The awaited update to planning practice guidance on Green Belt has landed and, on initial review, generally provides useful, albeit brief, guidance on the steps to be applied when identifying grey belt land and how this should be applied to plan-making and decision-taking.
We focus here on the clarified process for Green Belt Assessment to identify grey belt land and its implications for existing Green Belt assessments as part of the plan making process.
Following on from the Lichfields blog "Opportunity knocks: navigating the steps to ‘not inappropriate’ grey belt development", which has been updated to reflect the new guidance, we also summarise the additional clarification the guidance provides for applicants and decision-takers.
There is going to be much more assessment work to be done, whether that’s updating previous Green Belt assessments or examining the credentials of sites that are potential grey belt candidates. This will bring out the best of the planning profession who are uniquely placed to consider granular site-based assessment and LPA area-based assessment, drawing together all the necessary specialist skills. And, of course, it is important to remember that land being considered grey belt is merely a gateway to the application of the tilted planning balance, and all the assessment work required to do that.
Grey Belt Assessment and plan-making
Taking plan-making first, for those local authorities reviewing their Green Belt to meet housing (and other) needs it confirms that a Green Belt Assessment is required to identify grey belt land at plan making stage. And such assessments will need to be informed by the guidance. They are expected to be undertaken primarily by Local Planning Authorities (LPA) (or groups of LPAs) and can be prepared at any relevant point.
Local authorities will need to consider whether Green Belt Assessments prepared prior to this guidance remain up to date or are fit for purpose in defining grey belt.
The five key steps in Green Belt Assessment are to:
- Identify the location and appropriate scale of assessment areas,
- Assess the contribution of the identified assessment areas to Green Belt Purposes (a), (b) and (d)[1]
- Consider whether the policies at Footnote 7 of the NPPF[2] provide a strong reason for restricting development in each assessment area
- Identify grey belt (having regard to 2 and 3 above) and then
- Identify whether the release of land from the Green Belt would fundamentally undermine the purpose served by the remaining Green Belt across the whole of the plan area (taking all five of the Green Belt purposes together)[3]
Guidance is given on each of these five steps when identifying grey belt land and undertaking Green Belt assessment. This process will apply equally to applications and appeals, albeit that for decision-taking the assessment area will be the site, which may or may not reflect an existing or proposed Green Belt assessment area. (our blog regarding Grey Belt Development Assessment is here.)
Step 1 is defining the size of the assessment areas. These should be defined locally and respond to local circumstances. The acknowledgement of the need for sufficient granularity in the assessment is particularly important. Looking at smaller assessment areas, where appropriate, should ensure that opportunities presented by smaller parcels to accommodate development – such as those that are already developed or are well contained physically and visually - are not lost within overly large assessment areas/ parcels. It would be helpful if the land put forward for development, for example through a Call for Sites exercise, could inform the identification of assessment areas.
The guidance on Step 2 - assessing the contribution that the identified assessment areas make to the relevant Green Belt purposes - provides some clarity on the interpretation of each purpose and sets out, in tabulated form, the ‘illustrative features’ of areas that make a ‘strong’, ‘moderate’ and ‘weak or none’ contribution to each purpose.
The use of common terms ‘strong’, ‘moderate’ and ‘weak’ will introduce some helpful consistency in Green Belt Assessments across different local authority areas. It seems likely that existing Green Belt Assessments that have adopted different scales or terms may need to be reviewed, especially if they aren’t clear in their definition of strong contribution.
The scale of settlement to which the relevant Green Belt purposes relate is confirmed. It applies to towns, not villages. No definition of town is included which may lead to some variation in definition in practice. This fits with the strategic nature of Green Belt and the purposes it serves, as originally intended. Although this is consistent with the use of the word in the purposes, there are many Green Belt studies that have applied this to smaller settlements and will require updating to reflect this.
The ‘illustrative features’ set out under each purpose and contribution are not comprehensive and there is the potential for differences in interpretation on the ground.
