue parties aiming to stop housebuilding in the greenbelts are threatening to dilute the Tory vote in what usually regarded as Conservative heartlands.
The (often relatively affluent) residents of these green suburbs are understandably keen to maintain their rural idyll. Housebuilding brings with it disruption, change and spoilt views. They want government to guarantee the continued protected status of the greenbelts and thereby underwrite their property values.
But what the NIMBYs in the greenbelts fail to appreciate, and what the Tories are scared to tell them, is how the concept of private property works. Owning your property gives you no right to control what the owner of neighbouring land can use his property for – unless it happened to be stipulated in the ownership contract (or the lease, as it is known in the UK). Protecting your view of the countryside may have value to you, but if so, you may have to pay to preserve it. Nothing stops the greenbelters from getting together and buying up land to maintain the rural feel and protect their valued views. Of course, this is not what they have in mind. What they understandably prefer is for the government to continue the current central planning of the utilization of the British countryside, despite detrimental effect on the rest of society.
To the Tories, the Green Belt represents a dilemma comparable to the one faced by Conservative Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel in 1846. The infamous Corn Laws, a set of tariffs and trade restrictions on imported food and grains, were heavily supported by Conservative landowners. Peel was a proponent of free trade but caved to pressure and voted against repeal of the Corn Laws on several occasions before the start of the Irish Great Famine in 1845 led to a fall in food supplies that made the laws untenable. Despite strong opposition, Peel forced through the repeal in 1846. It was fraught with political risk and to some in his party, Peel was a traitor, weakening the landed gentry in favour of commercial interests and thereby invoking havoc on the traditional social structure – but history judged him kindly. Theresa May should invoke the spirit of Peel and do what she knows is right, despite the political risks.