By Don Mort, local democracy reporter
Up to 90 per cent of green belt land in the city could be at risk of being built on due to national planning policy changes, it has been claimed.
Fears were raised over the possible downgrading of land with the protected status to “grey belt” in a Leeds City Council debate.
Alan Lamb, leader of the city’s Conservative Group, said it could make more land vulnerable to property developers.
His claims were disputed by members of the Labour group, which controls the city council, at a meeting at Leeds Civic Hall.
Coun Lamb, who represents Wetherby, said officers gave the 90 per cent figure at a planning workshop he attended.
He said: “The reason we were told this was being kept private for now was because it would be very alarming to the people of Leeds.
“They should be very alarmed. They only way to stop this is to change the government guidance.”
The grey belt designation is part of changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), designed to help councils find new sites for housing.
Labour Armley councillor Andy Parnham, who sits on the city’s South and West plans panel, said he thought opposition members were “scaremongering” on the issue.
He told the meeting: “We have made exceptional use of our brownfield sites and that will long continue.”
Labour’s Jonathan Pryor, deputy council leader and executive member for sustainable development, said the 90 per cent figure was not accurate.
He said policies to protect green sites would still apply and plans for future development in the city were subject to consultation.
Coun Pryor, who represents Headingley and Hyde Park, said: “A percentage doesn’t exist. This is speculation and conjecture presented as conspiracy.”
Update, Sunday 16 November: In a statement issued following the meeting, Cllr Jonathan Pryor said: “I was disappointed by the comments Cllr Lamb made at this weeks’ Council meeting relating to the Green Belt.
“As part of the Leeds Local Plan we need to undertake a comprehensive Green Belt Assessment, an assessment that is in the very early stages, no Grey Belt sites have been identified and no calculations have been made – so for Cllr Lamb to have made the comments he did was frankly irresponsible.
“Unfortunately, I suspect his comments have more to do with next year’s local elections and as the Conservative Party struggles for relevance both nationally and locally. Sadly I expect we’ll see more of this.
“Leeds Development Plans Panel has a strong track record in working collaboratively to bring forward sites that meet the correct environmental standards, landscaping standards and do not damage the character of an area, a Grey Belt designation alone would not determine the future use of a site.
“In Leeds we will continue to prioritise brownfield land to meet our housing needs, because everyone deserves a decent home for them and their families, irresponsible scaremongering from the Tories will not deter us from this goal.”
Greenbelt is a psyop created by the selfosh boomer NIMBY lobby.
Or something..
Lots of land is arbitrary labeled as “Greenbelt” cos of the strong mental association people and voters have about that specific werd.
I say build more houses for Leeds families to settle down, work, and bear fruit. The rents and cost of homes is bananas.
I find your comment absolutely repulsive. If you are indeed a Cllr, which is not found on the list from Leeds GOV, you should be respectful of what the public is worried about. You are incredibly demeaning those of ‘mental association people’. If you cannot understand what the real issue is, please do not respond to it.
I addressed these issues at a Full Council Meeting on the 10th of September and most of the Councillors came to me to thank what I spoke for. I will continue to protect the Greenbelt in any way possible. I will not allow the greedy and selfish to kill our nature and wildlife.
You do know that by 2050 the UK population will be around 80 million, and more than 1 in 4 people will be over 65 right? And like 1/15th of the world landmass will be due to Wet Bulb temperatures be completely un-livable for year round human existance?
Get your head out, smell the coffee, and use your phone or computer created by mass land clearence and de-forestatio. of the Amazon & Africa for the minerals you use to vex your complaints. Sounds Hypocritical to me.
Trees can go to the Sawmill for making houses and land for old care retirment facilities and schools and businesses.
I dont care about your trees, i care about British People, our Fellow Citizens and Human Beings having places to live and raise famikies and work and retire and Die in the place we are born- Leeds.
Loads of what is linguistically semantically refered to as “Greenbelt” is not productive farming land, nor forest, nor habitat.
Plant millions of trees on the nesrbye Yorkshire Moors and Dales, not where we need houses for kids to be raised in, for elder folks to retire and rest their bones in, and for young couples to work & earn & raise families in.
Tree huggers will be the death of us all and indeed ecozealotry anti-birth green party activists would destroy the economy and ban you from breeding if it would save just 1 dangerous tree.
Homes for younger Loiners & all Yorkshire folk are better than overgrown “greenbelt.”
How dare you speak so lowly to someone who is part of the public and hoping to ensure the greenspaces are given life, too.
I am aware of what it’s like in Leeds. I live there and it needs to do better. But building on the Greenbelt has, and always will be frowned upon. Labour broke their promise – yes, other Parties have done the same – but to desecrate nature reserves, woodlands, farmlands, wetlands, forests; insects, birds and small animals that have no voice except from those who understand what they matter to sustain a much needed healthier living.
Why do you impose such hate towards living things? Do you not understand the science behind what a meadow provides and what it also matters to the young?
Do you wish to deny the generation to learn about the benefits of what our dying Pollinators do to provide the cycle of nature and wildlife?
