Homes, Growth and the Green Belt: Are We Asking the Right Questions?

Britain has a genuine housing crisis. It also has a longstanding problem with weak economic growth. Housebuilding and infrastructure are increasingly being asked to help solve both. That makes it more important, not less, to understand where housing targets come from, what they are intended to achieve and whether we are making enough use of the homes and developed land we already have.

This is not an argument against housebuilding, nor an argument that every piece of Green Belt should remain untouched regardless of circumstances. It is an attempt to ask a more useful question: what problem are our housing targets actually designed to solve, and are we using every reasonable way of creating homes before permanently expanding further into undeveloped land?

The housing crisis is real

Any balanced discussion has to start here. In 2025, the median home in England cost about 7.6 times median full-time earnings; in London it was 10.6 times. On 31 March 2026, 135,580 households were living in temporary accommodation in England, including households containing 177,530 children.

Those figures represent genuine hardship. Simply saying Britain does not need more homes would not stand up to scrutiny. But recognising a housing problem does not mean every target, every location or every permanent change to the landscape should escape examination.

This did not start with one political party

High housebuilding ambitions span governments. In 2017 the Conservative government set an ambition to reach 300,000 additional homes a year. The current Labour government has an ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament and has changed important parts of the planning framework, including stronger housing expectations and a new approach to Green Belt and 'grey belt' land.

The desire to increase housebuilding substantially is therefore not the invention of one party. What has changed over time is the mechanism used to pursue it, how strongly national policy pushes local authorities to plan for the numbers and the circumstances in which Green Belt land may form part of the answer.

Where do the housing numbers actually come from?

Many people understandably assume housing targets are produced by forecasting population growth and calculating how many extra homes those people will require. England's current Standard Method does not work that way.

It begins with 0.8% of the existing housing stock in each local authority every year, then applies an upward adjustment where housing is less affordable. Government guidance says the method is intended to respond to affordability pressures and significantly boost supply. It produces a minimum assessment of local housing need; it does not, by itself, create the final housing requirement in a Local Plan.

That distinction matters. The number is not simply a forecast of how many additional people will need a roof. It is also a policy tool intended to increase supply in places where housing has become unaffordable.

Population still matters, but it changes

Population growth, migration, household size, ageing, separation and where people choose or need to live all affect housing demand. The latest ONS estimate puts UK long-term net migration at 171,000 in the year ending December 2025, down from 331,000 a year earlier. England's total fertility rate fell to 1.39 children per woman in 2025.

Neither figure makes existing unmet housing need disappear, and nobody can know that today's demographic pattern will continue for twenty years. They do, however, underline why long-term plans need regular review. Population estimates and projections are revised as better evidence becomes available; they are planning tools, not certainties.

Housebuilding is also economic policy

This is another part of the debate that can be discussed without conspiracy. Governments of different parties have linked housing and infrastructure with productivity and economic growth. The present government explicitly places planning reform, housing and infrastructure within its growth agenda.

The independent Office for Budget Responsibility estimated in March 2025 that current residential planning reforms could lead to around 170,000 additional homes by 2029-30 and raise GDP by around 0.2% at the forecast horizon. The OBR also said much of the additional development assumed over the following five years was expected to occur on land currently designated as Green Belt, while stressing that its estimates were uncertain.

So housebuilding is being asked to perform two jobs: provide more homes and contribute to economic growth. That does not mean the housing crisis has been invented to support construction. It does mean the public is entitled to ask how those objectives interact when irreversible planning decisions are made.

The harder question is what remains after the building

Construction creates jobs, orders and investment. New communities can require roads, utilities, schools, healthcare and transport, and well-chosen infrastructure can improve productivity for decades.

But success cannot be measured only by how much construction took place. We should also ask whether homes became more affordable, productivity and living standards improved, infrastructure kept pace and the places created actually work for the people living in them. Economic activity generated by building something is not automatically the same as lasting prosperity.

What does this mean for Enfield and the London fringe?

The corrected Draft London Plan 2026 proposes a ten-year housing target for Enfield of 21,062 homes: 14,062 attributed to brownfield capacity and 7,000 to greenfield capacity. Across London, the Draft Plan totals 558,451 homes over the same period, including 56,100 attributed to greenfield capacity.

Those figures are borough-wide planning targets, not a statement that all of the greenfield number will be built in Crews Hill. But they show why the debate is bigger than one proposed development. Similar pressures are being felt just beyond the London boundary in Hertfordshire, where councils are also revisiting housing numbers, land supply and Green Belt through the national planning framework.

Green Belt needs a factual debate too

Green Belt is a planning designation, not a guarantee that every acre is ecologically exceptional. Its central purpose is to keep land permanently open and limit urban sprawl, including preventing settlements from merging and encouraging the recycling of urban land.

At 31 March 2025, England had about 1.633 million hectares of designated Green Belt, around 12.5% of its land area. The net reduction during 2024-25 was about 660 hectares, or 0.04%. That does not support claims that the Green Belt has already disappeared nationally.

But national percentages can hide very large local consequences. Once a particular landscape has been urbanised, the decision is extraordinarily difficult to reverse. That is why the evidence for releasing it should be strong.

Are we making enough use of what we have already built?

England created 208,600 net additional homes in 2024-25. Around 190,600 were new-build homes, 17,710 came from changes of use, and only 3,850 net additional dwellings came from conversions between houses and flats.

