The House of Lords Built Environment Committee has poured cold water on ministers’ bid to release areas of greybelt land for development.
In a report released this morning, peers said the policy had been implemented in a “rushed and incoherent manner” and is unlikely to make much impact on housebuilding numbers.
Labour initially pledged to allow building on “lower-quality” greenbelt plots before it was elected, and has subsequently added the concept into a revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The Lords committee launched an inquiry into greybelt policy in September and received more than 100 pieces of written evidence.
In a letter sent to communities secretary Angela Rayner this week, committee chair Lord Moylan said: “Ultimately, our assessment is that the greybelt policy has been implemented in a somewhat rushed and incoherent manner, and we do not believe that it is likely to have any significant or lasting impact on planning decision-making or on achieving your target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this parliament.”
He explained: “The fact that the NPPF has been finalised while so many other complementary and interconnected policies are being developed raises significant concerns about the extent to which we can be confident that any of the individual policies contained within the NPPF will be successful.
“This is particularly the case for greybelt land, the benefits of which we now believe will be marginal, at best. Moreover, in the absence of any clear understanding of how the success of the policy will be measured or monitored, we cannot see how the policy can be implemented or developed in a robust and coherent way.”
The committee raised “significant concerns” about whether the government could “effectively coordinate all of its planned changes to the planning system”. It added that it was unconvinced the greybelt proposals would “deliver much value” in the context of wider changes to the planning system.
“For example, there is now a requirement for local authorities to review greenbelt boundaries and propose alterations if they are not able to satisfy their identified need for homes, commercial or other development through other means,” said Moylan.
“It is difficult to see what the greybelt regime will add in terms of the ability to build on the greenbelt in light of this requirement. Furthermore, we do not see that the greybelt proposals are sufficiently differentiated from existing processes for dealing with individual proposals affecting the greenbelt in the new NPPF.
“This lack of differentiation is compounded by the fact that the terms ‘greybelt’, ‘greenbelt development’ and ‘land released from the greenbelt’ appear to be used interchangeably in the final NPPF. This only serves to bolster the committee’s conclusion that a policy that once had the potential to be innovative and unique is now, at best, relegated to the margins.”
The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government has been contacted for comment.
