Lords Inquiry finds gray belt idea to a large extent meaningless

The House of Lords Committee has said that the government’s idea of ​​the “gray belt” land re -nominated in its dialect for the construction of more houses is “largely meaningless”.

The ministers had said that, if the housing target of a council is not met, some protected land known as a green belt will be re -labeled to the gray belt and thus freeing for development.

However, after an investigation, the committee said that it was suspected that the gray belt concept was “taken by more important changes”.

A government spokesperson said its changes in the green belt were “only one of the ambitious housing reforms that we have determined to resolve the housing crisis and promote economic growth”.

He said that measures were “informed through comprehensive consultation and would unlock more land for homes and infrastructure communities, which would have durable, inexpensive and well -designed growth on low quality gray belts Distribute “.

Since coming to power in July, the Labor Government has said this Wants to build 1.5 million houses in the next five years And “poor quality” green belt is identified as potential areas of construction.

This pointed to an unused garage in Tottenham, North London, which could not be developed as an example of land because it was considered on the Green Belt Site.

The Green Belt was established over 70 years ago with five purposes, which included restricting the spread of urban areas and protecting rural areas.

In a letter to Housing Secretary Angela Rener, Lord Moalan, chairman of the environment committee, said that the green belt was considered as “holy”, making it difficult for local authorities to construct the area, more of the houses Despite high demand.

He said that the idea of ​​a gray belt had initially accepted the members of the “Antagrahi” Committee, who believed that this housing could “contribute positively” to meet the goals.

However, he said that the changes declared in the National Planning and Policy Streak (NPPF) would mean the impact of the gray belt would be “best, marginal”.

Changes include a requirement for councils to review the green belt boundaries and suggest changes in boundaries if they cannot meet their housing goals.

Under the new rules, the construction of the green belt land will be allowed if other options are finished, the government has said.

“It is difficult to see what the gray belt regime would add in the context of the ability to build on the green belt in light of this requirement,” Lord Moylan said.

While taking the evidence, the committee heard dramatically different estimates that how many houses can be built on gray belts land.

Homebuilders Bairat Redro suggested that the number could be reduced by 50,000, while a software company, Landtech, placed the figure at four million.

Responding to the findings of the investigation, Fergus Charlton, a planning partner at the firm Michelmoras, said: “Gray belt policies will play an effective role to reach the government’s 1.5 million new homes. To play a defined role in planning.

“In the scope of decision making they are already playing an important role in the result of the appeal where the green belt land is considered a gray belt by inspectors.

“We have seen a handful of successful appeal in eight weeks since we confirmed the gray belt concept in NPPF.”