Grey Belt Guidance: More Local Decision-Making, More Partnership Opportunities
The Grey Belt has been one of the more controversial aspects of the Labour government’s raft of changes to planning policy.
Last week the government published its long-awaited grey belt planning policy guidance. Some clarity will offer a route finder for councillors and developers alike as the approach from planning inspector to inspector and LPA to LPA had meant some inconsistent application had already crept in.
The detail and length of the guidance tells us there are significant practical implications for local authorities and developers seeking planning consent.
Some key points
We’ve been getting our heads around how the new guidance will help developers, communities, councillors and local authority officers understand what the so-called Grey Belt means for them. If you want to read the guidance and come back for our analysis have a look at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-belt.
The latest guidance will be used for both plan-making and decision-taking, shifting some Green Belt decisions from a presumption against development to a presumption in favour, under defined conditions. Some key points include:
Councils will have to understand whether the release or development of Green Belt land would fundamentally undermine the remaining Green Belt in its plan area.
If land is released from the Green Belt local planning authorities must determine how it should contribute to accessible green space- such spaces are safe, well-designed and offer recovery for nature
Where grey belt land is not in a location that is or can be made sustainable, “development on this land is inappropriate.”
The important issue of openness is also considered- the volume of a proposal may be as important as its visual impact
The Green Belt is only one form of statutory protection for the countryside, another point stressed in the guidance: that grey belt excludes land such as SSSI, Local Green Spaces, National Parks etc and these provide “a strong reason for refusing or restricting development”
The guidance assesses how the rationale for the Green Belt should be considered against the unrestricted sprawl, to prevent neighbouring towns merging and to preserve the special character of historic towns.
Local Authorities’ and Councillors’ Role under New Guidance
Relevant local planning authorities performing a review of Green Belt boundaries to meet housing or other development needs are required to determine whether land constitutes grey belt for decision making, are now expected to identify Grey Belt land in their area and prioritise it for release before considering other Green Belt sites. A key clause though is that it “does not automatically follow that it should be allocated for development…”
While one of the most controversial aspects is undoubtedly that Green Belt Protections should no longer be applied to villages, as the guidance specifically mentions towns. Which speaks to the earlier-mentioned rationale of the Green Belt: preventing towns merging.
If a site qualifies as Grey Belt and meets the NPPF 155 criteria (including the golden rules), it is no longer treated as inappropriate development, meaning Green Belt policies no longer dictate refusal and the normal tilted balance in favour of approval applies. In practice, councillors can permit such schemes understanding that they are complying with national housing and growth objectives.
New definition of Grey Belt already being invoked
There have been some local councils who have tested the new lay of the land. In Hertfordshire, Hertsmere Council’s planning committee approved a data centre on newly redesignated Grey Belt land. Likewise, St Albans City & District Council recently granted permission for a 550-home development in Harpenden after planners concluded the site was Grey Belt under the NPPF. Notably, these approvals occurred without the lengthy appeals that Green Belt proposals once faced. It is significant that dozens of planning decisions and appeals have already invoked Grey Belt status within months of the policy change, indicating a rapidly shifting landscape.
What’s changing?
Ultimately, while the updated policy environment offers the prospect of unlocking previously undevelopable sites, it also underscores the often highly charged and political nature of the planning process. Anyone serious about development is required to have a belt and braces approach to how it will seek and consolidate the opinion of local elected representatives and community stakeholders.
Grey Belt reclassifications are not administrative adjustments, the opposite in fact; they are local political decisions, aided by the new guidance and shaped by councillor input and community sentiment. At the CCP, our experience shows that early, nuanced engagement with councillors is essential to securing certainty and fostering a productive relationship with local authorities.
If you are considering bringing forward a Grey Belt site, the message is clear: invest in collaboration. By working alongside councillors to address local needs and priorities, developers stand a far better chance of navigating this evolving planning landscape successfully and delivering sites!