Standard – Starmer says a Labour government will put in place five golden rules for grey belt development:
- Brownfield first – within the green belt, any brownfield land must be prioritised for development
- Grey belt second – poor-quality and ugly areas of the green belt should be clearly prioritised over nature-rich, environmentally valuable land in the green belt
- Affordable homes – plans must target at least 50% affordable housing delivery when land is released
- Boost public services and infrastructure – plans must boost public services and local infrastructure, such as more schools, nursery places and new health centres
- Improve genuine green spaces – the party rules out building on genuine nature spots and requires plans to include improvements to existing green spaces, making them accessible to the public, with new woodland, parks and playing fields
Confused – no test as to whether land is needed. Brownfield is looked at first in GB rather than Brownfield outside GB. No test as to contribution of a brownfield site in terms of Green Belt harm or planning balance (Calverton tests)
Grey belt second – poor-quality and ugly areas of the green belt should be clearly prioritised over nature-rich, environmentally valuable land in the green belt, yes but should be just one of the test and too much emphasis on thus will create a perverse incentive to neglect sites and leave them derelict. Few areas of GB sites are genuinely ugly. Where they are released they are always a minority of sites.
Affordable homes – plans must target at least 50% affordable housing delivery when land is released . This will only be viable in a minority of sites, especially major sites requiring infrastructure, and brownfield sites requiring remediation.
Boost public services and infrastructure – plans must boost public services and local infrastructure, such as more schools, nursery places and new health centres . this is true everywhere GB or not. Not a GB test.
Improve genuine green spaces – the party rules out building on genuine nature spots and requires plans to include improvements to existing green spaces, making them accessible to the public, with new woodland, parks and playing fields – True whether GB or not. A GB site reelasse can include open space and biodiversity improvements within it.
A true test must be about release of land. this is not a true test as it doesn’t even consider the need for the release or the strategy for releasing. It ignore existing caselaw and the distinctions between good planning of Gb and non GB sites. Furthermore it is arguably a tightening not a loosening of policy adding tests for release but imposing no requirement for review and release. A terrible, and actually rather incompetent, first dibs by labour into planning policy. A very poor show.