The government’s idea of re-designating areas as “grey belt” land in its bid to build more homes is “largely redundant”, a House of Lords committee has said.
Ministers had said that, if a council’s housing targets could not be met, some protected land known as green belt would be re-labelled grey belt and thereby freed up for development.
However, after conducting an inquiry the committee said it suspected the grey belt concept had been “eclipsed by more significant changes” made by the government.
A government spokesperson said its changes to the green belt were “just one of the ambitious housing reforms we have set out to solve the housing crisis and boost economic growth”.
They added that the measures were “informed through widespread consultation and will unlock more land for the homes and infrastructure communities desperately need, delivering sustainable, affordable and well-designed developments on low quality grey belt”.
Since coming to power in July, the Labour government has said it wants to build 1.5 million homes over the next five years and has identified “poor quality” green belt land as possible areas of construction.
It pointed to a disused garage in Tottenham, north London, as an example of land that could not be developed because it was deemed to be on a green belt site.
Green belts were established more than 70 years ago with five purposes, including restricting the sprawl of urban areas and protecting the countryside.
In a letter to Housing Secretary Angela Rayner, chair of the Built Environment Committee Lord Moylan said the green belt had been treated as “sacrosanct” making it difficult for local authorities to build on the area, despite a high demand for more homes.
He said the idea of a grey belt had initially “intrigued” committee members who believed it could “make a positive contribution” to meeting housing targets.
However, he said that changes announced in the National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF) would mean that the impact of the grey belt would be “at best, marginal”.
The changes include a requirement for councils to review green belt boundaries and suggest changes to the boundaries if they cannot meet their housing targets.
Under the new rules, building on green belt land will be be allowed if other options have been exhausted, the government has said.
“It is difficult to see what the grey belt regime will add in terms of the ability to build on the green belt in light of this requirement,” Lord Moylan said.
In the course of taking evidence the committee heard dramatically differing estimates of how many dwellings could be built on grey belt land.
Homebuilders Barratt Redrow suggested the number could be as low as 50,000, while LandTech, a software company, put the figure at four million.
Responding to the inquiry’s conclusions, Fergus Charlton, a planning partner at firm Michelmores, said: “Whether or not the grey belt policies will play an effective role in achieving the government’s difficult to reach 1.5 million new homes target will become clearer as the policies begin to play a defining role in plan making.
“In the realm of decision-taking they are already playing a key role in the outcome of appeals where green belt land is considered by inspectors to be grey belt.
“We have seen more than a handful of successful appeals in the eight weeks since the grey belt concept was confirmed in the NPPF.”
