News
NPPF reform: Shaking up the Green Belt
15 January 2025
Amongst the myriad of planning reforms proposed by the Labour government since their election in summer 2024, the proposed changes to Green Belt policy, and the inception of a new "Grey Belt" term, were arguably the most headline-grabbing.
The publication of the NPPF in December 2024 sets out how our most underperforming Green Belt land may be used to meet our development needs. In shaking up the long-standing land use policy first established in 1947 to control urban sprawl, the Labour Government has ventured where its predecessors dared not to, recognising that historic Green Belt boundaries have, in many instances become antiquated and obsolete. The common consensus across the industry is that such changes are eminently logical, and indeed necessary.
Firstly though, it is important to recognise that the new NPPF retains the five purposes of the Green Belt and maintains that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in "exceptional circumstances" that are "fully evidenced", thus giving policy protection to our best performing Green Belt. Green Belt parcels must be robustly assessed to understand development potential, and the housing uplift that they can yield.
When asked to estimate the amount of Grey Belt land by the House of Lords in December, planning minister Matthew Pennycook suggested the figure might be lower than 10%, but this is highly dependent on local geographic context and, critically, the development needs of localities. However, even a small percentage represents a significant opportunity. 10% of the current Green Belt equates to some 163,000 hectares of land, which could play a critical role in accelerating the delivery of housing and other development needs.
Turning to the specifics within the new NPPF, we have a formal definition for 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.
The consolidation of "previously developed" land within the definition is valuable, and now extends to include "large areas of fixed surface infrastructure such as large areas of hardstanding which have been lawfully developed".
In terms of promoting Green Belt for development either through local plans or planning applications, much will hinge on the contribution of the land to the Green Belt purposes: (a) checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; (b) preventing neighbouring towns from merging; and (d) preserving the setting and special character of historic towns. The test that land must not strongly contribute to any of the purposes (a), (b) and (d) to be considered as grey belt will represent, in many cases, an achievable threshold.
The exclusion of strands (c) and (e) from the grey belt definition is a key change from the July 2024 draft NPPF. In the case of (c), it is recognised that the ability to avoid countryside encroachment is invariably challenging, given the greenfield nature of many prospective grey belt parcels, and would therefore stifle delivery on otherwise appropriate sites. Further, the primacy of urban regeneration, set out at strand (e), is reinforced elsewhere in the NPPF through the consolidated brownfield first approach, coupled with the sequential approach to Green Belt release at paragraph 148.
The implementation of Grey Belt policy is set out in new NPPF paragraphs 155 to 158. Where in the previous version of the NPPF there was a closed list of development types that were not inappropriate, the new NPPF contains an additional permissive paragraph 155, which states that development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt will not be regarded as inappropriate where (inter-alia), (a) it uses Grey Belt without fundamentally undermining the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area; (b) there is a demonstrable unmet development need; (c) the location is sustainable; and (d) development meets a set of "Golden Rules".
Each of these criteria requires reflection in its own right, and will depend on locally specific circumstances, but it is important to focus on the new "Golden Rules" which are central to Labour’s Green Belt reform, and are considered a balancing factor in delivering fair and equitable development in return for a more permissible Green Belt release regime.
Chief among the "Golden Rules" is an affordable housing contribution that is 15% higher than the highest existing affordable housing policy requirement, up to a maximum of 50%. A 50% requirement was proposed in the draft NPPF but was criticised on viability grounds, and so the '15% above policy' mechanism represents a concession. While viability can be used to demonstrate the case for a lesser contribution, the fact is that Government wants to use Green Belt to boost affordable housing delivery and this objective will be firmly manifested in both plan-making and decision-taking. Under paragraph 67, lower affordable housing targets could be set through plan-making in authority areas where development viability is more acute and the imposition of a 50% target would deter wider housing delivery objectives.
The second and third strands of the "Golden Rules" are (b) necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure; and (c) the provision of new, or improvements to existing green spaces that are accessible to the public. The "Golden Rules" should be applied to major development involving housing proposed on land released from the Green Belt through both plan-making and planning applications. The compliance of a development with the “Golden Rules” should be given significant weight in favour of the grant of permission.
While the established list of appropriate development at paragraph 154 remains largely consistent with the previous versions of the NPPF, there is a helpful easing of strand (g) which deals with previously developed land (PDL). The reuse of PDL is appropriate providing it does not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. This is a lower threshold than previous policy, which required development to either avoid a greater impact on Green Belt openness than the existing development; or avoid substantial harm to openness where it contributed to meeting an identified affordable housing need. The “Golden Rules” are also applicable to major development proceeding under paragraph 154.
The new NPPF establishes that Green Belt reviews are to become a cornerstone of the plan-making system via the updated paragraph 146, which states that Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed where local authorities cannot meet its identified need for homes, commercial and other development through other means. Paragraph 146 goes on to state that needs should be met in full, unless there is clear evidence that doing so would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt. This requirement for authorities to act is a stark contrast to the previous NPPF, which stated that there was no requirement to review Green Belt boundaries under the plan-making process.
Government has committed to standardising best practice for undertaking Green Belt reviews. Given the "stick over carrot" approach set out to encourage the prompt delivery of up-to-date local plans, local authorities will be required to undertake their own Green Belt reviews, but it may be that regional planning has a strategic role to play between neighbouring authorities. Alongside the publication of the NPPF, Government has made clear its intention to reintroduce a regional tier of strategic planning governance which is expected to be consolidated in the forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It has already outlined that new strategic authorities will be used to create light-touch "spatial development strategies" which set above local plans in a similar way to how the London Plan works alongside development plans of the constituent authorities.
For critics that suggest a more permissive Green Belt planning regime might mean a loss of control for local authorities who are risk of speculative planning applications, it must equally be recognised that the reforms establish a clear mandate for the universal delivery of up-to-date local plans, which has long been a challenge, and unequivocally still expects development to be 'plan-led'. The ability to maintain an up-to-date plan will protect authorities from inappropriate speculative development. Further, constrained authorities might indeed welcome the new flexibility to use its underperforming Green Belt for development needs, whereas under previous policy, the ability to do so would be politically challenging.
Labour's ability to achieve its manifesto pledge of delivering 1.5 million new homes requires bold and decisive planning reforms It is therefore inevitable that some decisions provoke controversy, but few could argue that Government has shied away from creating new conditions to tackle our endemic housing crisis head-on. Green Belt reform will play a key role in making additional suitable land available for development, amongst a range of other policy changes that extend beyond planning policy. The development industry has long needed a fresh stimulus and renewed vigour, and the new NPPF can prove to be that key catalyst.