If you’ve ventured into the more overwrought corners of the internet recently, you’ll be familiar with the refrain, delivered with the surety of the sermon on the mount, that Britain is full. There are those who look at scenes from Calais, Lesvos and the Hungarian border, and rather than feel the overwhelming rush of empathy that accompanies the horror, explain that, actually, this tiny island is so overpopulated already we’re struggling daily to stop our children being nudged off cliffs and into the Channel.



Aside from the fact that welcoming fleeing refugees in acute distress is a mark of a civilised society, Britain is far from full. Less than 3% of England is built upon at the moment, and only 7% of the UK is classified as urban. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) released a report revealing that there are 635,000 empty homes in England, and of those, 216,000 (or just over one-third) have been unoccupied for longer than six months.

Living in an urban area – as most people in the UK do – it’s difficult to imagine precisely how much of the country is uninhabited, and just how many houses and flats lie empty, given how crowded public transport can feel at times.

This misconception also carries over into arguments about building more homes. Many homes lie empty for a number of reasons – either as unused or rarely used second homes, or voids resulting from policies like the bedroom tax, or due to local economies driving people away from areas of high unemployment. But in areas where the housing crisis is particularly acute, such as London, Cambridge and Oxford, and other cities and big towns in the south-east, the argument against building firmly emphasises the importance of the green belt.

When you ask most people what their understanding of the green belt is, they’ll reply that it’s an idyllic woodland and countryside area surrounding these cities that needs protection. In actuality, most of the green belt is not what we’d consider “green and pleasant land” and the policy was brought in to try and stymie urban sprawl.

Yet it hasn’t stopped cities from growing; it’s only worsened the housing crisis within them, as more people are squeezed into urban space, or travel in from far flung areas built outside the green belt. Oxford in particular has an increasing problem with recruiting teachers for its many schools, with new teachers unable to afford Oxford rents inflated by the lack of housing, or the commutes that result from being unable to live where you work.



But it also worsens social inequality. Paul Cheshire of the LSE pegs it as “a very British form of discriminatory zoning, keeping the urban unwashed out of the home counties – and, of course, helping to turn houses into investment assets instead of places to live.” Understanding that planning is stopping homes being built on the green belt, and that actually, there is plenty of space for new homes for people who aren’t wealthy, is key to solving the housing crisis.



The arguments used against accepting and housing refugees often elide with the arguments against taking action to solve the housing crisis. A tongue-in-cheek petition to house 100,000 refugees in some of the 80,000 holiday homes in Wales makes the point that Britain is far from full, but that too much space and power lands in the laps of the rich. In fact, there’s plenty of space to build more homes and house more people.



Sign up for your free Guardian Housing network newsletter with news and analysis sent direct to you every Friday. Follow us: @GuardianHousing