Labour’s housing plans won’t affect green belt

Labour’s housing plans won’t affect green belt

9:31 AM, 30th July 2024, About 3 months ago 6

Text Size

The Labour government has committed to build 1.5 million homes during the next parliament and has pledged to adopt a strategic approach to the green belt.

A new report by property consultants Carter Jonas explores what this means for green belt land.

Labour intends to build on ‘grey belt’ land and brownfield sites rather than the green belt.

Housing needs can be met without loss to the green belt

According to Carter Jonas’s report, the green belt has recently expanded by 25,443 hectares (1.6%), bringing its coverage back to levels last seen in 2004.

Despite Labour’s ambitious target of constructing 300,000 homes annually, Carter Jonas’ research suggests that even if all these homes were built on green belt land—which is highly unlikely—the area affected would only be about 3% of the current green belt extent.

David Churchill Partner at Carter Jonas said: “Our research shows that housing needs can be met without substantial loss to the green belt. We are not advocating all new homes being located on the green belt but are suggesting that there are strategic benefits in releasing some green belt land for housing.

“For example, it could reduce the number of ‘leapfrogging’ developments – those located further from urban areas than is desirable, which increase residents’ carbon footprints through extensive commutes and impacts on both businesses’ and residents’ proximity to urban centres.”

Less than 3% of green belt land needed

The report also looks at regional impacts. In London, meeting the housing target would require using 21.1% of green belt land.

In contrast, in five other regions—South East, North West, North East, East of England, West Midlands, and Yorkshire and the Humber—less than 3% of green belt land would be needed.


Share This Article


Comments

northern landlord

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

11:06 AM, 30th July 2024, About 3 months ago

There are lots of definitions about what constitutes Green Belt and Brownfield sites but “Grey Belt” is nothing more than a made up slogan for publicity purposes like “night Starvation” and boomerang smells”. Who decides what is Grey Belt? Could be any of what you night have previously assumed was Green Belt is the most likely answer

DAMIEN RAFFERTY

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

11:16 AM, 30th July 2024, About 3 months ago

Lots of farmland being built on in Cheshire.
Lots of brownfield sites available but extra cost of clearing and removing both old buildings and contaminated ground means developers won't touch it

Paul Essex

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

18:35 PM, 30th July 2024, About 3 months ago

Grey belt = former green belt not visible from a labour mp's house. Ideally in a Conservative voting area.

Reluctant Landlord

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

20:16 PM, 30th July 2024, About 3 months ago

Grey belt - a polluted brownfield area which is too expensive to bio-remediate/ clear and so is economically non viable to be utilised.
If it were that easy/viable there would be no 'grey belt' land in existence.
Are Labour plans to 'boost the economy' really about setting targets that are completely unachievable and expecting private finance to fund it all where there is no viable profit/return?

Question - how was there permission to utilise virgin green belt land in the first place for it to later become deemed 'grey belt'?

Tom Jenkin

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

22:01 PM, 30th July 2024, About 3 months ago

If you think labour will meet there target of 300,000 houses a year, then I have a bridge to sell you.
This year only 134,567 houses will be built and next you only 125,450 are planned .

The house builders cannot get the trades people required to build anymore houses , they need to recruit 52,000 people this year to complete 230,000 homes in 2025 . There is a huge skills shortage in the housing industry.

Beaver

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

15:02 PM, 2nd August 2024, About 3 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Tom Jenkin at 30/07/2024 - 22:01
Even if they build them they still need someone to pay for them.

This post:

https://inews.co.uk/news/thousands-unused-affordable-homes-empty-housing-scandal-3204602#:~:text=The%20snapshot%20survey%20of%2013,under%20Section%20106%20planning%20deals

Says that thousands of unused affordable homes are sitting empty because housing associations can't afford to pay for them.

Labour's "golden rules" are supposed to drive 50% affordable housing.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/housing-targets-increased-to-get-britain-building-again

These "golden rules" do not appear to include "...knowing how to pay for them."

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Automated Assistant Read More