Robbie Moore MP
Conservative MP for Keighley and IlkleyIn this exclusive article, Robbie Moore MP examines the tensions between housing demands and greenbelt protection. Highlighting the controversial “greybelt” concept, he warns against undermining public trust and transparency. Moore advocates for housing solutions rooted in community consent, proper infrastructure, and sustainable planning.
The pressures of a growing population and changing living habits are placing an ever greater strain on our housing stock, and yet, we all recognise the importance of our green spaces, countryside, and environment. Building houses is in the interest of the public, but what matters most is the context and manner in which we build them.
The Housing Crisis and Greenbelt Development
The rising influence of the term ‘greybelt’ is one that must be viewed with caution for those seeking a long-term and popular solution to our housing crisis. When working with the public to find a solution, we must be clear in the terms we use.
Brownfield and greenfield are clear terms in the public’s mind. They have understood meanings and paint a picture in the mind’s eye of the type of land we are talking about when discussing housebuilding. The term ‘greenbelt’ is also very familiar. People understand its reference to land with protected planning status and many a campaign has been fought by communities across the country to protect greenbelt land from development. But the introduction of the term ‘greybelt’ provides a new grey area within the lexicon, a smokescreen behind which it is hoped public scrutiny of greenbelt development can be avoided.
Greybelt: a New Grey Area in Planning
“An area of low-quality greenbelt” is an inherently subjective term and one which I fear also neglects the potential of the land in question. The precise mechanism through which new greybelt will be designated is currently unknown, beyond that it will be a decision for local councils.
The decisions of local authorities can be opaque at the best of times, and it is quite possible that by altering the consequential decision from one of development to land reclassification, the public will be less aware and less motivated to oppose the technical decision. Once reclassified, the development itself – far likelier to receive public opposition – will be much harder to stop.
The combative style of our new Labour Government, which views the public as an obstacle to overcome and not the body who’s views government must serve, does not produce good long-term results. Labour’s first 100 days in office have showcased this “do as you are told” mentality and I fear that greybelt is just another tool to be added to that box.
Building Trust Through Public Consent
Throughout my time as the MP for Keighley and Ilkley, I have spoken to hundreds of residents about the numerous developments that have been built by Bradford Council. Yet, despite the unprecedented level of housebuilding in recent years, most local people are steadfast that housing is not necessarily the issue. The issue is unsupported and impracticable developments foisted on unsuspecting towns and villages in order for local authorities to meet their central housing targets. Targets which have now been made mandatory.
The new Government needs to realise that housing is accepted and even welcomed when local people are consulted and treated like adults, when compromises are made, and when communities are reassured that services and infrastructure will be provided to compensate for increased demand. Where this does not occur, the public-planning relationship is destined to break down and any constructive progress becomes impossible.
Take the town of Silsden in my constituency. Silsden has ballooned in size in just a decade, with hundreds of houses either built or planned for in a small town of only a few thousand properties. Despite this, Silsden has seen little to no investment in its infrastructure or services, with the new primary school merely replacing rather than supplementing the old one. Furthermore, when a local family butchers proposed a modest new shop on greenbelt, just on the periphery of the town and with the overwhelming support of local people, the planning was rejected.
This replaced growing discontent with fury. How could the council be happy to concrete over huge areas of green fields for modestly opposed new houses and yet reject a single publicly supported development?
Here is a lesson that greenbelt development is not a black-and-white issue, even for the same people it often affects. Local people are ready to have nuanced conversations about the future of their community, yet they feel their council is not. Greybelt and mandatory housing targets risk increasing the perverse incentives on local councils to follow in Bradford Council’s footsteps. Far from breaking the NIMBYs, this is likely to only rally more to their cause.
What the new Government must do is empower councils to trust the judgement of their residents and recognise that far more houses will be built by first seeking public consent – consent that is grounded in a real commitment to decent infrastructure and services.
This article appears in the new edition of the Chamber UK Journal, click below to sign up to our newsletter to read the full edition online!
