The introduction of ‘grey belt’ has been one of the most debated changes made to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in December 2024 while an article from Turley consultants considers what has been learned from its first year in operation and what impact it has had so far.
Turley writes:
… Until the updated NPPF of December 2024, Green Belt policy had hardly changed in decades. Governments of all persuasions felt obliged to commit to ‘protecting our precious Green Belt’ (or words to that effect).
Yes, exceptional circumstances could justify Green Belt release through plan-making. But watered-down housing targets (NPPF 2023) made this even harder to evidence and performance in adopting plans was (and remains) pitiful. The effective disallowance of a five-year housing supply deficit as a very special circumstance (WMS of 2015) made pursuing Green Belt release through applications and appeals fraught with risk. The introduction of grey belt has been a welcome and long overdue response to this damaging impasse.
What has changed?
Grey belt introduces at least two fundamental changes in the approach to consideration of the Green Belt. Firstly, it acknowledges that not all Green Belt is of equal value…
Secondly, it enables a balance to be struck between retaining Green Belts and meeting development needs. For plan-making, NPPF 2024 made it explicit that if identified needs cannot be met by other means, the use of Green Belt land will be justified…
Effects so far
Early evidence is that grey belt is proving effective in enabling permissions, especially in areas of greatest development need…
…
… The Minister’s recent letter to The Planning Inspectorate calling for a pragmatic approach to the review of Green Belt is further evidence of the significance of the new approach.
So what have we learned?
While sample sizes are relatively small (and considerations are by definition highly site-specific) it seems that the Government’s intention to open up the supply of potential development sites is being achieved. While the concept of grey belt may have emerged from thoughts of re-using previously developed land in the Green Belt, the policy is of much wider application….
… research by CPRE suggested that 88% of grey belt sites determined at appeal related to greenfield land. A policy which has, almost immediately, had such an impact will inevitably be scrutinised. There will be challenge to its interpretation including through the Courts and potential local policy responses to mitigate its effects.
The High Court has quashed an Inspector’s decision to dismiss an appeal on a site in Beaconsfield…
The Courts have also been asked to consider what makes a village…
At least one Local Plan is proposing to designate as towns settlements what have previously been regarded as villages, in order to disapply grey belt policy. This is unlikely to be the only policy response…
There is also a recent case in Shropshire where an Inspector, perhaps surprisingly given that heritage did not form a reason for refusal, concluded that land being within the setting of a listed building triggered the provisions of footnote 7 of NPPF and that as a result the site could not comprise grey belt…
…
So how should practitioners approach identification of grey belt?…
