Shades of Grey Belt: Facilitating government housing targets

Of the most talked-about means by which the government may succeeded in meeting its ambitious housing targets is the ‘Grey Belt’. The new designation would apply to ‘land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and any other parcels and/or areas of Green Belt land that make a limited contribution to the five Green Belt purposes’.

Housing demand

Varying opinions have been published regarding housing demand. The government has committed to a mandatory housebuilding target of over 1.5m in the next five years with local housing targets rising to 370,000 per year. This would increase total housing stock by around 6%.

Alternatively, the National Housing Federation has calculated a need for 340,000 homes per year and analysis from the Financial Times estimates that England needs as many as 421,000 new homes per year, potentially rising to 529,000 if current net migration levels persist. The increase in local housing targets rising to 370,000 per year is therefore a positive step.

In Carter Jonas’ substantial piece of pre-election research, Rethinking the Green Belt, we calculated that, on the basis of an average plot size of 0.033 hectares, the land required to meet the government’s (relatively modest) housing target would equate to 3% of the Green Belt. So theoretically, the Green Belt could accommodate the additional homes required – but should it?

Green Belt purpose and function

Green Belt is basically a strategic planning tool and a land use policy, introduced in 1955 principally to prevent ‘urban sprawl’ and safeguard the countryside.

In the two years to April 2023, land designated as Green Belt increased by 25,443 ha, or +1.6% (+1.5% in the first 12 months, then +0.1% in the second 12 months). This follows 10 years of contraction of the Green Belt and puts its coverage at its largest since 2004.

How much of the Green Belt is ‘Grey’?

Government data shows that agricultural land makes up the greatest proportion of the Green Belt (65%), followed by forest, open land and water (18.9%). Pre-developed land is under a tenth of the total: 6.8% has been developed, predominantly for transport and hardstanding, such as a car parks, paved or tarmacked area. Land developed for buildings accounts for 1.2% (0.7% for community buildings, 0.3% is residential and 0.1% for warehousing).

While one tenth may sound low, it is interesting to see that non-Green Belt land is not radically different in composition: only 9% of non-Green Belt land is developed, 2.2% more than in the Green Belt. Of that, 6.1% is used for transport or hardstanding and 2.5% is developed for buildings. These figures are 0.9% and 1.3% higher respectively than Green Belt land use. This highlights the fact that Green Belt largely mirrors land use for the UK as a whole.

Furthermore, the Green Belt is not a landscape or ecological designation as some believe: environmental designations cover just 21% of the Green Belt (accounting for overlap, and including parks and nature reserves), with the rest of the land having no specified environmental importance.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the remainder is of no environmental value as, in many areas, it is perceived to protect the natural environment by account of simply being open. For instance, providing a buffer between urban areas and the countryside can help sustain air and water quality. Yet, much of the Green Belt is ecologically poor grassland, brownfield or roadside verges, for instance, which are not always well maintained.

Can ‘Grey’ be ‘Green’?

The fact is that many new developments are actually ‘greener’, at least if measured on biodiversity grounds than much of the Green Belt. Due to the requirement in the Environment Act 2021 that new developments must increase the ecological value of a development site by a minimum of 10% (as much as 20% in some local authority areas), land release from the Green Belt for development can present an opportunity for biodiversity improvements.

Unsustainable developments: unintended consequences

Despite its well-intentioned aims, the Green Belt has frequently led to unsustainable forms of development. Perhaps most significant is the phenomenon of the ‘leapfrog’ development – the result of developers, unable to build on the Green Belt which surrounds our towns and cities, creating new settlements - beyond the Green Belt and further away from urban areas. This has worsened access to services and jobs and resulted in longer commutes and increased carbon footprints. It also affects the ability of businesses to hire labour, as the average commuting distance is increased, and house prices are higher than would be the case if more housing development occurred in the Green Belt, close to urban areas. Without greater flexibility to release areas of the Green Belt for development, as the population (and number of households) grows, this trend will only intensify.

Addressing political concerns

The rhetoric surrounding the Green / Grey Belt can be powerful and politically charged. Take for example the common claim that building on the Green Belt amounts to ‘concreting over the countryside’. As our research shows, while some Green Belts contain larger proportions of environmentally protected or publicly accessible land, there is also a significant amount of Green Belt land with little environmental or amenity value. This raises the question of whether it is necessary to protect so much land, and whether greater flexibility would allow for better land allocation. It could be argued that it is possible to release parts of the Green Belt and use remaining Green Belt land for to better delivering on the environmental agenda - by identifying and preserving amenity and biodiversity rich land, whilst permitting some development on land with lower environmental importance.

Conclusion

At a time when there is an acute housing shortage plus a need for high-quality commercial space, it is vital to look at measures that will unlock development opportunities. Many urban centres have very little developable land, which is acting as a major constraint on affordability and growth. Green Belt land offers the opportunity for valuable edge-of-town development within close proximity to transport connections and amenities. Our research demonstrates these opportunities in more detail and provides case studies of specific towns and cities.

That said, the use of Green Belt land is only forms part of the solution, with other potential approaches including densification, and the development of entirely new towns.

Too many perceptions of the Green Belt are myths that are impinging the ability of local planning authorities to bring forward managed and sustainable development. There is no doubt that releasing more 'grey belt' land will allow for more homes to be accommodated and that this can be done in a manner which could, by increasing its biodiversity value, be considered more ‘green’ than were it to remain in the Green Belt!