For example, in relation to purpose (a), land that is partly enclosed by the settlement could fall under ‘moderate’ or ‘weak’ contributions category. However, that may not ultimately make a difference when identifying grey belt, as only strongly contributing areas are excluded from the definition.
It is also unfortunate that there is no definition of sprawl or, any acknowledgement that well-designed and properly planned and masterplanned places do not constitute sprawl under purpose (a).
The guidance on purpose (b) – preventing towns merging - helpfully confirms that areas that make a strong contribution to this purpose will form both a substantial part of a gap between towns and be likely to result in the loss of visual separation between them (as well as being likely to be free from development). Visual impact assessment will be a key tool in determining how areas/sites perform under this purpose.
A definition of ‘historic town’ would also have been helpful under purpose (d). The 2015 Planning Advisory Service Green Belt guidance noted that in practice this purpose relates to relatively few towns. Further consideration to the issues associated with the interpretation of this part of the guidance will be subject of a future Lichfields Planning Matters blog.
This guidance applies to decision-taking, although the assessment would be of the site, rather than a defined assessment area selected by the local planning authority (albeit these could be the same).
Step 3 is the application of Footnote 7 policies to determine whether these provide a ‘strong reason’ for restricting development in that assessment area.
It is notable that this step follows steps 1 and 2, rather than the footnote 7 areas being scoped out of Green Belt Assessments at an initial stage, as all Green Belt needs to be considered in the first instance. Instead, the contribution of assessment areas in these locations will also need to be considered, before looking at whether there are strong reasons for restricting development. This is likely to be another reason for existing Green Belt studies to be updated.
This section introduces the potential to provisionally identify land as grey belt ahead of more detailed proposals coming forward, so its potential to be considered as grey belt is not ruled out without taking into account how the application of policy to a development proposal affects a site’s status. This will particularly be the case where the characteristics of a site, the nature of a development and/or the potential for mitigation may enable a conclusion to be reached that a strong reason for restriction doesn’t exist.
Step 4 identifies grey belt land combining the conclusions from steps 2 and 3 to identify those parcels that don’t contribute strongly to purposes (a), (b) or (d) and where the application of footnote 7 policies (other than Green Belt) does not provide a strong reason for refusing development as is illustrated at Figure 1 of the PPG ‘When can land be identified as grey belt’ (paragraph 007 Reference ID: 64-007-20250225) (see also the Lichfields Grey Belt Development Assessment Flowchart).
Once land has been identified as grey belt the guidance confirms that:
“…it does not automatically follow that it should be allocated for development, released from the Green Belt or for development proposals to be approved in all circumstances….”
As paragraph 148 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says “where it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give priority to previously developed land, then consider grey belt which is not previously developed, and then other Green Belt locations”. So, the priority remains with previously developed land, with further consideration needing to be given to factors including the need for sustainable development patterns and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions when identifying grey belt allocations.
The final step in Green Belt Assessment - Step 5 - is to assess the impact of releasing land on the remaining Green Belt. This applies to all Green Belt releases being considered in the plan (whether grey belt or not).
The test is whether the removal of the land to be released (or developed in the case of decision making) would fundamentally undermine all five of the purposes served by the remaining Green Belt across the Plan area. This is the only point at which a Green Belt Assessment seeking to identify grey belt land will consider Green Belt purposes c) and e).
The guidance is helpful to those considering or promoting Green Belt releases in that it is clear that the effects should be assessed in the context of the performance of the Green Belt across the local authority area overall, rather than an unduly detailed focus in discrete areas. However, the guidance on this step is brief notwithstanding that it may be a difficult area of the application of policy to navigate.
This test reflects the first test of appropriateness, for development assessment purposes, at paragraph 155a) of the NPPF – having already established whether or not the site is grey belt.
