Author: John Myers

Categories
Blog Post

Grey belt: the underestimated game-changer for housing

A recent case in Bagshot in Surrey shows how the Labour Government’s new ‘grey belt’ rules, introduced in late 2024, will likely unlock hundreds of thousands of much-needed homes across the country.

The reform of Green Belt rules has proven to be an underestimated game-changer for housing development. In just a few months since its introduction, councils and inspectors across England have started approving projects on formerly restricted sites. Even councils that were historically opposed to development are now seeing new homes approved on grey belt land, in a transformative shift in the amount of land available for homes. But what is grey belt, how does it differ from regular Green Belt rules, and why could it have such a huge impact?

What is grey belt?

Grey belt land refers to parts of the Green Belt that are previously developed or that don’t strongly contribute to three of the Green Belt’s original purposes: to prevent the ‘unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas’, to stop ‘neighbouring towns from merging into one’, and to ‘preserve the setting and special character of historic towns’.

The original idea of ‘grey belt’ covered disused quarries, old industrial sites, scrubland – but we have moved far beyond that. Recognising that blanket Green Belt protections were imposing tight limits on greenfield development, the Government’s December 2024 update to the National Planning Policy Framework carved out this new ‘grey belt’ category​.

Crucially, developing grey belt sites is no longer automatically considered ‘inappropriate’ development under planning rules. This marks a huge shift: such proposals no longer need to prove ‘very special circumstances’ to justify building on Green Belt, and instead enjoy a presumption in favour of approval if certain criteria (like providing affordable housing) are met​. In short, the default for qualifying grey belt land has flipped from ‘no, you can’t build’ to ‘yes, you probably can’ – a seismic reversal of decades-old policy​. The core Green Belt protections remain for high-value landscapes and buffers, but this targeted reform frees up many other areas.

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

When is a town not a town? When it’s a village

One of the first real-world tests came in Bagshot, Surrey, where a planning inspector approved 135 homes on Green Belt land after ruling that nearby settlements were villages, not towns, meaning the development wouldn’t breach the Green Belt’s purpose of preventing towns from merging. Under the old rules, such a scheme would likely have been refused outright. But under the Government’s new policies, land that fails to meet key Green Belt purposes – and offers public benefits like affordable housing – can now be approved without needing ‘very special circumstances’. That quiet shift is already delivering homes to meet the national need for 1.5 million homes.

Bagshot is no isolated case. Across the country, grey belt reform is already turning NIMBY ‘no-go’ sites into housing developments. Even local authorities long resistant to Green Belt release are coming around when a site is shown to meet the grey belt criteria. In St Albans – which hadn’t adopted a new local plan in decades – council members recently approved a 550-home scheme on land that officers identified as grey belt​. Basildon Borough Council likewise gave the nod to 250 homes on a grey belt site that wouldn’t have happened a year ago. Planning inspectors, too, are applying the new policy at a rapid clip: by February 2025, at least 86 appeal decisions had already cited ‘grey belt’ in their reasoning, and by March, that figure had grown to over 100​. From a large data centre outside London to new housing estates in the Home Counties, dozens of developments that once faced near-certain rejection are moving forward under these updated rules. This surge in planning activity suggests grey belt reform is quickly lowering barriers to development on underused land.

Join the red brick team! Fill in our EOI form for intersest in volunteering with us

Economic impact and housing potential

The expected impact of grey belt policy is backed by economic forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which factored the new planning reforms into its Spring 2025 outlook and concluded that housebuilding will reach levels not seen in 40 years​. 

The OBR projects that, by 2029/30, these reforms will enable roughly 170,000 additional homes to be built beyond what would have happened otherwise. In that year alone, housing supply is expected to be 30% higher than previously forecast, helping move the country closer to the Government’s goal of 1.5 million homes this parliament. Crucially, this isn’t just about hitting numbers – it will translate into stronger economic growth. By the end of the decade, the increased housing development is expected to make the UK’s GDP 0.2% larger, equivalent to about £6.8 billion in today’s money​. That gain could double to over 0.4% of GDP by the mid-2030s if momentum continues​. For a zero-cost policy change, it’s one of the most impactful growth boosts the OBR has ever scored. Getting more homes built thus isn’t just housing policy – it’s economic policy, with the potential to improve productivity and living standards by making housing more affordable where it’s needed most.