That last number is striking. It does not prove there are millions of suitable conversions waiting to happen, but it shows that subdivision of existing housing currently contributes only a very small share of new supply.

There were also 754,264 dwellings recorded as vacant in England in October 2025, including 303,185 classed as long-term vacant. Those figures must be handled carefully: an empty property may be in probate, renovation, between occupants or unsuitable for immediate occupation. They cannot simply be subtracted from the housing requirement. Even so, bringing viable long-term empty homes back into use should surely form part of a serious housing strategy.

Could one suitable house become two good homes?

There is room for more imagination. Some large Victorian, Edwardian, inter-war and later homes may be capable of providing two proper self-contained dwellings without consuming another piece of countryside.

That is not the same proposition as poorly managed, overcrowded shared accommodation. Subdivision normally requires planning permission and must meet building and safety requirements. Poor conversions can create noise, fire-safety, parking, refuse and space problems, and some areas still need to retain family-sized homes.

But those risks argue for standards, not for ignoring the idea. Government and councils could examine grants, low-cost finance or tax incentives for appropriate home subdivision where one property can genuinely become two safe, good-quality homes. That is a policy option to investigate, not a claim that every house should be divided.

Brownfield first has to work in practice

Successive governments have promoted brownfield development, but difficult brownfield sites can be expensive precisely because they require demolition, decontamination, infrastructure upgrades or complicated land assembly. A clean field may therefore be commercially easier to develop than a derelict urban site.

If society genuinely wants brownfield first, policy may have to make difficult brownfield financially easier, not merely theoretically preferable. Public investment in remediation, empty-property revival, town-centre regeneration and sensible conversions may sometimes create homes while also removing dereliction and making better use of existing roads, utilities and services.

Perhaps we should focus on homes created, not only houses built

A restored long-term empty property provides a home. A suitable house converted into two good flats creates an additional home. A redundant commercial building sensitively converted creates homes. Appropriate density on already-developed land creates homes. And new construction creates homes.

Britain will almost certainly need all of those approaches. The point is not to use alternatives as an excuse to build nothing. It is to make sure the easiest land to develop does not automatically become the first land society is prepared to lose.

Questions worth asking before irreversible decisions are made

1. How much of a local housing figure reflects existing unmet need, how much reflects expected demographic change, and how much results from an affordability policy deliberately designed to increase supply?

2. How often will those assumptions be reviewed when migration, fertility, household formation, market conditions or the economy change?

3. How many homes will actually be affordable to the households whose difficulties demonstrate the housing crisis?

4. What serious assessment has been made of long-term empty homes, brownfield regeneration, reuse of buildings and appropriate subdivision before undeveloped land is released?

5. Will transport, healthcare, schools, water, sewerage and energy infrastructure arrive alongside development, and who ultimately pays for it?

6. Where Green Belt is proposed for release, what lasting public benefit justifies an effectively permanent land-use change?

7. Because housebuilding is also economic policy, how do we distinguish development that creates lasting productivity and living-standard gains from development that mainly creates short-term construction activity?

Those are not left-wing or right-wing questions. They are questions about evidence, value for money, sustainability and the kind of places we want to leave behind.

Have your say on the Draft London Plan

For Enfield residents and businesses, this discussion is live now. The Draft London Plan consultation closes at 5pm on Thursday 15 October 2026. It is a City Hall and Mayor of London consultation, rather than a Whitehall consultation, although national planning policy forms an important part of the background.

Residents, businesses, community groups, boroughs and organisations can respond, and you do not have to comment on the whole Plan. You can focus on the policies that matter to you, whether you support more housebuilding, want stronger affordable-housing requirements, support or oppose particular Green Belt changes, or want greater emphasis on brownfield and existing buildings.

Consultation: https://consult.london.gov.uk/londonplan

Housing people without losing sight of place

Britain needs more homes. It also needs economic growth, modern infrastructure, functioning public services, productive land, countryside and communities that remain worth living in.

Those goals are not automatically incompatible. The difficult task is deciding how many homes we need, what kind they should be, where they can most sustainably be created and which permanent changes are justified by the benefits they are expected to produce.

The question should not simply be: How many houses can we build? It should be: How can we create the homes people need while leaving the country functioning better than we found it?

Key sources

Figures and policy points in this article were checked against official sources on 14 September 2026.

Housing affordability, ONS: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2025

Statutory homelessness, MHCLG: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statutory-homelessness-in-england-january-to-march-2026/statutory-homelessness-in-england-january-to-march-2026

Standard Method for housing need, MHCLG: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-development-needs-assessments

Planning reform and the economy, OBR: https://obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2025/

Draft London Plan housing targets, City Hall: https://www.london.gov.uk/3-delivering-homes-and-neighbourhoods-londoners-need

Housing supply, MHCLG: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/housing-supply-net-additional-dwellings-england-2024-to-2025/housing-supply-net-additional-dwellings-england-2024-to-2025

Vacant dwellings, MHCLG: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwelling-stock-estimates-in-england-2025/dwelling-stock-estimates-england-31-march-2025

Green Belt statistics, MHCLG: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-authority-green-belt-statistics-for-england-2024-to-2025/local-authority-green-belt-england-2024-25-statistical-release

Draft London Plan consultation, City Hall: https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/next-london-plan/draft-london-plan-consultation