With nary a hint of self-awareness, the self-styled “hard man of Brexit” Steve Baker MP recently tweeted a video diatribe against the imminent expansion of the London Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). Baker—whose constituency is roughly the same distance from London as England is to France—saw no irony in complaining about a policy implemented by a Mayor he had no part in electing, in a jurisdiction miles from his own.
Londoners overwhelmingly support the expansion of ULEZ and it’s doubtful whether this issue will be a pivotal one in the coming Mayoral election. With an inexorable leftward turn by the outer boroughs Conservative councillors are becoming an increasingly endangered species in the capital, and the concerns of shire Tories are of little concern to its population. But a political landscape so polarised by geography does not make for a healthy democracy.
London generates a net £36bn contribution to the UK economy, and the prosperous towns and cities in the south east benefit hugely from being in its orbit. Yet this is less a symbiotic relationship than a parasitic one, with dwellers of the Home Counties wanting access to our economy without sharing any of the burden that entails. A good example is housing: with a handful of notable exceptions, few rural constituencies have taken steps to accommodate the homes, infrastructure and transport projects that the regional economy demands.
While London benefits from a strategic planning framework which grants the Mayor powers to guide the future direction of the capital, his influence ends at the outer edges of the borough’s boundaries. Jump across the border into Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent or Surrey, and immediately parochial politics nix any prospect of a coherent regional strategy.
Nearly 60 years after the formation of the 32 boroughs, perhaps it’s time to consider an expansion of London’s administrative boundaries to cover the wider economic region? Let’s give Steve Baker’s constituents the ability to vote on ULEZ—but in return let’s ensure that his bit of Buckinghamshire is doing its bit to deliver the homes the economy needs.
Just three of the 18 authorities that share a boundary with greater London have achieved a housing delivery test score (the government’s method of measuring the number of homes delivered compared to targets) of more than 100%. Some, such as Tandridge, scored a pitiful 38% in the most recent figures. This isn’t good enough. Having large areas of green belt (an area of policy which desperately needs an overhaul) should not be used as an excuse for this poor performance.
London’s green belt stretches from Surrey to the North Sea, far beyond any reasonable requirement to contain the city’s growth, as well as putting unacceptable pressure on valuable landscapes in outlying areas which do not benefit from this protection.
The housing crisis intensifies with every passing day; productivity remains woefully low. Yet a floundering and directionless government has done its best to throttle any prospect of building our way to sustainable growth, with transport, renewable energy, housing and water security projects caught in endless bureaucracy – and the removal of central housing targets providing a convenient excuse for rural authorities to shirk their responsibilities to the wider region. Green belt restrictions are too often used as justification.
As young people are increasingly driven out of central London by ever-rising housing costs, and suburban Nimbys do their best to stymie development on its fringes, long daily commutes which leapfrog the city’s green belt are a drag on productivity and a strain on mental health. Coupled with resistance to the construction of vital infrastructure, such as solar farms, reservoirs and high-speed rail, London’s green belt—and the towns within it—are becoming less like the green lungs of the city, and increasingly like a creeping vine, choking it slowly to death.
Given the original purpose of the green belt as a check on the city’s expansion, shouldn’t the areas within it also fall under Mayoral control? Perhaps a new south east England regional authority could follow the current extent of the green belt, enabling strategic decisions to be made to the benefit of all inhabitants rather than just those living in comfort circumstances. Expanding London’s administrative boundaries to include those regions covered by its green belt could enable a fully integrated transport network in place of the fragmented and dysfunctional one we have today, with Transport for London taking over responsibility for operating the services, maintaining the tracks, and developing the land around regional transport hubs.
Numerous studies, including my own, have shown that there is considerable capacity for new homes in sustainable locations a short walk from rural railway stations – each with easy access to central London.
A rebalancing between Labour’s grip on urban areas and the Tories’ control over rural authorities might take place, rejuvenating political debate and injecting new life into an opposition which has pretty much given up on London. The ability to direct renewable infrastructure projects to the places they’re needed would be a gamechanger in terms of energy security and climate resilience. New solar farms, reservoirs and wind turbines have all met resistance from rural communities, and yet the city can no longer be held hostage by those who want all of the benefits of living close to it, without bearing any of the pain.
Within London the Mayor’s planning powers already strike a reasonable balance between achieving a coherent regional strategy and respecting local autonomy, so expanding this to include the larger south-east region might enable us at last to grapple with the big decisions many authorities are currently unable—or unwilling—to take. The green belt belongs to London. Perhaps it’s time to take back control?