The Government’s ‘golden rules’ for green belt and grey belt building means that development brings more than just economic growth. Those rules require developers to include affordable housing, improve green space, and build new infrastructure such as GPs or schools. We are already seeing the benefits in areas that have failed the most to build new homes. St Albans has struggled to build enough homes for a growing population, but a scheme in Harpenden has recently passed because of the new reforms. The proposal is for 420 homes, half of which will be affordable housing tenures, 130 retirement homes and a £9.5 million contribution to local schools.   

What scale of housing will grey belt reform ultimately deliver? Early analyses suggest the numbers could be very substantial. One study estimates that roughly 300,000 new homes might be built on grey belt land across England in the coming years​ – effectively an entire year’s worth of housebuilding generated by reclassifying portions of Green Belt. Another estimated a potential capacity of 3.4 million homes! These figures are speculative, but they underscore the enormous potential of these sites. Grey belt policy is starting to deliver housing in some of the nation’s most constrained housing markets. 

It’s still early days, and local authorities and developers are feeling their way through the new rules. There will be plenty of litigation over what counts as grey belt, and the rules are sufficiently imprecise that someone will have to make a judgment on each site. 

But the initial results are clear. A policy that many assumed would be minor or symbolic is already making a real difference. The Government has proven that England can rapidly start to add tens of thousands of homes. This under-the-radar policy tweak will soon be having a major impact, which will be noticed across the country. The grey belt, once underestimated, is proving to be a game-changer for delivering new homes.

Categories
Blog Post

Attlee’s secret weapon to build homes: zoning

When people speak of planning, England typically emerges as a global anomaly in two senses. First, it has an unusually restrictive system. The result: among the most expensive housing in the world, but very little invested in the structures of our homes. Much of the value of our housing lies not in the structures themselves but in the planning permission for those structures to exist at all. Second, the English system lacks precise rules and relies on vague ‘policies’ whose application is unpredictable, costly and slow. Of course, many other planning systems have some element of discretion. In the US, it is called ‘discretionary review’, and it is common in unaffordable areas. Many pro-housing Democrats complain about this ‘discretionary review’ as a barrier to building more affordable homes. But  the US also has development regulations that explicitly map out permitted and prohibited development—a system known as ‘zoning’. England’s planning system is almost entirely discretionary, because the ‘policies’ that set out what is acceptable are so unclear and often in conflict.

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

But beneath this familiar narrative lies a forgotten piece of history: England introduced, and occasionally still uses, a distinct form of zoning known as Special Development Orders (SDOs). Originating from the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947, these orders provided a clear path for extensive, swift and predictable development once the rules had been decided. In essence, England had pockets of zoning—albeit hidden in plain sight.

Special Development Orders were created as a key part of the modern planning framework established by Clement Attlee’s post-war Labour government. The Act of 1947 is  famous for nationalizing development rights and introducing local authority-led planning permissions.

Right-wingers often claim that the system was anti-development from the outset. But this misunderstands the intent. This landmark reform also included provisions allowing the housing minister to accelerate development by granting broad planning permissions directly in specific areas, bypassing local discretion entirely. These government decisions—formalised as Special Development Orders—outlined explicitly what development was automatically allowed, effectively zoning areas for particular uses without further  delay.

The immediate post-war years showcased the practical value of these orders. For example, the development of Milton Keynes—one of England’s best-known New Towns—benefited significantly from an SDO issued in 1963. The Special Development Order permitted housing, commercial premises, schools, roads, and public amenities within clearly defined areas. By setting these permissions upfront, the government greatly simplified the subsequent development process. Rather than requiring each building or street to pass through individual planning approval, development in Milton Keynes could proceed swiftly, assured by clear zoning-like rules already established at a ministerial level.

