As many as 100 areas of “grey belt” land have been identified in Kent that could become central to plans to “get Britain building again”.

Senior reporter Lauren Abbott looks at the areas of the county that might be affected under new government plans to speed up housing development and speaks to those worried about what it could mean for the future of Kent’s green belt.

A pledge to “get Britain building” has seen the new Labour government unveil a proposed overhaul of the planning system that it says will pave the way for more than a million new homes across the country.

Promising to address shortages of affordable housing by putting planning front and centre, the government claims it will do all it can to increase the rate at which new homes are built as it chases a target of 1.5 million new dwellings over the next five years.

In Kent, draft housing target figures under the new calculations suggest the county’s 13 councils will be required to build 13,572 houses per year - up from 12,133 - in order to meet the new objectives.

Alongside insisting councils prioritise brownfield sites, a new category of land is also being put forward - the grey belt - that could be introduced to speed up development where it, or options for it, may be lacking.

Defined loosely as “low-quality” green belt, the grey belt, says Labour, could be previously developed green belt land.

Or, alternatively, it may be any other parts of the green belt that are making only a “limited contribution” towards its main aims, which include protecting the character of historical towns and preventing urban sprawl.

A disused petrol station, a golf course now abandoned or an unwanted car park on protected land have all been put forward as examples of the type of sites - still sat within the protected green belt - that could justify being turned over for swift redevelopment as part of efforts to tackle the country’s acute housing crisis.

Any green belt land released will be subject to “golden rules” promises Labour, to ensure the development delivers 50% affordable homes and has access to green spaces and necessary infrastructure such as schools and GP surgeries.

But it’s a proposal worrying countryside campaigners and residents’ groups who say protective green belt policies, and the land included within them, are there for a reason.

Government officials haven’t specified what proportion of England’s green belt they think could be reclassified as much of the decision could eventually rest with councils on a local level.

But with so much green belt land in Kent, how many of these possible “grey belt” sites might exist and where?

Possible grey belt land in Kent

Property data experts LandTech has conducted what it insists is “preliminary research” to try and understand what housing capacity the grey belt might be able to offer.

Covering 12.6% of the country, LandTech says it feels the green belt is one of the most widely known but least understood planning policies.

And releasing any of it for development, it adds, has always proven to be an emotionally and “politically loaded” topic.

About a fifth of Kent’s land area is designated as Metropolitan green belt - designed explicitly to constrain the urban sprawl of London into the Home Counties by making it harder to get permission to build.

Harry Quartermain explained: “While most of the green belt is agricultural land, some sites within the green belt are not as ‘green’ as the public might imagine.

“Former storage yards, disused quarries and petrol stations, car parks and caravan parks are common in the areas around our biggest towns and cities. and all of them enjoy the same policy protections as the greenest of the green belt sites.”

LandTech estimates therefore, as many as 100 sites in Kent could meet the likely criteria.

With large parts of Sevenoaks, Gravesham and Dartford all within the Metropolitan Green Belt, LandTech says all three local authorities could find themselves with new grey belt sites housebuilders may argue are suitable for new housing.

For the purpose of its study, LandTech picked out vacant or derelict sites located within the green belt but next to existing roads and built-up areas.

To further focus its numbers, LandTech - which also applied a margin of error - ruled out any sites significantly affected by flooding, or protected as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), priority habitat, nature reserves, common land, ancient woodland, Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land, or scheduled ancient monuments.

In Kent as a result - across the three northerly districts - LandTech’s calculations have so far mapped out around 270 hectares that could be viewed as possible grey belt land suitable for housing development.

It is an area the size of roughly 400 football pitches.

With so much green belt in its district, the majority of sites are in Sevenoaks, according to LandTech’s analysis, with just more than 188 potential hectares identified.

In Dartford, likely grey belt measures 79.5 hectares and in Gravesham just 5.1 - according to these early estimations.

LandTech has also applied an “assumption” of 50 possible dwellings per hectare - meaning Kent’s 100 possible sites could have the potential to deliver more than 13,000 homes for the county - under the firm’s method for analysis.

