Publication of proposed revisions to the NPPF, which include a first attempt to properly define the “grey belt”, is powering new analyses seeking to quantify the size and opportunity this new classification might represent.

Full and final definition of the grey belt notwithstanding, it’s clear that this new approach to Green Belt land will identify a meaningful area of new land that can contribute to meeting the new government’s ambitious target for new house building.

But will the new classification actually lead to more development?

The politics of developing the grey belt

That will partly hinge on local politics, and here Stack’s work on local opinion towards development is unequivocally positive.

Areas with “grey belt” sites are, according to our analysis, also those with the lowest levels of overall support for development. (Our RAG score is an assessment of the supportiveness of an area based on survey respondents’ support for different kinds of new development in close proximity to their home, as well as their stated likelihood of contacting the Council to object to new development.)

Why, then, are we optimistic that a new classification will lead to more development?

The Green Belt is a poorly-understood concept: previous research we’ve conducted for private clients suggests that at most a quarter of people understand that the Green Belt is intended primarily as a spatial constraint to limit urban sprawl, and not an aesthetic or environmental designation. This misunderstanding underpins the very low levels of support for developing the Green Belt, which shows up in all polling on the subject.

Our own research shows that more people oppose the development of the Green Belt than support it. 

But this is where it gets interesting: when we instead ask whether people would be supportive of building on “‘grey belt’ land (for example wasteland, former land-fill sites in the Green Belt)” we see a dramatic increase in support, with nearly as much support as developing brownfield land.

Persuading opponents of development

In our latest analysis, based on polling of around 15,000 British adults this summer, we can now see that this increase in support - from Green Belt to grey belt - is in fact greatest among those who are least supportive of development in the first place.

As the trendline in Fig. 2 (below) demonstrates, it is groups with the lowest initial support for developing the Green Belt (older, higher income groups) who report the highest increase in support when we ask about developing the “grey belt”:

And this is not just about NIMBYs “catching up” up with YIMBYs: identifying a site as “grey belt” inverts the usual age-curve, in support for development, such that older people (who tend to oppose development) report the highest levels of support:

Moreover, the increase in support from Green Belt to “grey belt” is clear across all local authorities, regardless of the amount of potential grey belt we’ve identified:

Recent coverage in The Times of LandTech’s analysis also made mention of two sites which are current and controversial potential examples of this new “grey belt” push: the former Loxley Works near Sheffield, and a skip dump in West Drayton, west of London.

To illustrate the extent of the likely improvement in support if and when these sites are more formally designated “grey belt”, we have mapped net support for each in the surrounding areas. On the left, in each case, we show net support for “building on the Green Belt”, and on the right, for “building on the ‘grey belt’”:

Stack’s expertise is in applying quantitative research methods to support properly-informed community engagement and communications. We have built up a rich, national understanding of what communities want, think and worry about in respect of development in their local area, to help avoid the capture of the planning process by vocal minorities at either extreme of the opinion spectrum.

Developers and policymakers, as they pursue a new “grey belt” definition, should bear in mind the attitudes and preferences of those living in the areas likeliest to contain the most “grey belt” land.

As can be seen in the exhibit below, those living in “grey belt” areas both disproportionately prioritise investment into local services, and are more concerned about the potential for increased congestion flowing from new development, than the national average. Looking more closely at potential sub-priorities we see that whilst helpfully those in “grey belt” areas do disproportionately prioritise the ‘building of more affordable housing’ (+5.4% vs the national average), they do also over-index in prioritising ‘investment in local skills and training’ (+2.1%). That fact, alongside analysis we’ve done of the arguments which are most persuasive in support of local development, suggests that emphasising the jobs flowing from development will be important in maximising local support. 

In conclusion…

We’ve written about the Parliamentary challenge facing the new Labour government elsewhere: this analysis should reassure new MPs representing Green Belt seats that support for developing the grey belt is higher - and more equally distributed demographically - than they might fear.

Not only does reframing the conversation from Green Belt to “grey belt” increase support, it actively persuades those groups who are usually most hostile to development.

Interested to learn more about our offer in the built environment space? Contact us at info@stackdatastrategy.com