Grey Belt Guidance: More Local Decision-Making, More Partnership Opportunities
This week the Community Communications Partnership (The CCP) shares a focus on Grey Belt. This paper was presented by our learned colleague, Peter Cruickshank from Six Pump Court Chambers at our event on 27 March entitled “Planning law and the practical application of planning policy”.
Peter is a rising star in the field of Planning Law and accepts instructions to represent clients in planning inquiries and in challenges to the merits of planning decisions. For more information about Peter and Six Pump Court Chambers, please visit https://6pumpcourt.co.uk/barrister/peter-cruickshank/
1. It is for LPAs to define and maintain green belt land in their local areas: the expectation is that green belt boundaries are set out in local plans. Para [143] of the NPPF explains:
143. Green Belt serves five purposes:
a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
2. The NPPF defines Grey belt as:
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.
3. Footnote 7 of the NPPF is a list of “areas or assets of particular importance” which “provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type, or distribution of development in the plan area”, and it includes: habitats sites, SPAs or SACs, Ramsar sites, SSSIs; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, a National Landscape, a National Park, Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats (ancient woodland; sand dunes, salt marsh etc); designated heritage assets and other heritage assets of archaeological interest; and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change. Grey belt land cannot then be on those areas, so it can’t be on a habitats site, SSSI, local green space, national landscape, national park, etc.
4. So Grey belt is:
a. Land in the green belt;
b. Made up of previously developed land, and/or land that does not strongly contribute to checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another; or preserving the setting and special character of historic towns;
c. And it can’t be one of the areas or assets of particular importance already listed.
5. For decision taking, prior position started with VSC test: “inappropriate” development should not be approved except in very special circumstances (at [153] of the NPPF) – with “inappropriate” defined as anything not in the list at [154], which includes e.g., buildings for agriculture and forestry, limited development which preserves green belt’s openness etc;
6. Present position rests on para [155] NPPF, that development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all the following apply:
a. The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan;
b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed (i.e., lack of 5YHLS);
c. The development would be in a sustainable location; and
d. Specific “Golden Rules” for major development.
7. Simply, if the site is “grey belt” plus these matters at [155] NPPF, then it is no longer inappropriate development in the green belt, VSC’s don’t apply, and not a “strong reason for refusal” under paragraph 11(d).
8. New PPG, end of February: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-belt#assessing-green-belt-to-identify-grey-belt-land Provides detailed guidance. Interesting point to highlight on Purpose B: “This purpose relates to the merging of towns, not villages”, and “villages should not be considered large built-up areas”.
Reaction
9. On Monday 24 March, Kevin Hollinrake MP, Shadow SoS for Housing, told the Commons:
“The grey belt, which was sold to the public as a few abandoned garage forecourts, has now been exposed as the Trojan horse we predicted it would be. Although not directly part of this Bill, it clearly interacts directly with it. It has been described as a death knell for the green belt due to the removal of parts of the definitions and protections of villages. Villages can now merge together or into nearby towns.”
10. CPRE don’t like it:
“current definitions as proposed in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are too subjective and could lead to degradation of the Green Belt. Our take is clear: there’s enough brownfield land in the country for 1.2m homes – let’s start there.”
Decisions coming through
Bagshot
11. Grove End, Bagshot (APP/D3640/W/24/3347530). Hearing on 07 January 2025; Decision date 12 March 2025. For development of up to 135 homes, including a minimum 50% affordable homes, with associated landscaping, parking, open space, play areas.
12. Main issue: was it inappropriate development in the Green Belt? Appellant said it was grey belt. Was disagreement about whether it contributed to purpose (b) – does it prevent two towns merging? As inspector said:
“Central to this debate is whether the areas that would be closer together if the development went ahead are ‘towns,’ or alternatively, other lower tier settlements.”
Whilst I understand the desire to maintain the separate identities of settlements within the Borough, that does not equate to the appeal site making a strong contribution towards preventing the merging of formally recognised towns under Green Belt purpose (b).