This approach illustrates the potential of SDOs to facilitate quick and predictable development—but only after careful consideration of underlying principles and standards. Such a system does not remove the need for thoughtful deliberation; instead, it frontloads these decisions, enabling speedy delivery once consensus is reached. SDOs could prove invaluable today for initiatives like urban regeneration projects, where local stakeholders and government officials could first agree on development principles, allowing an SDO to subsequently unlock quick, predictable, and coordinated development.

England has continued to use other limited forms of zoning. Permitted Development Rights give automatic permissions for certain kinds of development. The rights are popularly used for limited home extensions such as loft conversions. Local Development Orders are sometimes used by councils to automatically permit specific kinds of building in certain areas.  And the Green Belts are also a form of zoning, albeit a most restrictive kind that essentially does not permit new homes at all.

Zoning alone, even in its most effective form, is insufficient to guarantee abundant housing. The critical challenge is not just adopting zoning rules but ensuring that those rules generously permit housebuilding where housing demand is greatest. Simply implementing zoning does not give us abundant or affordable housing if the zoning remains highly restrictive.

US suburban zoning exemplifies this clearly: in huge swathes of the US, the zoning permits no more than detached single family homes, each required to have its own enormous parcel of land. Such overly restrictive zoning, designed to exclude those on low incomes who cannot afford large detached houses, demonstrates vividly how precise rules may restrict rather than encourage more affordable homes. As a result, most homes in the US are built in rural areas with no local government where there are no zoning rules at all.

But England’s historical use of Special Development Orders hints that we have neglected a productive tool. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the Government occasionally deployed SDOs when rapid or large-scale development aligned with national interests. Whether for New Towns or industrial parks in the 1960s or later enterprise zones, SDOs temporarily established a more generous and predictable environment—briefly mirroring international zoning practices, yet generally avoiding the restrictiveness seen in many parts of the US.

Despite their past effectiveness, Special Development Orders have largely faded from modern planning debates.  SDOs could be a vital tool in this Labour Government’s mission to build 1.5 million new homes. Previous New Towns such as Milton Keynes successfully used SDOs to enable large-scale, well-planned communities.  And the Government intends to use an SDO for the new Universal Studios theme park. But we should go much further than that if we are to build 1.5 million new homes this Parliament.

For all its faults, England’s planning system does have the tools to enable new homes to be clearly planned and quickly delivered. By carefully determining up front where and how growth is most urgently needed, Special Development Orders could become powerful tools for Labour again, particularly in contexts like urban renewal or building new infrastructure. For the Government to deliver quickly, it should use the best tools in our current planning system. Building the new homes that our communities desperately need cannot be delayed further. Attlee and other Labour Prime Ministers knew that delivering results for working people quickly mattered. It is time we renew this spirit of urgency. SDOs could help to transform our economy and build the new homes we need. 

Categories
Blog Post

Community power: empowering councils and building more housing

Councils are often unfairly criticised. They have many difficult responsibilities, and they are hamstrung by Treasury rules on financing. The Treasury often sees tax revenues as its own money, when nearly every penny was generated, in one way or another, from activities by citizens within the area of a particular local authority.

That local authority must maintain the roads, deal with the schools, provide social care, and furnish a range of local services – not forgetting, of course, the bins. Voters wouldn’t let the council forget the bins, even if it wanted to.

New Local’s new report highlights many successes where giving local communities more power and resources led to better outcomes for their citizens. We make the case for a community-powered approach to housing and planning, rather than one imposed from above by national government.

There are plenty of real-world examples where councils and communities working together generated far better outcomes than would otherwise be possible. In Halton, near Lancaster, a community built 41 homes for themselves as co-housing, all at Passivhaus standards to help get to net zero. Housing cooperatives like that are a stunning 18% of all apartments in Zurich, Switzerland.

In Switzerland local governments have far more autonomy. When a council approves more housing, it reaps the tax benefits. That makes locals far more supportive. Similarly, when a German town hosts a factory, it may see huge benefits from those profits.

In this country, councils have far less power. Trapped between strict limits on revenues and ever higher expectations for delivery, many councillors and officials are deeply frustrated. Their residents want a decent place to live, with good schools for their children and good care for those who need it. Too often, councils find themselves tied in knots by Treasury rules that only an accountant could love. 

