CHAPTER ONE – WHAT IS GREY BELT POLICY?
(1) The National Planning Policy Framework
Under NPPF 153, all development in the Green Belt is subject to the Very Special Circumstances (“VSC”) test, unless subject to a specified exception:
“Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.”
Grey Belt development is the most important such exception in force today.
By the operation of NPPF 155, all forms of development are to be considered an exception to inappropriate development where all of the tests in NPPF 155a, 155b, 155c and (as applicable) 155d (incorporating NPPF 156) are met. Throughout this book, these sub-paragraphs shall be labelled Criteria A, B, C and D (for shorthand and in line with two early planning appeal decisions in this field):[1]
[NPPF 155]
- The development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all the following apply:
[Criterion 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;
[Glossary Definition]
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.
[Criterion B]
There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed;
[Criterion C]
The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework; and
[Criterion D: The Golden Rules]
Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 below.
[NPPF 156]
- Where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed on land released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review, or on sites in the Green Belt subject to a planning application, the following contributions (‘Golden Rules’) should be made:
a. affordable housing which reflects either: (i) development plan policies produced in accordance with paragraphs 67-68 of this Framework; or (ii) until such policies are in place, the policy set out in paragraph 157 below;
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. New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite spaces.
Each of the Criteria target a range of different policy objectives.
Criterion A (NPPF 155a) controls for the principal Green Belt harms,[2] by focussing Grey Belt development on sites that make a less than “strong” contribution to the Green Belt purposes (listed in NPPF 143(a), (b) and (d)). It also acts as a filter to ensure that the development is not subject to any major environmental / technical constraint providing a strong reason for refusing or restricting development (as listed in NPPF 11’s footnote 7).[3]
Criterion B (NPPF 155b) ensures that Grey Belt policy only applies where there is a “demonstrable” unmet need. In the housing context, this will automatically be triggered by a housing land supply of less than 5 years or where the Housing Delivery Test score was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous 3 years. The concept of “unmet need” is broad, but in simple terms, it acts (alongside the presumption in favour of sustainable development) to support the grant of permission where the existing development plan or historic approaches to development management have not released sufficient land to meet up-to-date needs. It is also a clear incentive to adopt an up-to-date plan in line with contemporary national planning policy.
Criterion C ensures that the site/development is sustainably located,[4] by cross-reference to NPPF 110 and 115. This ensures that the distribution of Grey Belt development is in the right locations, whilst still mindful of the broader imperative of meeting needs across a variety of different types of site.
Criterion D finally applies the Golden Rules to applications for major housing development, i.e. a significant portion of all Green Belt applications today. The Golden Rules seek to secure additional investment to meet Government’s ambitions for the housing sector.[5] NPPF 156(a) requires that all Grey Belt applications for housing must provide a specific percentage of affordable housing (as defined by NPPF 157 or in due course the new development plan). NPPF 156(b) ensures that applications also make necessary infrastructure contributions (i.e. not under-provide on this component to meet the affordable housing target). Finally, NPPF 156 (c) requires applications to provide or make contributions to new/improved accessible Green Space on or off-site (as defined by NPPF 159). If all of these requirements are met, then a decision-taker must accord the development’s compliance with the Golden Rules significant weight, as a new, free-standing benefit within the planning balance.[6]
The Grey Belt decision-taking policy is therefore revolutionary in two senses. First, it expressly encourages the release of specific areas of Green Belt early ahead of the Local Plan adoption. Second, the policy’s wording, intricate structure and use of parallel PPG guidance is advanced in its specificity and clarity. It provides a very clear route-map to permission, if all the tests are met. Grey Belt policy is therefore both a radical break with past Green Belt policy, and in important ways, a “pathfinder” for the future of the English planning system.
(2) Grey Belt Policy’s Formal Status as a Material Consideration
Grey Belt policy’s formal status is that of a “material consideration”, for the purposes of Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“TCPA”) and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“PCPA”). All underlining is added both here and throughout the book:
Section 70(2) TCPA: “(2) In dealing with an application for planning permission…the authority shall have regard to—
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,
…
(c) any other material considerations.”
Section 38(6) PCPA: “(6) If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Grey Belt policy formally extends beyond NPPF 155-159 and the NPPF’s Glossary Definition of “Grey Belt land” to the Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”) Green Belt Chapter (published on 27 February 2025) and Written Ministerial Statements on the topic.
Each of the different forms of policy enjoy equivalent weight (as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Mead Realisations v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] EWCA Civ 32). That is subject to an important practical proviso that greater weight would ordinarily be accorded to the most recent expression of national policy. For example, the NPPF text of 12 December 2024 plainly post-dates the initial descriptions of the intentions of the policy in the 30 July 2024 Written Ministerial Statement.
(3) National Development Management Policies
At present, national policy does not have express legislative status in decision-taking beyond that within s70(2) TCPA and s38(6) PCPA. However, the English plan-making system is presently undergoing an important (albeit protracted) legislative change to the decision-making provisions in Section 38 PCPA.
Under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (“LURA”), Section 38(6) PCPA is due to be repealed in England and replaced by Section 38(5A)-(5C) PCPA. The new Section 38 will preserve the emphasis upon “the development plan” at sub-sections 38(5A) and (5B) but will also introduce a new parallel consideration: “national development management policies” (“NDMPs”). Sub-section 38(5C) crucially makes clear that in any case of conflict between NDMPs and the development plan, the NDMPs will override/prevail:
“38(5A) For the purposes of any area in England, subsections (5B) and (5C) apply if, for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to—
(a) the development plan, and
(b) any national development management policies.
(5B) Subject to subsections (5) and (5C), the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan and any national development management policies, taken together, unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise.
(5C) If to any extent the development plan conflicts with a national development management policy, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the national development management policy.”
New Section 38ZA PCPA describes NDMPs as follows:
“A “national development management policy” is a policy (however expressed) of the Secretary of State in relation to the development or use of land in England, or any part of England, which the Secretary of State by direction designates as a national development management policy.”
Section 38ZA also controls the procedure for making and revoking NDMPs, including initial consultation, consideration of climate change mitigation/adaptation matters and later consultation on material changes to the NDMPs.
It is therefore open to Government to transport the entirety of Green Belt policy presently in NPPF Chapter 13 into a single comprehensive NDMP, or separate NDMP documents.
The new provisions would not necessarily prevent Government from publishing other forms of policy (notably through further Written Ministerial Statements and Planning Practice Guidance). However, such policy would not have the specific Section 38(5C) status, and it can be envisaged that arguments would be made that separate policy published under these routes would not carry the same weight in decision-taking. In summary, the direction of travel is towards a national policy that enjoys a very strong status indeed, especially in cases where the development plan is out-of-date.
In the next Chapter, we shall consider how Grey Belt policy emerged as a response to early 21st century Green Belt policy, (as developed throughout the second half of the 20th century) to discern key principles for how the policy should be applied in applications and appeals today.
MORE INFORMATION / PURCHASE THE BOOK ONLINE
[1] 3347424 – Great Barr, Walsall (14 February 2025) and 3346228 – Hadlow (21 February 2025). For brevity, all appeal decisions shall be referred to by their 7-digit reference number, a settlement name within the address and their date.
[2] NPPF (December 2024), Glossary: “Grey belt”
[3] NPPF Footnote 7
[4] NPPF 155
[5] NPPF 156 and 159
[6] NPPF 158