Labour, or perhaps to use their new name - the government - wants to build on the ‘grey belt’.

Promising to address shortages of affordable housing and put planning front and centre - it is proposing a new definition for land that could be considered for development.

Amid a long list of pledges and policies that may have so-called NIMBYS quivering in their boots, planning reform is set to take centre stage and the restoration of mandatory house building targets are top of the new Chancellor’s wish list.

And so is the possibility of a new category of land - the grey belt - that will be introduced to help speed up development where it, or options, may be lacking.

The grey belt is currently (and for now loosely) defined as ‘poor quality’ green belt land - possibly ugly, maybe disused - that is seen as having little or no value for nature or people.

Second in line to brownfield, it is likely to be of poor quality. More scrubland than woodland if you will.

A disused petrol station; a golf course now abandoned; or an unwanted car park on wasteland no longer in use, have all been put forward as the type of sites - still sat within the green belt - that could justify being turned over for new homes.

And all perhaps a far cry from the rolling hills or ancient forest we instinctively want to throw our arms around and protect when we picture green belt development.

There is no doubt the country needs a plan to meet housing need - albeit an affordable one where house prices reflect real wages and not market value.

Families, particularly in the south east, are being priced out of towns and cities, a lack of affordable housing is now affecting people from all walks of life as wages haven’t kept pace and - according to the National Housing Federation - there is now a real risk to the health and future of rural communities across England as keyworkers like teachers, carers and agricultural workers can’t afford to stay.

With no concrete definition (to excuse the pun) of exactly what the grey belt could look like - little data exists on how much of it might be available to builders.

But equally - what will stop currently well-kept areas within our green belt being left to go to rack and ruin by those who may be keen to sell, in an attempt to meet that ‘wasteland’ definition?

What exactly makes an area of green belt low-quality?

Surely even the most unsightly thicket and brush can provide a haven for wildlife - or at least have the potential to be turned into something better and more beautiful?

And how do you prevent well-loved spots not being left to deteriorate when those who own them see flashes of pound signs and earning potential if they can tick the ‘ugly wasteland’ box of the new designation?

With climate change wreaking global havoc and future predictions as bleak as the emissions the planet is leaking - our need for housing must be balanced with reversing declining biodiversity and doing more to trap the carbon we’re expelling.

Labour has pledged to build 1.5 million homes over the next five years - the equivalent to 300,000 homes a year.

But they must also promise to make crystal clear their new planning policies to prevent a flood of speculative applications and a mad dash to re-label plots that we might never get back.