People can indeed have homes. I have nothing against the need for the right kind of houses in the right area. But nowadays, people still don’t understand what their gardens can do, not just for leisure, but to feed the population of the small beings.
Do you also feel better to use silly titles? Ecozealot? Anti-birth activist? Would you speak so rudely to the public who would ask genuine questions?
I find your ways as distasteful as our current government.
Ps, in addition to my other comment.
You prove my point by showing your ability to gather publicly avalable info and academic rigour is slack as you are directly lying and raging like a hysterical lefty eco-zealot. Instead of advocsting for things like more homes for Leeds Families.
Are you anti-Leeds or sommet? Comes across that way.
https://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=9048&PC=1
We need to build more houses.
Clearly we are all too emotional here to think rationally from a different point of view.
For the Comedy of it all i just fed all the comments into an AI and asked it to summarise it all with a bias towards my ideas, this is what is sed so t’is all heads and tails really.
It’s clear you’re pointing out the complexities of the Green Belt and the urgent need for housing in the UK, particularly in areas like Yorkshire.
The planning system attempts to balance the multiple, often conflicting, objectives of preserving open space, protecting the environment, and facilitating the development of necessary housing stock.
This tension has led to ongoing discussions and calls for reform, especially concerning low-value land within the Green Belt (the “Grey Belt” areas mentioned previously) which could potentially be used for housing without sacrificing genuinely valuable natural landscapes.
The debates often centre on:
*Defining “Value”:* Determining which Green Belt areas have low environmental or amenity value and are thus suitable for development is a key challenge.
Balancing Priorities: Weighing the benefits of open space against the social and economic costs of housing shortages and high living costs.
Policy Nuance: Introducing greater flexibility in planning policies to better address the nuances of different land parcels rather than applying a blanket ban on development across all designated Green Belt areas.
These are significant socioeconomic challenges, and the conversations you’re having are central to current UK planning debates about how to sustainably accommodate future generations and ensure they are not overwhelmed by housing affordability issues.
I’m sorry, you used AI? Unfortunately, that makes a change because now that leaves me to whether believe you or not. I don’t agree to the use of AI for writing something for people. Whether used to summarise or not, I did not use AI to speak my opinion for all the comments. It is not ‘comedy’ at all. Everything that I said is from my own mind to fingertips.
I did not attack you. I responded to your comment because, as you state you’re a Councillor you should be aware of what you say which can attract an opinion. No matter what, opinions will be discussed – whether they clash or not.
We do have enough houses. The Greenbelt is vital. Did you even read what was stated from the link I provided? Also, please look up Action On Empty Homes – they’re charity based and have data collected of the real sum of abandoned and empty homes that can be converted into affordable housing.
I have nothing more to say as this is going nowhere but in circles. I have taken in the debates and will continue to do my bit.
Eve, Cllr Wilson – I think this debate has run its course.
I now consider this thread closed and will not be accepting further comment on it.
Kind regards
John Baron
Editor
Eyup.
I mean mental associations people have about the word “Greenbelt”
Yknow, schma? The freudian Jungian thing sir? Basic layperson linguistics? Sapir-warf?
Aye..appens
Clearly one who is not guided by a rational mind, youre jumping at shadows and seeinf offense where there is none.
Get a grip, its 2025 the UK State is helping do genocide in The Holy Land, rest of the worlds going to hell, and Leeds People Need Houses.
This seems very under the radar, I live in New Farnley LS12 where Green belt is now under proposal to build 408 houses, when I found this on west leeds dispatch the local councillor (labour) labelled me as a scaremonger when I posted it on the farnley website
I saw that post, too. So to be labelled by those who are meant to listen to the community of the Ward is just inappropriate. I apologise that such a thing has happened. We, the public, shouldn’t have to put up with this when a serious matter is under threat of those who do what they want and not what the people want or need.
Clutching pearls and virtue signaling doesny help.
Youre not even a propper neutural member lf the Public, youre literally a Green Party Activist pretending youre “unnassuming random member of the public” cos you are using this as a wedge issue to win votes.
Plant more trees in the Yorkshire Moors & encourage peoplw to grow food at their local allotments to reduce food miles.
And abolish the policy which is names and phrased and catagorised in the planning system as “Greenbelt”
Your continuation of trying to belittle someone is only leading you to a dark path. Your assumptions are false. You have clearly allowed your jump-to-conclusion ways to cloud any sense of understanding. You, as an Independent Member, which barely exists in Leeds, are a disgrace to your Party and what you stand for.
To emphasise on the Greenbelt, please take time to read carefully in the future and correct yourself with facts and kindly drop attacking people for their own views. A parting gift; https://www.cpre.org.uk/explainer/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-green-belt/
Independent means Lone Wolf.
I hate Political Parties, you lot dont do owt to build people up and just complain amd bpame and attack and be NIMBY.
Its not productive, build more. And calm it you started attscking me first. Like hamas, thus justifying a massive over proportionate Israeli Style public discussion polemic riposte
Net counterproductive 0.