Labour’s building blitz could see the land surrounding historic UK churches redesignated as “grey belt”, according to reports. The Government’s ambitious plan to build 1.5 million homes by 2029, coupled with its net zero ambitions, have seen officials take bold steps to overhaul the country’s planning system. A major and controversial part of the proposals has been the redesignation of “green belt” land – protected countryside around urban areas created to prevent cities and towns from sprawling outwards and merging.
This has involved identifying “low quality” land within the protected areas and earmarking it for development under the newly-devised “grey belt” moniker. Labour is now considering amending the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to remove guard rails on assigning grey belt status such as proximity to heritage assets including UK churches, according to The Telegraph.
A consultation document published in December suggested the criteria, which also cites Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and irreplaceable habitats as reasons to leave green belt land unchanged, adds layers of “unnecessary” protection.
While a government spokesperson denied that green belt protections would be watered down, critics said Labour’s “blunt” approach could see the safeguards on heritage assets removed next.
Blake Stephenson, Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, said: “The Government’s initial grey belt policies put indiscriminate development ahead of infrastructure-led and well-planned communities.
“And it is deeply disappointing that additional changes now weaken protections for the things that make us British even further.”
“It’s perfectly possible to build homes whilst protecting our heritage and countryside, and restoring nature,” he added.
“But instead of doing the hard work needed to achieve this, the government is reaching for blunt solutions.”
The proposed NPPF overhaul will also make it harder for local authorities to block planning applications by shifting the “presumption” towards approval.
Other reforms include presumed approval for homes near stations, relaxed environmental constraints for smaller schemes, limits on councils imposing excessively restrictive local standards and increased use of compulsory purchase orders.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “These claims are completely inaccurate. Our proposals create a clearer definition of grey belt, without undermining protections for heritage and environmental sites.”
