黑洞社区

The government鈥檚 plans to recategorise 鈥榩oor quality鈥� green belt land as 鈥榞rey belt鈥� is likely to result in confusion among planners and a surge in legal challenges, a parliamentary committee has been told.

The House of Lords built environment launched its short inquiry into the grey belt last week (15 October), hearing from the leaders of two bodies representing the planning sector.

Labour鈥檚 grey belt concept, which has been out for consultation as part of proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, is meant to make it easier for protected land to be released for development if it does not perform well in achieving the green belt鈥檚 five key purposes.

The government has also set out 鈥済olden rules鈥� for grey belt development, which include a 50% affordable housing requirement.

But the proposals were slammed by Dr Hugh Ellis, policy director at the Town and Country Planning Association, who described them as a 鈥減olitical idea being retrofitted into public policy鈥�.

Asked by the committee whether the proposed grey belt definition was clear enough for planning officers to implement it without delay, Ellis said emphatically that it was not.

鈥淭he grey-belt proposition is an entirely new planning concept and as a result its definition is extremely broad,鈥� he said.

Ellis said there was little research or evidence to establish what grey belt actually means, questioning how the notion of land making 鈥渓imited鈥� contribution to the green belt could be interpreted.

鈥淚f you are going to say it is 鈥榩reviously developed land鈥�, that is one thing; we understand what that is,鈥� he explained.

>> See also: Grey belt, green belt and the curious case of Labour鈥檚 benchmark land value

鈥淏ut if you say 鈥榓ny other land that makes a limited contribution to the purposes of green belt鈥�, I can happily sustain 25 judicial reviews arguing what that means.鈥�

He said that the government had not defined the term 鈥渓imited鈥� in detail and said this would create 鈥渁n enormous amount of confusion and legal battle about what the concept means鈥�.

Ellis said his professional view was that the term 鈥渟hould never be used in national planning policy鈥� and that he could 鈥渇ind no effective way of adding to that definition that would make it operationally effective for local planners on the ground鈥�.

He said the policy would be 鈥渉ighly controversial鈥� and that this political battle would be 鈥渁 diversion from the real issue of dealing with the housing crisis, which is how you turn planning consents into delivered homes鈥�. 

Victoria Hills, chief executive of the Royal Town Planning Institute, also raised concerns about the policy.

She said that while the RTPI was 鈥渁gnostic鈥� on whether the government moved forward with grey belt, she raised similar concerns about definitions and said there were 鈥減erfectly workable provisions that already exist to release land now鈥�. 

Hills said that a return to more strategic planning was the real priority and said she was 鈥渓ooking forward to seeing the mechanism that comes forward鈥� in the Devolution Bill.

She also said the variability of land prices across the country could render the 50% affordable housing requirement, set out as one of Labour鈥檚 golden rules for building on the green belt, 鈥渕ay actually render the whole thing meaningless in huge swathes of the country鈥�.

Addressing the number of additional homes that could be delivered on grey belt land, Hills said there was no 鈥渂lack and white sum鈥�.

鈥淭he way grey belt is currently defined is about a process of releasing land from green belt, and it is not a straightforward process [鈥�] which is why perhaps we have not seen figures on it from the government,鈥� she said.

The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government has been contacted for comment.