While its work does not go as far as to identify specific plots in each borough or district, Harry Quartermain says the company may be able to narrow down the results in time as more about the government’s proposed new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - out for consultation until September - is understood.

This framework governs housebuilding across the UK, sets out the country’s planning policies and how they are expected to be applied and is now subject to a major overhaul as part of Labour’s pledge to build hundreds of thousands more homes.

Cllr Julia Thornton, Sevenoaks District Council’s cabinet member for planning and conservation, said the council is still absorbing the government’s proposals but she acknowledges in a district that is mostly green belt, the issues are “challenging”.

She explained: ”While most of the government’s proposed changes to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are broadly aligned with the approach we are taking in our emerging Local Plan, the significant uplift in new homes will be particularly challenging in our district, which is 93% green belt, the second highest percentage in the country.

“At this time, we are digesting the government’s proposals and their impacts.

“We will respond in detail to the consultation once all the proposals have been given full consideration.”

But concern within the district about the amount of new housing Sevenoaks could be forced to absorb on its green belt is growing.

Close to 200 residents packed out a meeting in Edenbridge to hear Richard Knox-Johnston, chairman of the London Green Belt Council, talk about how West Kent’s green belt could be protected.

The LGBC is an independent, voluntary umbrella organisation made up of groups and individuals who are passionate about preserving and protecting the capital’s green belt. It has its concerns about the implication of introducing “grey belt” areas.

Mr Knox-Johnston explained: “We broadly welcome the Labour Party’s approach to building on inner-city urban brownfield sites which are ready to be developed now and could provide over one million homes, especially for affordable and social housing. We also welcome Labour's plans for affordable housing for which there is the greatest need, especially for young people.

“However, we are deeply concerned about suggestions about building in the green belt, on land which site owners and developers have deliberately allowed to deteriorate in order to secure planning permission.

“These sites should be restored at the owner’s expense so that the green belt can perform its major role in providing carbon sequestration, reducing flooding in urban areas, providing important food production close to urban centres, as well as offering greenspace for recreation, health and wellbeing, and re-connecting with nature.”

Chairwoman of New Edenbridge and District Residents’ Association Sally-Ann Vine says there is concern among local people about how Labour’s plans, and ultimately the council’s local plan, will impact areas like Edenbridge.

She explained: “The whole concept of grey belt needs to be robustly defined.

“We understand that there is a need for housing and that this is going to happen. But we worry that it will be grey belt - and then they will take this bit of green belt with it.

“Everybody is still waiting to see what it really is going to mean.”

There is also concern, explained Sally, about the impact on wildlife, which she argues can’t be lessened simply by adding additional green spaces to new developments.

She added: “Our natural wildlife is in decline and if we destroy all the countryside we are turning the tables on our wildlife.

“Wildlife needs undisturbed areas.

“The ecology of the green belt - you won’t ever be able to replace it.

“We won’t reverse it once it’s gone.

Dr Hilary Newport, director of CPRE Kent, says she too is very concerned by any move to rebadge or rebrand any part of Kent’s green belt.

Dr Newport, from the county’s countryside charity, says while some areas may not be seen to be as photogenic or picturesque as other parts, that doesn’t necessarily “justify turning it over for development”.

She said: “For us - at CPRE - green belt is something we will always fight to protect.

“It’s there to serve a purpose. To stop urban sprawl.

“If it’s scruffy it should be cleaned up. If it’s ugly or wasteland it may be a haven for wildlife.”

She also calls into question whether Labour’s target of more than 300,000 homes a year is even remotely possible and says the CPRE would like to see a redefinition of the term affordable - currently explained as 80% of market value - which, she says, will still put the homes out of reach of most workers.

She added: “When house prices are seven or eight times the average income that’s an impossible problem.

“They are talking about building 300,000 homes again.

“The country has never achieved that since the 50s or 60s when the government was building half of them as council houses.”