Belting up to deliver housing targets – are grey belts the answer?
The government’s target to build 1.5 million homes over the next five years by freeing up grey belt land “may prove problematic,” according to a leading green infrastructure expert.
In a new article published by Policy@Manchester, Ian Mell - Professor of Environmental and Landscape Planning at The University of Manchester - warns that pre-existing green belt designations could lead to conflict, delayed planning applications and an upsurge in appeals.
And whilst advocating the launch of a publicly funded social housing development programme on grey belt land, he fears that Ministers may still struggle to meet their manifesto pledge.
When launching its housebuilding plans in Opposition earlier this year, Labour categorised the grey belt as “poor quality” and “ugly” green belt land.
But drawing on his own work on urban and green infrastructure, Professor Mell makes clear that “for some, all green belt designations are of high quality and require protection” whilst “other stakeholders view them as a bureaucratic constraint on development.”
He argues that delivering more new homes will require more than the creation of grey belt zones.
“Unless grey belts are legislated to overrule green belt policy it is unclear how they will circumvent local planning policy objectives,” Professor Mell writes. “However, if such a change was proposed it would almost inevitably be challenged by campaigning organisations who view the protection of green belt as being of paramount importance.”
The University of Manchester academic questions whether the government’s approach would unlock sufficient land to meet its 1.5 million housebuilding target. “If grey belt were added to brownfield designations, would that be adequate in terms of space to deliver 1.5 million?” he asks. “It also fails to account for existing problems of land banking (where developers buy a plot of land to develop or sell in the future) and failure to deliver on existing permissions to build homes from the development sector.”
And he cautions Ministers that, alongside the legislative changes and additional resources required by local planning authorities to proceed with the designation of grey belt areas, specific consideration will also be needed on how these would be integrated into local plans and policies, including the necessary expansion of local infrastructure such as rural transport, schools and hospitals.
Concluding his piece, Professor Mell recommends that the government “moves away from a homogenous interpretation of green belt and commissions a wholesale evaluation of the socio-cultural, economic and ecological benefits of green belt in the UK to understand what functions they deliver.”
He continues: “If grey belt policy is brought forward, then it should focus on development that is publicly funded by UK government and be used solely as council/social housing or sold as affordable housing.”
He adds: “If government is proposing to develop and fund a new programme of social housing development on grey belt, then there is scope to deliver meaningful development.”
‘Belting up to deliver housing targets – are grey belts the answer?’ by Professor Ian Mell is available to read on the Policy@Manchester website.
