What is the green belt:
First proposed as a vision in the 1930s, the first form of planning policy regarding the prevention of urban sprawl was the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. Following from this, local authorities were encouraged to strategically designate an orbital region of ‘Green Belt’ land which enclosed their urban areas. The primary intention of Green Belt policy was, and still is to this day, to ‘prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open’. Additional aims of the Green Belt are: to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
Green Belt policy is currently located in Chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Within this is guidance on how Green Belts boundaries are defined, how the space should be used, and specifics regarding proposals within Green Belt land. As of March 2023, a Government report states that Green Belt land approximately accounts for 12.6% (16,384km2) of England’s total land area. Of this number, Government reports estimate 93.1% of Green Belt land is undeveloped, while of the 6.8% that is developed half can be accounted for by roads and infrastructure. There is the strong argument to be made that the Green Belt, as a planning policy, has been successful. It has effectively bound urban areas for decades, preventing the low density urban sprawl seen in countries across the globe.
What is the current policy:
Regarding construction on the green belt, the current stance laid out by central government and echoed by LPAs is it is “inappropriate” and “harmful”. From policies to the political stance, there is a coherent and rigid interpretation that development is generally not permitted on Green Belt land. In terms of the effectiveness of this, holding a consistent line mitigates the potential for loopholes and for the most part ensures the success of the policy.
It is worth noting in special circumstances development may be permitted on Green Belt land. Examples of this include but are not limited to; mineral extraction operations (Figure 1), agriculture buildings, limited affordable housing for local community needs, and the material change in the use of land.
Example of a mineral extraction site within the Green Belt (Photo credit: Urbanist Architecture)
What are the proposed changes:
As part of their new planning reforms, the recently elected Labour government have introduced the idea of the Grey Belt. Breaking this down they have created ‘five golden rules’ as a way of setting out their vision.
These are as follows:
1. Brownfield sites are the priority
There is the continued push to use brownfield sites in urban areas wherever possible. CPRE estimate that of the 1.5 million new homes Labour wish to build, 1.2 million of these can be done on ‘shovel ready’ brownfield sites.
2. The Grey belt comes next
This is a new term that refers to the abandoned, unused and less than attractive plots of land that happen to fall within the Green Belt.
3. Affordable homes are needed
There is the target that 50% of the new builds in Grey Belt land must be affordable homes.
4. Boost to public service and infrastructure
As with affordable housing, Grey Belt development must benefit the community; be that through education, transport or other.
5. Protect and improve genuine green space
These areas are the opposite to ‘grey sites’ where there is natural beauty and environmental value (Figure 2). There is the commitment to continue to prohibit development here to protect, promote and improve green space.
Example of genuine green space within the Green Belt (Photo credit: Open Space Society)
My thoughts:
The general outline of this reform is largely beneficial in my opinion. The hierarchy of development seems reasonable and appropriate for a country that desperately needs more houses. A primary focus on urban brownfield sites is reassuring and if CPRE’s estimates are accurate, a large proportion of the solution is able to come from these brownfield sites. However, in that ideal world where brownfield sites are all magically developed, there will still be a shortage. And this is where the Grey Belt enters the frame.
Grey Belt is pretty close in definition to: a brownfield site within the Green Belt. It’s an unused, abandoned or generally visually unappealing plot of land that just happens to be located in the Green Belt (Figure 3). Hopefully providing a name for this will aid to demystify the perception that the Green Belt is made up of idyllic fields and picturesque countryside. While some parts of a Green Belt may have areas of natural beauty, the protection of Green Belt land is solely due to its location (bounding an urban area) rather than any environmental quality. There are many other policy mechanisms which deal with areas of environmental quality including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Example of a Grey Belt plot : a formed petrol station in North London (Photo Credit: Google Maps)
The planning system is thorough and thus those policies in addition to ancient woodlands and the like will continue to be considered with the same weighting. The reform is not a carte blanche for developing on the wonderful countryside this country has, but more a mechanism to open up pockets of land that are currently idle. As such, it seems counterproductive to have wasted sites that, if used correctly and appropriately, could provide numerous benefits to communities. Grey Belt sites offer little visually, and are generally insignificant regarding environmental quality – yet they are currently protected from development solely due to their geographic location.
Regarding the development is where I think the Labour government and planning departments will have to be careful. Affordable homes are a much needed asset in new developments and when paired with infrastructure like schools and community spaces there is the potential to really upscale Grey Belt land to something useful and sustainable. However, it is the connection of these Grey Belt developments which I believe will cause issues. Grey Belt land is not continuous – it is sporadic placements of abandoned and unappealing sites. As such, there is every possibility that connecting these sites once developed would require infrastructure to be constructed on genuine green space. I think there is the danger of precedents being created and the whole system being exploited if it is not managed correctly. For me, the key is an incredibly comprehensive assessment of Grey Belt sites regarding their local context.
All in all, if the site surveying and selection process is executed diligently, there are numerous benefits we can reap.
An good summary of the Green Belt and proposals to develop such land where it is deemed unsightly or disused (Grey Belt). However, this is just tinkering and until there is a recognition that the state (central and local) need to build millions of social housing, then no amount housing development on brownfield or grey belt land will solve the housing crisis. Leaving house building largely to the private sector has been a monumental political and market failure.