The report released by think tank Policy Exchange said that statutory compensation should be set up to compensate locals for building on the greenfield.
The 'Cities for Growth' report calls for wide ranging reforms to the planning system to enable the construction of new homes in the suburbs of existing towns and cities. It targets more building on greenfield, Green Belt and brownfield and claims that existing planning laws have led to local authorities releasing too little land for new development, raising house prices and rents.
Planning permission on brownfield sites should be easier and always permitted if less than half of those directly affected object. The report argues controversially that councils should not be able to overrule changes simply because they do not fit with town hall plans.
The report further states that the need for planning permission should be reduced for internal alterations and should not be necessary for any change in the building use. This would require a substantial amendment of existing planning rules.
Development on greenfield land should be permitted where 50% of local people agree, the report said. It states that statutory compensation should be set up for those affected by the development. Areas of particular value such as Areas of Natural Beauty and National Parks should be exempt from any relaxations under revised planning laws.
"Our planning system has delivered both too little and too poor quality development, and led to an adversarial relationship between developers and local communities. It has squeezed out good quality building, by making land so expensive that people have little left over to build attractive developments," said Alex Morton, author of the report.
Green Belt land is also a key target for the report, which claims that the "majority of green belt does not consist of meadows or nature reserves but intensively farmed land around cities" and "building should be permitted if the majority of local people are in favour".
It is claimed that 30% disagree with allowing some development on the Green Belt and so a new levy on Green Belt development should be created to pay for improvements to make it a favourable option.
“Green Belts will hold back our cities, reducing their ability to both regenerate and grow. If we cannot build on Green Belts we simply build on other greenfield sites or destroy urban green space,” the report said.
The proposed levy would be in addition to the greenfield statutory compensation scheme that is already in place and would help to "return the Green Belt back to its original purpose of creating places for people to enjoy".
"We need to end the 'we know best' bureaucratic culture that opposes letting local people decide what is built near them, often imposing shoddy homes. New and attractive Garden Cities and planning reform can solve our housing crisis and drive economic growth," said Morton.
The report has not been welcomed by environmental campaigners, who claim that public opinion is wholly against development on the greenbelt.
“I hope this report falls on deaf ears in Government because public opinion is overwhelmingly against it. The Green belt has helped protect against urban sprawl and the encouraged the regeneration of town and city centres," said Jack Neill-Hall, of Campaign for the protection of Rural England.
"The last thing we need is more dormitory downs where people need a car to get anywhere and which don’t have proper services,” Neill-Hall said.