We argue that this country has not yet learned the lessons of Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom. She showed how, given the power and the resources to do so, communities can often achieve much more than the central government. We have recently seen the backlash against top-down methods like permitted development. Allowing more bottom-up processes to add housing could be a much more popular way forward.

When elected members take political flak to allocate appropriate sites for housing, they are disheartened if those sites sit unused for years. They have little power to ensure faster build out. Our report argues  that councils should be able to levy an annual tax on the value of allocated but undeveloped portions of large sites, up to  half a percent of value a year. That would help to mitigate the damage caused to the surroundings by blank hoardings and derelict sites, apparently abandoned. It would also give locals, who might be frustrated that builders ask for more sites without using the ones they have already secured, more faith in the certainty and control in the planning system.

We also propose methods for  councils to let communities take the lead on urban infill to use waste land, where appropriate and subject to strict rules to protect others and the environment. In addition to the ‘street votes’ idea to allow each street to set its own design rules to add more housing, endorsed recently by a number of housing associations and housing campaigners, we point to the wasted backlands sites in some 20th-century developments: derelict former garages that are now too small for today’s cars, served by dead alleys that have become little more than refuges for drug dealers or convenient access routes for burglars. 

We suggest that, where the surrounding residents agree, they should be allowed to take the lead on setting out what additional housing can be added, for example by replacing those derelict garages with affordable housing for members of the community. Those new homes will increase housing density and help to make better public transport more viable, which will help to reduce carbon emissions and enable healthier, active travel.

The Treasury has failed to ensure that local government here, like local government in most other countries, has powers to provide, improve, and reap the benefits. In fact, the Treasury has deliberately gone in the other direction. By some measures, we have the most centralised governance  in the OECD. We also have among the least affordable housing. That is not a coincidence. It is partly cause and effect.

There are many brilliant council officers and members across the country doing their level best for their communities. If we can give them the power to enable the right decisions and to capture the benefits for their communities, we can create more affordable housing, fairer opportunities and help the environment too. 

Housing Beyond Markets and State can be downloaded here. 

<strong><span class="has-inline-color has-accent-color">John Myers</span></strong>
John Myers

John Myers is a housing campaigner with YIMBY Alliance, which campaigns for more housing and better places with the support of local communities.

TWITTER
Categories
Blog Post

Real Charity Starts with Homes for the Homeless

When is it appropriate for a charity to campaign for an unremarkable recent building to be listed, preventing more homes for the homeless?

On 10th September, Camden Council registered an application by HTA Design LLP, a firm of architects, planners and designers, for the Council’s own housing department to replace the hostel at 2 Chester Road near Archway with 50 new homes for homeless people and families.

Two months later the 20th Century Society, a registered charity, announced that it was supporting an application to Historic England for the Grade II listing of the existing hostel, built in 1979. A listing would prevent those new social homes being built.

Should this really be a listed building?
Source: Google Maps

The current hostel has little or no historic or architectural value, as London YIMBY, PricedOut and YIMBY Alliance explained in our joint submission to Historic England. It falls far below the thresholds to become a listed building.

The process to decide whether an historic building should be designated for listing is set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Applications to add, remove or amend an entry are made to Historic England, which then investigates the merits. To merit Grade II listed status under the Act, a building must have sufficient architectural or historic interest, but it falls far short on either of those measures.

A distinct lack of influential quality
Source: Google Maps

In 2012 English Heritage undertook a review of buildings of architectural merit and significance. 2 Chester Road did not meet the test to be included in its Heritage at Risk review then, and nothing has significantly changed since then to change that conclusion. 

The building is not a good example of the work of its architect, Sydney Cook, and the work of his Camden Borough Architect’s Department, for example in the buildings on Winscombe Street, with a characteristic way of responding to the form of surrounding terraced houses. The Chester Road hostel does the opposite.

