Building homes on grey belt land is “unlikely to make any significant difference” to the government’s ambitious target of one-and-a-half million new homes, a report has stated.
The House of Lords Built Environment Committee, which launched an inquiry into grey belt policy last year, has written to the deputy Prime Minister stating that the policy has been “rushed and not properly thought through”.
In its election-winning manifesto, the government pledged to build one-and-a-half million homes over the next four years, with a key pillar of this strategy resting on developing grey belt land. This is defined as green belt land that has been previously developed and does not support some of the key purposes of green belt designation, like disused car parks.
The government said it would revise the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), publishing the final version in December, which required local authorities to review green belt boundaries and propose changes if they could not meet the demand for homes and other development.
The committee explained that the grey belt policy had the “potential to expand rural settlements and unlock sites on boundaries of existing communities” and it would have been possible to minimise opposition, as land did not fit green belt ideals.
However, the changes to the framework and other policy developments are “likely to render the concept of grey belt land largely redundant”.
How the housing landscape is set to shift
Sponsored by Halifax Intermediaries
It pointed to the uncertainty of how many dwellings could be built on grey belt land, with estimates ranging from 50,000 to four million, as well as the “lack of [a] clear plan” to track the progress and effectiveness of policies.
The committee said: “The government appears to lack a sufficient understanding of the implications of introducing multiple intersecting planning policies at the same time, and this compromises its ability to deliver any of its policies in a coherent way.
“Even if new homes are built as a result of the grey belt designation, access to public transport infrastructure and social infrastructure, in tandem with environmental considerations, will be crucial in determining the long-term sustainability and viability of such developments. It is not clear how far these considerations have been properly taken into account.”
The committee added that while grey belt land usage may have benefitted SME housebuilders, the affordable housing requirement would make it “financially difficult”.
The changes to the NPPF raised concerns that local authority planning departments would lack the resources and expertise to deliver change at pace, adding that the 300 additional planners promised in the Budget were not enough.
The committee added that creating grey belt as a designation could encourage “ad hoc and speculative applications” for land development on the green belt and that land should be realised in a “planned and strategic manner”.
Policy ‘implemented in a somewhat rushed and incoherent manner’
Lord Moylan, chair of the Built Environment Committee, said: “Last autumn, our committee launched this inquiry into ‘grey belt land’ because the committee believed that this new category could make a positive contribution to meeting housing targets.
“The government’s policy [has] been implemented in a somewhat rushed and incoherent manner. The committee does not believe that it is likely to have any significant or lasting impact on planning decision-making or helping the government achieve its target of building 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament.”
He continued: “In December, the government published the final NPPF, and the revisions it has made to the framework have now made the concept of grey belt land largely redundant, as land will now be more likely to be released from the green belt through existing channels instead.
“The government also does not seem to have any plan to measure progress or determine the success of this policy. Effective policy must be evidence-based and be able to demonstrate its efficacy. Sadly, this is not the case here.”
