What impact might a change of government have on the UK’s brownfield/greenfield balance?

If – as is widely predicted – the current government is replaced with a Labour administration later this year, we are likely to see the preferred location for new homes change substantially.

The current government has always stated its commitment to ‘brownfield’. When it outlined its Long-Term Plan for Housing in July last year, it committed to ‘a new era of regeneration, inner-city densification and housing delivery across England’ and launched its visions for growth in London, Leeds and Cambridge. The Spring Budget made further commitments to these cities, allocating funding for London and Leeds and the promise of both a development corporation in, and a future long-term funding settlement for Cambridge, to be announced in the next Spending Review.

The same day, the government also published an Independent Review of the London Plan and following this highly critical report, Michael Gove ordered the London mayor Sadiq Khan to conduct a partial review of the London Plan. There are two specific areas of focus. The first is industrial land: the government believes that of the 6,800 hectares of land used for industry in London, 736 hectares could be used for housing. The second is opportunity areas which have not delivered the intended 2,500 homes. For the Conservative party, brownfield development remains the priority.

Labour’s approach to the brownfield/greenfield issue is quite different.

In a speech on 19 April, Keir Starmer set out his policy for housebuilding, specifically freeing up space for between 100,000 and 500,000 homes by building on ‘ugly’ parts of green belt land. His proposals include prioritising brownfield land within what is currently designated green belt, but also improving green spaces such as parks and woodlands.

A year ago, Starmer depicted a disused petrol station as an example of land within the green belt which had little aesthetic value but considerable development value. The petrol station – along with ‘disused car parks’ and ‘dreary wastelands’ – has since been branded the ‘grey belt’, a new description for protected land which would otherwise be made available for development on the basis of its suitability and sustainable location.

However, this is unlikely to be straight-forward in addressing London’s housing crisis as Khan is committed to protecting the capital’s green belt and has stated that even ‘derelict and unsightly’ parts should be shielded from development.

Why Khan has such an extreme view on not releasing the green belt remains a mystery. Some commentators have suggested that his reasoning is environmental – the green belt being the ‘lungs’ of London, or the ‘climate safety’ belt. Other reasons include ensuring transport emissions do not increase from sprawl, supporting London’s resilience to a changing climate through preventing flooding, production, providing important habitats for wildlife and allowing space for recreation and relaxation.

While that may be true, the opposing point of view is that the green belt has contributed to long commuting distances, house price inflation, less choice and poorer quality, smaller homes.

Developers are increasingly building greener, more sustainable developments which focus on active travel, sustainable energy and increased biodiversity. And so to release what Starmer has described as ‘ugly parts’ of the green belt (the ‘grey belt’) and to allocate them for sustainable development would seem eminently logical.

Almost unquestionably, green belt release is the single most effective way of resolving the housing crisis. There are many parts of London where the green belt is isolated pieces of land between major transport infrastructure and these are prime sites for the development of employment and homes. Some London boroughs including (Labour-run) Enfield are boldly proposing major green belt release in their draft local plans – knowing that this won’t sit well with Khan but that it does align with the policies of a future Labour government.

Development on the green belt – and there is substantial green belt surrounding London, Leeds and Cambridge – is one of the most contentious planning policies that a government could introduce (as is evidenced by the fact that the current government has made great efforts to avoid doing so). Clearly, Starmer believes that it’s a cause worth fighting for, but Khan remains opposed to this key Labour planning policy and there is reason to believe that the mayors of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority are also very protective of the green belt.

A future Labour government would have to use multiple levers to genuinely achieve a step-change in housing delivery, and this will include the inevitable need to deliver some development on green belt land that does not neatly fit the ‘grey’ label. Difficult decisions, and continuing political disagreements, lie ahead if we are to house our growing population.

Katy Davis is a planning and development partner in Carter Jonas’ London office