The government’s updated planning criteria may make significant development in England’s green belt area possible, which has angered political rivals and environmental activists alike. According to new suggestions in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) consultation materials, municipalities would have to release formerly undeveloped green belt areas for building if they cannot reach housing objectives through brownfield lands.
Over the following five years, the updated NPPF seeks to build 1.5 million additional dwellings, with local governments required to designate construction sites. Councils are encouraged to build on brownfield sites, land that has previously been developed but is now abandoned or derelict, first, followed by “grey belt” areas, which include low-quality green belt sites like abandoned parking lots or gas stations, as well as land on the outskirts of towns and villages. These are the updated guidelines.
According to the consultation paper, if not enough brownfield or grey belt property is available, “higher-performing” green belt lands may also be utilized.
Opponents claim that this might lead to a significant loss of green belt land, which is meant to keep areas of natural beauty close to cities and shield the countryside from urban sprawl. The head of the London Green Belt Council, Richard Knox-Johnston, expressed shock at the government’s intentions, referring to them as “totally misleading.”
He underlined that although there wouldn’t be many objections to construction on locations like parking lots or gas stations, “the planned devastation will cause widespread protest, even among Labour MPs who now represent most of the country’s green belt constituencies.”
Protesters also voiced worry that the standards for what makes a sustainable green belt development are still too ambiguous. The plan describes a “sequential test” for green belt land release to prioritize brownfield and grey belt sites, possibly extending later to “higher performing” green belt regions.
However, the guidelines do not clearly define “ sustainable,” beyond ruling out national parks and sites of particular scientific interest and stating that the constitution should not “fundamentally undermine the function of the green belt across the area.”
Lizzie Bundred Woodward, planning policy manager for the CPRE countryside charity, stated, “While it would be difficult to argue that one small development ‘undermined’ an entire green belt, the cumulative effect of releasing green belt sites to accommodate multiple developments is another question altogether. The government needs to think about the total impact as well as consider each proposed development separately.”
Local CPRE groups have expressed even greater alarm over the potential impact of new guidelines. From Surrey CPRE, Andy Smith warned that “very much of the higher-performing green belt land will disappear.” This anxiety is exacerbated by worries that a flood development on what is now regarded as green belt land may result from the vagueness of the definition of grey belt areas.
Critics fear that fewer reasonably priced homes will be constructed as a result. The Liberal Democrats’ environmentalist Tim Farron stated, “We desperately need more homes built, but these policies look set to meet demand rather than housing need. Removing affordability targets and letting developers off the hook with viability assessments is a betrayal of the millions of people across our country who desperately need a safe, good-quality affordable home to live in.”
In response to these objections, the Ministry of Housing, Areas and Local Government (MHCLG) has said that local council experts in their areas will choose what is suitable for development. An MHCLG spokesperson said, “Developers will be expected to meet affordability targets; if they can’t, they must provide strong evidence outlining why. The consultation remains open, and we will consider all responses.”
