Rethinking the green belt need not mean a planning free for all

Earlier this year we saw the publication of the Raynsford Review, outlining a series of recommendations to reform the planning system.

Yet there is always one elephant in the room - the green belt. Its existence is never called into question, its value never queried.

The green belt is the part of the planning system most familiar to the public. Everyone knows its purpose - it prevents development. When anyone attempts to suggest that we might want to think again about the role and the extent of the green belt, the reaction is usually swift and negative.

The green belt is sacrosanct. To reform it would surely be to allow developers to run riot across the countryside, swallowing it up beneath a sea of concrete.

Yet reform does not have to mean a planning free for all.

Since 1997 the green belt has increased in size by almost 75,000 acres (enough for almost 900,000 homes) according to government figures. And while it might have reduced in area in …