Fears planning changes could create “loophole” where Green Belt landowners are encouraged to degrade their land, reports Noah Vickers, Local Democracy Reporter

Government plans to relabel parts of the Green Belt as ‘grey belt’ land for housing must be “clarified” to stop the policy causing unintended environmental damage, the London Assembly has warned.

The Labour policy, championed by PM Sir Keir Starmer as part of his administration’s strategy to tackle the housing crisis, will involve re-classifying “poor quality” areas of the Green Belt to make it easier for new developments to gain planning permission there.

But in a cross-party vote earlier this month, the capital’s elected assembly unanimously called on ministers to “maintain the strong and longstanding protections for London’s Green Belt” and to “review and provide clarity on how the proposed grey belt designation will be defined”.

The government said in response that “all areas of the country” must “play their part” in supplying new homes, but insisted ministers “recognise” the Green Belt’s importance “in preventing urban sprawl”.

Conservative assembly member Alessandro Georgiou – who is also leader of the Tories in Enfield where more than 9,000 homes have been earmarked for current Green Belt land – proposed the motion on the issue and said the Green Belt “may be an abstract concept for some people, but it is part of the local environment for millions of Londoners […] and has often been described as the lungs of the capital”.

Established in 1938 as a means to prevent urban sprawl further into the countryside during an era of mass housebuilding, the area covered by the London Green Belt has grown to occupy a territory three times larger than the city it surrounds.

Most new developments on Green Belt land are currently unable to receive planning permission except under “very special circumstances”, although schemes on previously developed land are often allowed.

Labour now argues that not all Green Belt land is environmentally precious, and that parts of it should be opened up for new housing. In an April video, the party said: “After 14 years of the Tories, much of the Green Belt isn’t actually green rolling hills, but poor quality land, car parks and wastelands, which is where the term grey belt comes from.”

Georgiou told City Hall, however, that Labour’s plans “seem to misunderstand the purpose of the Green Belt – to prevent urban sprawl, rather than to look pretty”.

The assembly member also warned that the policy “will create an incentive for owners of Green Belt land to make their land derelict, so that it gains ‘grey belt’ status”. The landowner could then earn a profit by selling the land to a developer.

“This is one of the key concerns here,” said Georgiou. “Without proper safeguards, this is a loophole that could threaten large swathes of the Green Belt.”

Labour assembly member Leonie Cooper said she and her party colleagues agreed there was a need for a “crystal clear” definition of grey belt land, as new housing cannot be built “at the expense of biodiversity”.

Responding to the assembly’s motion, a spokesperson at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) said: “We are in a housing crisis and all areas of the country, including London, must play their part in ending it by building the homes we need.

“We recognise the important role the Green Belt plays in preventing urban sprawl. We will work in partnership with local leaders and take a brownfield-first approach to building, so sites which people are desperate to see used will be developed first.”

Brownfield sites are previously developed industrial or commercial plots of land which have fallen into disuse, but are not part of the Green Belt.

Regarding Georgiou’s concern about sites being made purposefully derelict, MHCLG said it wants “to ensure that high performing Green Belt land is not degraded to meet grey belt criteria” and was seeking views as to whether “additional measures” are needed to prevent that outcome.

Researchers at the Centre for London think tank have argued it is “not plausible” to solve the housing crisis without building on the Green Belt.

No news is bad news 

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts. 

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less. 

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation. 

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit 

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.  

More information on supporting us monthly or yearly 

More Information about donations