"The capital’s planning framework must be capable of responding to 21st-century pressures, not 20th-century assumptions. "
The Mayor of London’s latest consultation Towards a New London Plan is many things: bold, overdue, and above all, honest. It opens the door, at last, to a discussion that to date has not been confronted head-on: that the city cannot meet its housing needs without looking again at the Green Belt and other potential sources of delivery including Metropolitan Open Land (MOL).
While the consultation is only the start of a long process, it is nonetheless a milestone. It signals that the Mayor is beginning to look positively at this issue and is an approach that is consistent with national planning policy, as set out in the new NPPF published in December 2024. It accepts that London needs a more strategic approach to land use and cannot rely solely on brownfield land alone. If followed through, it could allow London to address its chronic under-supply of housing for the first time in decades. As the consultation document explains, over the ten-year period housing need in London is 880,000 new homes – but this would require an annual rate of growth that has not been achieved since the boom of the 1930s.
For too long, the Green Belt has been treated as sacred in planning discussions. In theory, its purpose is clear: to prevent urban sprawl, prevent towns merging, protect the countryside from encroachment, preserve the setting of historic towns and encourage the recycling of urban land. But in practice, particularly in London’s outer boroughs, it is not clear whether land meets these purposes as there has never been a Strategic London wide Green Belt review. The same is true of MOL – a London-specific designation that often protects tracts of land on the basis of historic or perceived value.
There are numerous examples across London (and the wider South East) of small pockets of Green Belt or MOL, often of limited environmental or recreational value, which sit next to rail stations or bus hubs or close to town centres – Boyer has worked on achieving promotions in local plans for such sites for many years. These sites offer precisely the kind of opportunity for housing that should be embraced if the city is to meet its housing needs sustainably. Their development can deliver not just homes, but public spaces, community infrastructure and other amenities, all in an ultimately sustainable location.
This is not about concreting over bucolic land, it’s about a more strategic approach to land use – identifying underperforming land in the right locations and setting clear parameters for quality, accessibility, and long-term value.
Of course it won’t be easy. The political and emotional weight of the Green Belt remains strong, particularly at the local level. Outer London boroughs may be wary of changes that they perceive as threatening to the character of their areas. The key challenge for politicians will be to articulate the public benefits of reform in a way that builds – rather than erodes – trust and consensus.
To succeed, this process will require leadership, genuine engagement, and a commitment to good design, sustainability, and infrastructure delivery. It will also require a frank conversation with the public about trade-offs: that protecting every piece of open land has a cost, and that with the right safeguards, change can enhance rather than detract from the quality of life.
It would be naïve to suggest that this consultation alone will solve London’s housing crisis. But it does represent a step-change in thinking. It acknowledges that business as usual is not working, and that the capital’s planning framework must be capable of responding to 21st-century pressures, not 20th-century assumptions.