I consider that Bagshot and Windlesham fall into the categories of villages of varying scales. Purpose (b) of Framework paragraph 143 is therefore not engaged in this appeal and even if it were, in my view, the development of the appeal site would not result in Bagshot or Windlesham merging or appearing materially closer to one another.
13. Also discrepancy between the Council’s documents, which is interesting lesson here. The Council’s Green Belt Review (2022) said the two villages (Bagshot and Windlesham) were in fact towns; but the development plan policy (Core Strategy 1) referred to Bagshot as a large village and Windlesham as a “smaller” village. Inspector said that the recent review therefore conflicted with development plan and was inconsistent with it.
Motorway Service Station, M56, outskirts of Manchester
14. Application for motorway service station between Junctions 7 and 8 of M56 Motorway, running from Manchester to Chester, and on to M6 motorway to Birmingham (APP/R0660/V/24/3345318):
15. Called in by SoS after objections about inappropriate development on the green belt. Permission granted – on 05 March 2025. Inquiry held under previous Framework:
it was common ground between parties [at the Inquiry] that the proposed MSA would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and did not fall within any of the exceptions listed in paragraphs 154 and 155 the Inspector’s view that the impact of the development on the Green Belt would be substantial, and that there would be an inevitable and substantial loss of openness in both spatial and visual term the Inspector assigned substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and also from the reduction in openness.
16. But Inspector concluded that the cumulation of the benefits clearly outweighs the harm to the Green Belt and that VSC met. But now with new policy, SoS has considered grey belt position: the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that the site does not play any role in checking the sprawl of large built up areas or in preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another and that Green Belt purposes a) and b) are not engaged further agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that the site does not contribute to preserving the setting and special character of any historic town and would not conflict with the purpose of assisting urban regeneration and that purposes d) and e) are not engaged. The Secretary of State considers that the site does not strongly contribute to any of the purposes a), b) or d) none of [the paragraph 7] matters provide a strong reason for refusal. She therefore considers that the site meets the definition of grey belt in the Glossary of the Framework.
17. SoS found that factors in [155] met, 155(a) – is grey belt and no fundamental undermining of remaining Green Belt, then 155(b) – demonstrable unmet need; then 155(c) in a sustainable location; and 155(d) for housing does not apply. Para [37]:
“Consequently, under paragraph 155 the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and in line with paragraph 153 and footnote 55, she is not required to give substantial weight to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness.”
18. Demonstrable logic, powerful reflection of grey belt. Interesting case: clear, slow, meticulous working through the NPPF criteria. Curious one, because have Inspector recommending approval, and then with added grey belt policy, simply strengthens that recommendation.
Tanker Depot, Hertfordshire
19. Development was for 9 dwellings on a tanker depot (APP/B1930/W/24/3349988), decision date 19 March 2025. Council could not demonstrate 5YHLS. Main issue was whether proposal was inappropriate development.
20. Agreed it was grey belt land. Disagreed on subsequent application of 155(c) criteria (the development would be in a sustainable location) – and 155 needs all criteria to be fulfilled.
21. Inspector found it was not in a sustainable location because not accessible. Cited future occupiers to be “reliant on private vehicles”, as walking and cycling difficult: it was a rural, unlit area, and long distances to bus stops. So failed to meet 155(c), and so was inappropriate development.
22. Inspector dismissed appeal:
I give modest weight to the provision of nine additional dwellings and limited weight to the economic benefits. However, the other considerations would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, loss of openness and conflict with the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. As such, it would be contrary to saved Policy 1 of the LPR, Policy S1 of the NP and the Framework.
23. Inspector found this was a strong reason to refuse development, and conflicted with development plan and conflicted with material considerations, including Framework and VSC test. Interesting case again here have grey belt land, but couldn’t meet 155, could have gone the other way if it had done.
Windmill Lane, Buckinghamshire
24. One detached dwelling with car parking and landscaping (APP/K0425/W/24/3341869). Decision dated 18 March 2025. Grey belt only issue.
