The government’s proposal to use “grey belt” land to help meet its target of building 1.5 million new homes over the next five years may face significant challenges, according to a leading expert in green infrastructure.
Ian Mell, Professor of Environmental and Landscape Planning at The University of Manchester, has cautioned that freeing up grey belt land for development could lead to conflicts over land designation, delays in planning applications, and an increase in appeals. Writing in the Policy@Manchester journal, Professor Mell expressed concern that the existing green belt designations could complicate the government’s housing goals.
The grey belt, a term used to describe underused or “poor-quality” green belt land, was highlighted earlier this year by Labour as a potential solution to the housing shortage. The party labelled the land as “ugly” and “poor quality,” advocating for its use in a new social housing development programme. However, Professor Mell warned that while some of this land may indeed be suitable for housing, it is not without its complications.
He explained that for some stakeholders, all green belt land is of high ecological or socio-cultural value and requires protection. “For others, green belt is seen as a bureaucratic constraint on development,” he noted. This divide could spark challenges in the planning process, especially if the government pushes for new grey belt designations to override existing green belt policies. “Unless grey belts are legislated to overrule green belt policy, it is unclear how they will circumvent local planning policy objectives,” Mell wrote. He added that such a proposal would likely face resistance from campaigning organisations dedicated to preserving green spaces.
Professor Mell also questioned whether the government’s plans would unlock enough land to meet the 1.5 million housing target. He raised concerns about the scale of the grey belt land available and whether it would be sufficient to accommodate the housing required, particularly given existing issues in the housing sector, such as land banking and the failure of developers to build on sites where planning permission has already been granted.
The academic also pointed out that local authorities would require additional resources and legislative support to implement the grey belt policy effectively. The government would need to ensure that infrastructure, including rural transport, schools, and hospitals, is expanded to support any new developments.
In conclusion, Professor Mell recommended that the government rethink its approach to the green belt and commission a comprehensive evaluation of the social, cultural, and ecological benefits it provides. He also advised that if grey belt land is to be used for housing, it should focus on developments that are publicly funded and designated for social or affordable housing.
While the government’s push for grey belt land to meet its housing targets is ambitious, Professor Mell’s analysis suggests that significant challenges remain in navigating the existing green belt policies and addressing the infrastructure needs of new developments.
