Greybelt development is a ‘drop in the ocean’, the government has warned

The government has been warned that the homes built under its plans to boost gray belt development will be a “drop in the bucket” compared to the numbers needed to tackle chronic housing shortages.

Disagreement over the definition of gray area – parts of the green belt including wastelands and disused parking spaces – would also lead to “extensive litigation and delays”, it was told.

Unlocking the development of the gray bandwhich is defined as land that makes a limited contribution to the main objectives of the green belt, is part of the government’s pledge to deliver 1.5 million homes over the next five years.

But an expert told the House of Lords built environment committee yesterday (October 28) that the policy may have little impact in practice and risks the developments becoming embroiled in protracted legal disputes.

Paul Cheshire, emeritus professor of economic geography at the London School of Economics, said that without a highly precise definition of the gray band and a stronger presumption in favor of building, there would be “no significant change at all” in the number of houses built. .

“On the margin, it will provide some additional land, even despite the current 50 percent affordable housing requirement, but that will be just a small drop in the ocean of lack of housing supply,” he said.

On balance, the change would be positive “but far less positive than the political costs these changes impose,” Cheshire added.

The highly localized nature of the planning system – and the small number of local authorities with valid, up-to-date local plans – makes it difficult to inject the wider interest into decision-making, he said.

“So, unless you have a very clear definition that says ‘this is the gray band, and there will be a presumption in favor of sustainable development if applications are made on such land’, I think it will change very little. because it is so subjective and so susceptible to local lobbying,” he added.

Without a clear definition, Cheshire said he foresaw applications for gray band development becoming bogged down in legal battles.

“One of the unintended consequences of this proposal, as drafted, is that it will lead to extensive litigation and delays as people debate what is actually gray belt land or not,” he said.

But Simon Ricketts, a partner at Town Legal, told the committee that fears of legal disputes over how land should be classified would prove unfounded.

“People are always afraid that these issues will become embroiled in litigation,” he said. “That is not the case, because the approach of the courts is very simple, namely that words have the common sense meaning they have.

“It is up to decision makers to apply policy and up to the courts to interpret policy in cases of real ambiguity, and we have seen from cases involving very special circumstances that the courts have really pushed back on people who try to over-manipulate this.”

However, he said the introduction of gray belt as a designation could well lead to a greater degree of “planning through appeals”.

“In a way that is inherent to what the government is proposing – it is a more centralized approach, a more top-down approach to requiring authorities to take a more positive view than they might traditionally want to about development in green areas,” said Ricketts.

“Many applicants will feel that their sites meet these criteria, authorities and their constituents may take a different view, and therefore in many cases it will be up for appeal, and that will be up to the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary . from the state to really set the tone for what amounts to a ‘limited contribution’.”