Posted: 20/12/2024
In December 2024, the government published its much-awaited National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). One of the most substantial changes since the previous NPPF version (released in December last year) involves amendments to policy regarding the green belt.
The notion of ‘green belt’ has existed since before the 1940s, at which point its primary function was to create a buffer around built up areas to prevent ‘urban sprawl’ during the post-war rebuilding period. Green belt policy has evolved significantly over the years, to adapt to the challenges and realities of the times, and is contained in the NPPF. In the current climate of constant pressure to meet the need for housing, the green belt has been seen as an important tool to unlock the planning system in the hope of speeding up the approval of housing development projects.
The government’s proposals to revise green belt policy received significant comment and speculation during the NPPF consultation period, as it became necessary to re-examine what the green belt now means to us, whether it is still fit for purpose, and whether it can be seen as more of a valuable resource that can be put to productive use, rather than simply acting as a negative – something that just cannot be touched, save in exceptional circumstances.
The new NPPF goes a long way to achieving this, while avoiding a complete overhaul of the existing green belt policy. The key element is a new category of ‘grey belt land’, which is a recognition that not all green belt land is of a good quality, or in need of protecting. This article sets out the key changes to green belt policy introduced by the new NPPF.
Green belt policy is contained in chapter 13 of the NPPF. Paragraph 138 sets out the five purposes of the green belt, which remain unchanged:
(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.’
In the context of the lack of housing, there has been consistent pressure on local authorities to review their green belt boundaries through the making or reviewing of plans. The previous version of the NPPF contained wording clarifying that there was no requirement for local authorities to do so, which has now been removed.
The position remains that local authorities should only alter existing green belt boundaries where there are ‘exceptional circumstances’, and the revised NPPF now states expressly that these include ‘instances where an authority cannot meet its identified need for homes, commercial or other development by other means, in which case authorities should review their green belt boundaries, unless the review provides clear evidence that this would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining green belt when considered across the area of the plan’ (paragraph 145).
This places significant pressure on local authorities to revise their green belt boundaries if they cannot meet their development needs.
As expected, a new category of ‘grey belt’ land has been introduced. This is defined as: ‘land in the green belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land which, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a)(b) or (d) above’.
This is a very wide definition which will be very much open to interpretation and will likely be highly contested on applications, appeals and challenges. Interestingly it does not include (c) ‘safeguarding the countryside from encroachment’ or (e) ‘assisting in urban regeneration’ which, as noted in the government’s consultation response, was seen by many as too ambiguous.
It is provided that grey belt land cannot include land where the following designations would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development (eg SSSIs, habitats sites, irreplaceable habitats, designated heritage assets, or areas at risk of flooding or coastal change).
The definition of previously developed land has been expanded and, in particular, now expressly includes hardstanding.
Paragraph 148 introduces a hierarchy to be applied when considering the release of green belt land for development, based on the ‘quality’ of that green belt land:
In determining the appropriateness of green belt land for development, the need to promote sustainable methods of transport is also paramount.
The ‘golden rules’ apply where a major development involving housing is proposed on land released from the green belt through plan preparation or review, or on green belt sites subject to a planning application – a development complying with these golden rules should be given significant weight in favour of granting permission, for example:
Where no development plan policy exists, paragraph 157 provides a temporary policy: the affordable housing contribution required to satisfy the golden rules is 15% above the highest existing affordable housing requirement that would otherwise apply, subject to a cap of 50% (this does not apply to rural exception sites or community led development exception sites), or if the LPA has relevant existing policy which would apply to the development and is above 50%. If there is no pre-existing requirement for affordable housing, 50% should apply by default.
In paragraph 67 (delivering a sufficient supply of homes), as part of the golden rules, a specific affordable housing requirement should be set for major development involving the provision of housing, either on land which is proposed to be released from the green belt, or which may be permitted on land within the green belt. The requirement should:
a) ‘be set at a higher level than that which would otherwise apply to land which is not within or proposed to be released from the Green Belt; and
b) require at least 50% of the housing to be affordable, unless this would make the development of these sites unviable (when tested in accordance with national planning practice guidance on viability)’.
The NPPF states that LPAs should give substantial weight to any harm to the green belt, that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances, which will not exist unless the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations (now paragraph 153), and that development in the green belt is always inappropriate unless one of the exceptions set out in paragraph 154 exists.
In addition, the new paragraph 155 specifies that the development of homes, commercial and other developments in the green belt will not be inappropriate where:
A new footnote 55 confirms that harm to the green belt includes harm to its openness, but caveating that this does not apply in the context of previously developed land, or grey belt land where development is not inappropriate.
The changes to the NPPF have been generally welcomed as a solid effort in seeking to address the need for housing and other development, and making productive use out of the parts of the green belt that are not meeting the green belt purposes.
More detail is expected in the amendments to the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) promised in the New Year, and for some of the changes set out above to be hotly discussed and debated in applications, appeals and challenges in the coming months.
Angela Rayner has so far proven herself to not be shy of stepping in to unblock developments (such as the recently approved data centre on green belt land in Iver), and it would not be a surprise to see heightened government interest in planning applications involving the green belt in the next few months.
For a general overview of the key differences between the new NPPF and the previous version, please click here.
© 2024 Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.
All rights reserved.
Website design by Frontmedia / Dynamic Pear
Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC311575 and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 419867.
Return to news headlines 