25. Site located within Chilterns National Landscape, but Inspector found that of itself did not provide strong reason for refusing or restricting proposed development. Inspector found that site did not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes a), b), or d) in para 143 and so was grey belt land:
Purpose a) is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. The appeal site contains a pole-mounted electricity substation and is therefore not entirely free of existing development. It is mainly enclosed by shrubbery and fencing which restrict and contain development. The infill nature of the site would also avoid an incongruous pattern of development such as an extended “finger” of development into the Green Belt. The site therefore does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purpose a).
Purpose b) is to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. As already set out above, the appeal site is not entirely free of development. Due to its size and positioning in between dwellings on either side along Windmill Lane, the site does not form a substantial part of a gap between towns. Similarly, development of the site would not likely result in the loss of visual separation of towns. The site therefore does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purpose b).
Purpose d) is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Based on the evidence before me and what I have seen on site, the appeal site does not form part of the setting of a historic town has no visual, physical, or experiential relationship to historic aspects of a historic town. The site therefore makes no contribution to the setting and special character of a historic town.
26. Inspector found requirements at [155] to be met, i.e., development was not inappropriate because all of the tests applied: The Policies Map… shows an extensive expanse of undeveloped Green Belt land beyond the rear boundary of the appeal site. The appeal site is small in size by comparison and is contained to the front by the road, on each side by dwellings, and to the rear by a line of shrubbery. This remaining countryside would therefore be safeguarded from encroachment, and there would also be no conflict with the other Green Belt purposes Buckinghamshire does not have 5YHLS, and “for this reason alone, there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed.”
“The appeal site is near to but outside of [the] village, which forms part of the High Wycombe Tier 1 Large Urban Area. It is within short and accessible walking distance of some local services and a bus route, and I am satisfied that the proposed access from the site is safe and suitable for all users” – i.e., that it is sustainable;
27. Clearly not major development, so Golden Rules don’t apply. Inspector allowed appeal, and concluded: As I have found the proposal to not be inappropriate development of grey belt land in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework, there is no conflict with [Local Policy].
I conclude that the proposal is not inappropriate development for the purposes of the Framework and the development plan.
Broad Lane, Beaconsfield
28. Up to 120 residential dwellings, including affordable and self-build homes (APP/N0410/W/24/3347882). Decision date 24 February 2025. Inspector:
The appeal site is located on an undeveloped piece of land at the very edge of Beaconsfield. Furthermore, while it is disconnected from the settlement of High Wycombe it is not cut-off from Beaconsfield. It is also bounded on three sides by land that is for the most part undeveloped.
It is clear that residential development on this land of the scale proposed, would constitute an extension of Beaconsfield into an area of currently undeveloped land
The appeal site… does clearly prevent the urban sprawl of Beaconsfield.
I find that the appeal site strongly contributes to purpose a).
I consider that the appeal site plays an important role in … that it also strongly contributes to purpose b), preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another.
29. Appeal dismissed:
In summary, I have found that the appeal site strongly contributes to Green Belt purposes a) and b). Accordingly, the proposal would not meet the definition of grey belt land. As I have found that the proposal would not utilise grey belt land, I need not consider whether it would meet criteria b) to d) of paragraph 155. In addition, given the type, scale and location of the development proposed the appeal scheme does not meet any of the exceptions set out by paragraph 154 of the Framework.
I therefore conclude that the appeal proposal would form inappropriate development within the Green Belt in conflict with the aims of the Framework. Consequently, it would also conflict with Policy GB1 of the adopted South Bucks District Local Plan (SBDLP).
Peter Cruikshank can be contacted on clerks@6pumpcourt.co.uk 020 7797 8400
27 March 2025
We would like to thank Peter Cruikshank and Six Pump Court Chambers for hosting this insightful event with us and allowing us to publish this very interesting article.
Next week we will have an instalment by Anne Williams and the week after by William Upton KC who also took part in the presentation and debate hosted at Six Pump Court Chambers on 27 March 2025.