Angela Rayner is facing an angry backlash against controversial planning reforms set to force councils to surrender swathes of the green belt and see housebuilding surge by more than 60 per cent.
The deputy prime minister has been accused of planning to “bulldoze” the countryside and waging a “war on rural England” as Labour scrambles to meet its pledge to build 1.5 million new homes.
Councils have already protested that the target is impossible to achieve, while the National Trust has warned the government’s push to build nearly 400,000 homes a year risks harming “some of the most valuable ‘green’ land to local communities”.
The conservation charity said Labour’s idea of the “grey belt”, what it sees as low-quality green belt areas, was too broad.
Under the plans, which have led to claims they would greenlight housebuilding in an area larger than Surrey, councils will have to review their green belt boundaries.
And they will have to use “grey belt” land to meet ambitious mandatory targets to build hundreds of thousands of new homes a year.
Compared to recent levels, that would see housebuilding in England increase by more than 60 per cent, from 229,942 to 370,000 a year.
Ministers have also updated initial plans from the summer to say that more of these houses will have to be built in the South and fewer in the North. The “grey belt” has also been defined for the first time as green belt land that “does not strongly contribute to green belt purposes”.
Those purposes include limiting urban sprawl, stopping neighbouring towns from merging and preserving the special character of historic towns, but two other purposes – safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and assisting in urban regeneration – have been dropped.
Councils that fail to draw up plans that can meet the targets could also face being forced to have a “presumption in favour of development”. In the last five years, just one in three local authorities have adopted a local plan.
Sir Keir Starmer said ministers would “push through” the building if councils did not.
He told Sky News: “The starting point is local plans, and that’s really important for councils to develop the plan according to the target, taking into account local need and working with developers. But are we going to push it through if those plans don’t work? Yes, we absolutely are.”
He also insisted that building more homes was more important than the environment.
“Of course we want to get the balance right with nature and the environment, but if it comes to a human being wanting to have a house for them and their family, that has to be the top priority,” he said.
But the environmentalist Chris Packham, writing for The Independent, warned that while the current housing crisis had to be fixed “destroying the ecosystems that we need to survive isn’t bold. At best it is shortsighted – at worst, it’s plain suicidal.”
Kevin Hollinrake, the shadow housing secretary, said the move to build 370,000 new homes a year would “bulldoze through the concerns of local communities” and was a “war on rural England”.
“If Labour really want homes to be built where they are needed, they must think again,” he said. He also accused ministers of gerrymandering by targeting the green belt, when Labour’s voters traditionally live in more urban areas.
“What we’re seeing is typical socialism here, in terms of gerrymandering the house building out of urban areas and building in green belt and rural areas. That can’t be right,” he said.
Councillor Richard Clewer, from the County Councils Network, said they were “concerned” that the housing targets “are even higher for some county and rural councils compared the initial numbers outlined in the summer”.
Ms Rayner has defended her plans, saying the government would not shy away from taking “bold and decisive action” to fix the country’s housing crisis.
“We must all do our bit and we must all do more. We expect every local area to adopt a plan to meet their housing need. The question is where the homes and local services people expect are built, not whether they are built at all,” she said.
Sir Keir pledged to back builders not “blockers”, saying: “We owe it to those working families to take urgent action, and that is what this government is doing.”
But Liberal Democrat housing spokesperson Gideon Amos accused ministers of planning to ignore local communities.
“The new homes we need must be genuinely affordable and community-led, not dictated from Whitehall diktat,” he said. But Andrew Carter, chief executive of Centre for Cities, said: “Green belt reform needs to go much further than the grey belt rules to enable housebuilding in commuter corridors around big cities.”
Beccy Speight, the chief executive of the RSPB, said: “Every new study, every piece of scientific research shows UK nature is in freefall … The government’s wider reforms to the planning system over the coming months must seize the opportunity to restore nature and deliver the thriving, wildlife-rich homes and communities we all deserve. Now is the time for ambition and positive action.”
Ingrid Samuel, from the National Trust, said it was concerned that the plans are “likely to result in the loss of green space, a lack of supporting infrastructure and poor outcomes for communities and nature, falling short on the government’s own goals”.
Ministers say they want a “brownfield first approach” to planning and construction but cannot afford to ignore the housing crisis. Under the plans, developers will have to provide infrastructure, including GP clinics and public transport, for green belt developments.
Councils will receive an extra £100m and 300 additional planning officers to help smooth the process.
