88% of homes granted permission by the government on grey belt land will actually be built on previously untouched countryside, including farmland and wildlife sites
A new report from the CPRE countryside charity has found that the grey belt policy is doing more harm than good to green belt areas.
The State of Brownfield report previously showed that grey belt land, including abandoned car parks or petrol stations, could provide space for 1.4m new homes.
13 grey belt developments have been approved on green belt land
The policy was introduced in December last year. Since then, 13 developments (consisting of 10 or more homes) have been approved by inspectors on the basis of being on grey belt land, in the green belt. Local councils had no say in this.
These developments represent around 1,250 homes, but 88% of these will be built on undeveloped green belt land.
Furthermore, approval has been granted to develop 57 houses on high-quality farmland in Kent, and 47 houses have been given permission on a designated Local Wildlife Site in Essex.
It is the CPRE’s view that this runs counter to the promises made when the grey belt policy was introduced, and that the definition of grey belt needs to be amended to prevent unnecessary development of precious countryside, farmland, and wildlife habitats.
CPRE chief executive, Roger Mortlock, said: ”In practice, the government’s “grey belt” policy has not been about building on petrol stations but an existential threat to the protections of the Green Belt.
“Our latest research shows that the policy is vague, subjective and misleading to the public. Its lack of clarity has been good news for large housebuilders but bad news for everyone who loves the countryside.
“We know from CPRE branches across the country that the situation is getting worse, as local authorities are so desperate to meet revised housing targets that they are forced to approve speculative development in the Green Belt.”
CPRE policy lead Emma Marrington said: ”The Green Belt is the countryside next door for almost 30 million people in this country. As well as having some of the country’s best-quality farmland and most important wildlife habitats, these places around our largest towns and cities play a vital role in helping to deliver the government’s target of 30% of land protected for nature by 2030.
“We’ve got to stand up for England’s Green Belt. Once it’s lost, it’s lost for good.”
Doubts from the start
Writing for PBC Today in July, Joe Ridgeon of Hedley Planning discussed the government’s grey belt plans, indicating his doubt that it would have much of an impact on housebuilding in the short term as the government seeks to hit its target of 1.5m new homes by 2029.
Joe wrote: “Grey belt is defined as land that makes a “limited contribution” to green belt objectives. This may include land that contains substantial built development or is enclosed by built form, does little to prevent the coalescence of settlements, is dominated by urban land uses or does not protect a historic setting.
“The aim is to deliver more opportunities for development in rural areas and should open the door for residential, commercial and tourism development within the green belt that would otherwise have been prevented.
“However, the grey belt plan in its current format will have limited impact on housebuilding in the North East in the short term. This is due in part to the fact that most regional councils have a five-year housing land supply or are already meeting their housing delivery test, which is one of the requirements for grey belt. There are a few exceptions, but on the whole the picture is fairly similar region-wide.”
The post Majority of grey belt developments to be built on undeveloped green belt land appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
