Photo credit: www.bbc.com
Concerns Raised Over ‘Grey Belt’ Land Redesignations
The House of Lords committee has expressed skepticism regarding the government’s proposal to classify certain areas as “grey belt” land in an effort to facilitate housing development. This initiative is viewed as “largely redundant” by the committee members.
The government’s approach suggests that if local councils fail to meet housing targets, some designated green belt lands could be reclassified as grey belt, making them available for new construction projects. However, the committee’s inquiry indicates that this grey belt concept may be overshadowed by other significant modifications enforced by the government.
A government spokesperson defended the reforms to the green belt, stating that these measures are part of comprehensive housing reforms aimed at addressing the housing crisis and stimulating economic growth. They emphasized that the changes were developed through extensive consultations to release more land for the vital homes and infrastructure needed by communities, focusing on sustainable, affordable, and well-designed projects on low-quality grey belt land.
Since taking office in July, the Labour government has committed to constructing 1.5 million homes over the next five years, identifying “poor quality” green belt areas as potential sites for development. They cited a derelict garage in Tottenham, North London, as an example of a site that is restricted from development due to its green belt designation.
Established over 70 years ago, green belts are intended to serve multiple purposes, such as curbing urban sprawl and preserving rural landscapes. In a correspondence with Housing Secretary Angela Rayner, Lord Moylan, chair of the Built Environment Committee, pointed out that the strict protection of green belts has created obstacles for local authorities trying to meet high housing demands.
Initially, the concept of a grey belt intrigued committee members who believed it could facilitate meeting housing targets. However, further examination led them to conclude that changes in the National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF) would diminish the potential impact of the grey belt to marginal levels.
The new regulations mandate councils to reassess green belt boundaries and propose adjustments if they cannot fulfill housing requirements. Under these guidelines, development on green belt land may be granted if all alternative options have been explored.
Lord Moylan questioned the added value of the grey belt designation in light of these new requirements, suggesting its effectiveness could be limited. Furthermore, during the inquiry, the committee encountered vastly differing estimates of housing potential on grey belt land. Homebuilders like Barratt Redrow estimated as few as 50,000 new dwellings could be accommodated, while LandTech projected the figure could rise to four million.
In response to the findings of the inquiry, planning partner Fergus Charlton from Michelmores commented that the role of grey belt policies in achieving the ambitious goal of 1.5 million new homes remains uncertain, and it will become clearer as the policies begin to shape planning strategies. He noted that in the landscape of decision-making, these policies are already influencing the outcomes of appeals concerning land designated as grey belt.
Charlton observed that there have been several successful appeals related to the grey belt concept in the eight weeks following its confirmation in the NPPF.
Source
www.bbc.com