Another dead frontage
Source: Google Maps

The building has dead walls and frontage around much of its perimeter, losing the historic double-sided street frontage and making the surrounding streets less friendly and welcoming. When the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area was appraised, the site received so little local support that the local conservation area assessment doesn’t mention the building at all. In a sea of green on the map of buildings that make a positive contribution to the conservation area, 2 Chester Road is just a blank space.

Site not considered to be a positive contribution to the area
Dartmouth Conservation Area | Green = Positive Contribution | Red = Site Location

The 20th Century Society’s response is that they would like the existing building preserved and re-used. ‘If a larger building is thought necessary’ to provide housing for homeless people, they say, ‘we would like to see 2 Chester Road converted to an alternative, socially beneficial use.’

But the problem is that – despite some people’s hand-waving assertions to the contrary – Camden has no other site for the 50 homes it wants to build for homeless families, nor the money to buy another site.  Charities have a duty to promote the public interest. That means trustees must be able to explain how the charity benefits the public by carrying out its purposes. It is hard to see how listing that 1970s building would ‘benefit the public’.

There is a general policy issue here because many charities, at one point or another, advocate positions that result in blocking more housing of one kind or another on various grounds. The 20th Century Society’s charitable purposes in its constitution include the objective ‘to save from needless destruction or disfigurement, buildings or groups of buildings, interiors and artefacts designed or constructed after 1914.’ (Emphasis added.)

That objective has no quality threshold. On its face, all post-1914 buildings are to be saved, however unimportant, ugly, unsustainable or unpopular. Are we to save a group of 1995 wheelie bins? They would technically qualify as a ‘group of … artefacts’. But there is one limit: the Society’s goal is only to defend against ‘needless’ damage.

No-one has suggested any specific alternative location or funding source for these homes in the real world. The only suggestions have been ‘somewhere else’. Presumably that does not mean the nearby Highgate Cemetery? Or perhaps Hampstead Heath? There is no green belt in Camden. Even if there were, someone would likely object to building on it, given the existence of an alternative site.

And if being homeless doesn’t qualify as ‘need’ , it’s hard to see what does. So building more homes for the homeless by replacing a building that does not meet the statutory tests for protection, when there is no realistic alternative site, is exactly the sort of thing charities should be campaigning for, when you consider the broader public interest test that charitable trustees are required to meet.

Some misleading environmental claims have also been made to try to block these new homes: claims that because the existing building has embodied carbon, we must not replace it.

You don’t get to just point to something you personally happen to like and shout ‘embodied carbon’ to stop it being changed. Real climate scientists look at what’s called the ‘counterfactual’. If we don’t build more with gentle density in places with good public transport where people can walk or cycle, people will end up building and living in remote but bigger houses with even more embodied carbon. That will be far away from densities where public transport is viable and so they will rely on model after model of car to get around, each with embodied carbon of its own.

The Royal Town Planning Institute helpfully spelled out the importance of walkable density – friendly streets where people can and do like to walk to meet their local needs – for reducing carbon emissions in its 2018 report.

Partly because of exactly this sort of misconceived objection to new homes, most of the homes we built in this country over the last few decades have been houses far from public transport, with people stuck in car dependent sprawl – when the slopes of prices and rents prove that many of those people would much rather live somewhere with better public transport.

So blocking these new homes where people can live sustainably, without needing a car, is profoundly damaging to the environment. By all means let’s get to standards that require full net zero demolition and construction as quickly as possible. But we won’t reduce carbon emissions in the meantime by pushing new homes out to areas of car-dependent sprawl. That would be the ultimate result of listing 2 Chester Road.

The most environmentally friendly thing is to reuse the materials and the embedded carbon of existing buildings to build better places and more and better homes near to public transport, with popular gentle density that will help the environment, make better bus services economic, and help to support local shops and high streets. To claim otherwise is just greenwash.

Listing the Chester Road hostel would harm some of the most disadvantaged groups in society. It would result in increased inequality, more homelessness, and further environmental damage. Charities should not be campaigning for that.

<strong><span class="has-inline-color has-accent-color">John Myers</span></strong>
John Myers

John Myers is co-founder of London YIMBY and YIMBY Alliance, which campaign to end the housing crisis with the support of local people.

TWITTER