The Labour Party has published details of its plans to encourage development on ‘grey belt’ land.
Labour leader Keir Starmer set out five ‘golden rules’ earlier today to “get Britain building” and deliver on the party’s pledge to build 1.5 million new homes within the first five years of a Labour government.
Starmer said: ”Labour supports brownfield-first policies. But we must be honest, we cannot build the homes Britain needs without also releasing some land currently classed as green belt. We’ll prioritise ugly, disused grey belt land, and set tough new conditions for releasing that land. Our golden rules will also ensure any grey belt development delivers affordable homes, new infrastructure and improved green spaces.”
The five ‘golden rules’ are:
Brownfield first – within the green belt, any brownfield land must be prioritised for development.
Grey belt second – poor-quality and ugly areas of the green belt should be clearly prioritised over nature-rich, environmentally valuable land in the green belt. At present, beyond the existing brownfield category the system doesn’t differentiate between them. This category will be distinct to brownfield with a wider definition.
Affordable homes – plans must target at least 50% affordable housing delivery when land is released.
Boost public services and infrastructure – plans must boost public services and local infrastructure, like more school and nursery places, new health centres and GP appointments.
Improve genuine green spaces – Labour rules out building on genuine nature spots and requires plans to include improvements to existing green spaces, making them accessible to the public, with new woodland, parks and playing fields. Plans should meet high environmental standards.
The party’s plans received a mixed response from senior property industry figures. Melanie Leech, CEO of the British Property Federation, said: “Labour rightly identifies the potential of ‘grey belt’ land to deliver new homes. This is one of a raft of planning reforms that are needed to boost housing supply, many of which are in our manifesto, ‘Building our Future’. A lot of green belt land is actually very poor quality but perversely has good transport links, and it should be brought to life to provide new homes, jobs and community facilities.
“The UK desperately needs more homes and modern critical infrastructure to make the country more productive and sustainable, and today’s announcement is one of many steps needed to get us there.”
Colin Brown, head of planning and development at Carter Jonas, said: “It is encouraging to see that Labour are at least attempting to grapple with the green belt conundrum. I absolutely agree that there are many sites designated as green belt that do not reflect the public’s perception of what the green belt actually is, including previously developed sites. There is also some logic in prioritising the use of ‘grey belt’ land where releases are needed to meet housing requirements. However, a future government will have to use multiple levers to genuinely achieve a step-change in housing delivery.
“This will include the inevitable need to deliver some development on current green belt land that does not neatly fit the ‘grey’ label. There are many areas that simply do not have a legacy of brownfield land where more difficult decisions absolutely must be taken if we are to house our growing population, including, critically, those in current housing need.”
Jeevan Thandi, associate director at Lambert Smith Hampton, added: “Labour’s proposed approach could potentially offer a clear and unencumbered route to developing out sites which contribute little to the purposes of the green belt. However, it is important the proposal is delivered with extreme clarity on the definition of grey belt land and mechanisms which encourage local planning authorities to work together in identifying larger grey belt sites in close proximity of each other, allowing for new housing to be delivered at scale in the most sustainable locations.
“One of the perennial problems with discussions around the green belt is public perception of what the term actually means. We hear it applied to any greenfield development proposals, but this new classification opens up potential for more clarity around the differences in the standard of land within the green belt.”
Lawrence Turner, director at Boyer, said: “As the UK’s housing crisis continues to worsen, the need for a joined-up approach to deliver more homes is urgently required. Addressing the housing crisis needs to encompass the use of brownfield and greenfield sites, the establishment of new settlements and the carefully considered release of green belt land. The latter is something that the current government has avoided for the last 14 years. Keir Starmer is correct when he says: ‘We cannot build the homes Britain needs without also releasing some land currently classed as greenbelt’.
“It is important to recognise that green belt land does not solely comprise areas of pristine countryside. In fact, many green belt areas are used for industrial purposes, golf courses, or intense agricultural activities – which Keir Starmer refers to as ‘grey belt’. This distinction is crucial, as it dispels the misconception that all green belt land is environmentally valuable and must be preserved at all costs.”
Tim Foreman, managing director of land and new homes at Leaders Romans Group, said: “While I agree with much of what Keir Starmer is saying, I’m not sure if there is anything terribly revolutionary in it. We have heard talk like this before from governments but the problem is that when planning applications go in on this type of land, they are held up for years or refused at a local level.
“The ideas are good but the policy must have some teeth to make sure that the land is released in a timely manner to help with the chronic shortage of homes. I also am slightly worried about the proposal that 50% of the homes built on this land are designated affordable homes. This percentage seems to keep creeping up and with the current high cost of materials and labour already affecting our sector I am worried that development sites will be financially unviable if they have to provide this percentage of affordable homes.
“I think our problem is serious enough that a housing task force needs to be set up with a clearer plan on what the mission is and more authority to step in if things are held up.”
Terry Woodley, MD of development finance at Shawbrook, said: “Labour’s proposed plans to require councils to build on the ‘grey belt’ and utilise brownfield sites could be a step in the right direction. The UK is in urgent need of solutions to address the housing shortages, and developing brownfield sites could be a useful piece of the puzzle. However, it is not the sole solution, and it can come with its challenges. Though our research shows that 77% of developers agree that location is still the biggest driver of property sales and brownfield sites allow for attractive urban living options, these sites can often pose a unique set of challenges and may not be as attractive to developers compared to other options.
“Whilst this could be a positive change, any government considering these steps must ensure that they’re taking a multi-pronged approach which includes an overhaul of the planning process to adequately tackling housing issues if we are to see real progress over the next 12 months and beyond.”
