Introductions
In December 2024 the Government announced the biggest shake-up of national Green Belt policy in a generation.
Updates to Section 13 (Green Belt) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) introduced a new exception to the list of what is ‘not inappropriate’ development in the Green Belt. Whilst it may seem to be a minor change to many, for those in the development industry believe these small changes are likely to give rise to significant opportunities to bring forward land for development that previously would not have been considered favourably.
A more detailed briefing on the changes made, including a summary of the Government’s guidance on how they should be implemented, is available in our detailed Client Briefing Note here.
So what has changed?
The first thing to make clear is that the Government hasn’t changed the definition of Green Belt. The Five Purposes of the Green Belt set out in NPPF paragraph 143 remain the same. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy remains “…to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.” Inappropriate development is still by definition harmful and should not be approved, unless in very special circumstances.
However, in recognition of arguments many in the industry have been making for years; i.e. that parts of the Green Belt do not have any particular value and make little/no contribution to these aims, the Government has introduced a new exception to the normal policy of restraint.
Andy Parry
Director – DLP Planning
BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI
07824 056765
Andrew.parry@dlpconsultants.co.uk
dlpconsultants.co.uk
linkedin.com/dlp-planningltd
The NPPF Glossary defined Grey Belt as follows:
“Grey belt: For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, ‘grey belt’ is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.”
For plan making, when considering release of Green Belt to meet development needs, paragraph 148 requires LPAs to give priority to previously developed land and then consider other non PDL Grey Belt land.
When determining proposals, paragraph 155 introduces an exception for Grey Belt sites provided that four criteria are met; i) the development should not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area; ii) there is a demonstrated need for the development; iii) development would be in a sustainable location; and iv) major development must meet the ‘Golden Rules’.
The Golden Rules requires that sites meet a higher level of affordable housing, include necessary improvements to national or local infrastructure as well as provision of new (or improvements to existing) green spaces.
Land of Opportunity, or false dawn?
An inquiry into the likely effectiveness of the Government’s emerging Grey Belt policy was undertaken in Autumn last year. In February, the chairman of the inquiry, Lord Moylan sent a letter to SoS Angela Rayner setting out cautious support for the concept, but raised several questions about its implementation and likely effectiveness. Overall, the inquiry concluded that the impacts on housebuilding were only likely to be marginal.
Whilst some of the committee’s concerns have been addressed by the December 2024 NPPF and subsequent PPG Guidance, we agree that some question marks do still remain – for example in relation to viability of the Golden Rule affordable housing requirements and resources of planning departments to undertake more “granular” assessment of the Green Belt’s when preparing Local Plans.
However, our experience in the first three months of implementation is that Grey Belt is already starting to have a positive effect on decision making – particularly in London and the South East, where many authorities we have seen a significant uplift in housing requirements as a result of the new Standard Method.
In St Albans, for example, members accepted officer’s assessment that a 550 dwelling scheme at Harpenden would constitute Grey Belt and approved the outline application.
At Hadlow, Tonbridge & Malling, an Inspector concluded that a scheme for 57 dwellings with a children’s day nursery, access and open space could be classed as Grey Belt and met the Golden Rules.
How can DLP help?
We believe Grey Belt policy provides a positive opportunity to bring forward land in sustainable locations for development. In the midst of a housing crisis it is right that all opportunities to boost housing supply are explored.
The Government has helpfully provided new guidance on how to assess whether a site makes a strong contribution to Green Belt purposes (a), (b) and (d), but inevitably an element of planning judgement is still necessary. If you have land in the Green Belt that is previously developed and/or in a sustainable location well related to a built-up area, there is a good chance it might be Grey Belt.
Our experts offer Grey Belt assessment of sites at an early stage and can provide advice on promotion strategy and how the Golden Rules can be met – do get in touch with your local DLP office to find out more.
