Without changes in construction, Flanders threatens to lose 40,000 ha of space

The first digital version of destination tickets was only introduced in 1994. Nevertheless, since the end of the 1960s there have been drafts of 25 regional plans which completely cover Flanders. The historical study shows that the “congestion” of Flanders, as we know it today and which entails significant social costs, already began in the 1960s and 1970s. As regional plans provisional evolved towards their final form, more and more plots built, dispersed or in development in ribbon, intended for the dwelling.

If the space reserved for buildings was already spacious at the time, it has become even larger. This oversupply was justified on economic grounds such as the fact that “the space available for activity creates more activity”. But budgetary reasons have also been put forward. In this way, building land would remain affordable. Governments also argued that citizens should have the choice to live where they wanted to live and that they had the right to choose a rural way of life. Behind all this was mainly the fear of damage claims and the resulting compensation from (land) owners.

To this day, these 43-year-old regional plans continue to determine spatial planning for a large part of Flanders. Since the finalization of the regional plans, only 5% of the Flemish territory has become the main destination (1980-2020). So very few changes (and improvements) to these old zoning plans, despite changing social and ecological circumstances.

UNPLANNED NATURE AND AGRICULTURE WITH SPACE TAKING UP

What this study also showed is that much of the additional land take – around a third – was also allowed “unplanned” in soft uses, such as agriculture and nature. According to the town planning regulations, this was not planned. The regional plans therefore did not lead to adjustments to keep the developments together in the designated areas.

Figures show that the “unplanned” share of occupied space in soft destinations has even increased in recent years due to the exception culture of out-of-area overriding rules. As a result, more than 50% of the occupied space ends up in soft destinations. The additional land use (1975-2020) is “spread” over the whole country and shows little compactness or concentration, except for the developments of the seaports, the national airport and some industrial areas of the Limburg. In fact, the rate of space consumption during this period was 2.5 times faster than population growth.

What if the construction shift was actually applied?

HOGENT and VITO’s study also looked at how space occupancy in Flanders can grow further until 2050. Where and how much space occupancy will be added if the policy is not changed and we assume that the occupation of space will continue at the same rate as that measured over the last decade (usual growth scenario, GAU or 5 ha/day of space consumption)? And, how does this differ when applying a new policy, in particular the implementation of the densification principles and the protection principles of the Flanders Spatial Policy Plan (BRV scenario) ?

The results are remarkable:

1. The oversupply of hard destinations, which was created in the 1960s and 1970s, persists in both scenarios. Forecasts show that a large number of hard destinations will not be affected. This is mainly due to the poor location of much of the remaining building land in relation to demographic and economic needs and forecasts. The researchers therefore conclude that the excess supply of (poorly located) land can be neutralized or reallocated without affecting the development opportunities of Flanders. Moreover, this is only possible with a limited densification (+6%) of existing residential areas. This finding confirms the results of another recent study which investigated future housing needs in Flanders and found that there is a significant excess supply of residential areas in relation to future housing needs.
2. The difference that the Construction Shift can mean for open spaces is significant, as the comparison of the two scenarios clearly shows:

Additional land use for Flanders 2020-2050, in the business as usual scenario (above) and with implementation of the BRV policy scenario (below)

3. What is new in this study is that it established that doing nothing (GAU) leads to an additional loss of approximately 29,000 ha of open space in soft destinations and 13,000 ha in hard destinations. by 2050, compared to a scenario in which the policy plan (BRV) comes into effect. Moving construction can therefore produce the greatest gaps and space gains, especially for open space allocations of agricultural and green areas.
4. Greater protection of agricultural and natural areas is needed, especially in the central part of Flanders, which is most under pressure. Two political avenues offer prospects if we want to safeguard open space: limiting the possibilities of expansion of buildings outside the zone and the conversion of agricultural land on the one hand, and neutralizing/reassigning part of the hard uses on the other. go.
5. The overall picture of the historical development of land use in Flanders and what the future may bring with (no) policy change is shown in the graph below.

Evolution of land use in Flanders in hard destinations (red) and soft destinations (green), from 1975 to 2020 and future projection from 2020 to 2050 with trend (dotted line) and implementation of the new policy ( dotted line).

More information about this study can be found at VITO’s website.