Guidance for grey belt proposals
The remainder of the Green Belt guidance briefly amplifies NPPF policies relating to proposals on Green Belt land, including considering the potential impact of development on Green Belt openness. It does not address all of the appropriateness tests that determine whether or not a grey belt proposal should be considered ‘not inappropriate’ development in the Green Belt (see the Lichfields Opportunity Knocks blog, which links to our flowchart setting out the grey belt tests and four appropriateness tests).
LPAs should consider evidence that reflects the guidance
The guidance explains that where grey belt sites are not identified in local plans or Green Belt assessment, LPAs should consider evidence that flows from the guidance, which has assessed whether a site meet the grey belt tests and whether development of the site would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area.
Sustainable locations and the green spaces Golden Rule
Guidance relating to two other appropriateness tests will be useful when building the case for the release of site, as well as for determining whether or not a grey belt site not identified in a local plan should be granted planning permission.
The two other grey belt appropriateness tests covered by the guidance are: establishing whether a site is in a sustainable location (both when Green Belt boundaries are being reviewed and when a grey belt application is being determined) (para 155c), and, for major housing development, the green spaces element of the ‘Golden Rules’ (para 155d). As expected, there is no further guidance on what constitutes unmet need (para 155b).
As noted earlier, the importance of identifying grey belt sites that promote sustainable patterns of development are key to their release from the Green Belt or, in the more immediate term, approval of planning permission. Para 148 of the NPPF says:
“When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should determine whether a site’s location is appropriate with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework”.
While local context and consideration of opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions are important, the guidance is clear that development of land in a location that is not, or not cannot be made, sustainable is inappropriate.
The guidance also provides a much expanded list of the contributions to accessible green space that should be considered in respect of that Golden Rule (para 156c). The guidance does not suggest that all contributions should be made, but an assessment as to whether each is appropriate is inferred.
Our ‘ Opportunity Knocks' blog has been updated following release of the new guidance and includes discussion on all four appropriateness tests.
Grey belt assessment and the planning balance
The guidance reminds that where a site ‘passes’ a Green Belt assessment and is considered grey belt that does not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt, if developed, in addition to the grey belt related tests set out in the NPPF, wider policy considerations apply including the development plan and the NPPF read as a whole (para 010).
Considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt
Of particular interest to those promoting development on potential grey belt land is the confirmation in the PPG that where development is ‘not inappropriate’ and on previously developed or grey belt land (and thus NPPF footnote 55 applies) there is no need to give substantial weight to any harm to Green Belt (including the effect on openness) and there is therefore not need to set out ‘very special circumstances’.
In addition, the guidance provides a helpful non-exhaustive list of matters that may need be taking into account when assessment openness, as identified by the Courts.
Case study: a pre-guidance planning permission, in HertfordshireOn 17 February 2025 St Albans City and District Council resolved to grant planning permission for up to 550 dwellings on Green Belt land adjacent to the built-up area of Harpenden. This case study, where Lichfields was the agent for the application, is a great example of Council officers charting a pathway through the NPPF policy requirements, and without the benefit of any guidance beforehand!
The site was considered to be grey belt, with reference made to a Green Belt review prepared for the Local Plan. Due to the site’s containment on the edge of Harpenden officers concluded that the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. There was a demonstrable unmet need reflected in the Housing Delivery Test and a lack of five-year supply, and the site would be sustainable in locational terms, and would include a range of sustainable transport improvements that would support and encourage alternative methods of travel. Onto the golden rules and officers considered they were met, helped by the applicant increasing its offer of affordable housing from 40% to 50% during the application.
Having got to this juncture, where all grey belt boxes were ticked, officers also demonstrated very special circumstances in case the site was not considered to utilise grey belt. Based on a consideration of both scenarios’ officers recommended that the proposal would accord with the development plan and planning permission should be granted. The grey belt was undoubtedly an important matter and cast the site in a different and more positive light to members, on a close-run decision of 5-4 in favour.
|
||
Application of the guidance and potential future updates
The tables in the guidance, which set out illustrative features that would indicate the contribution land makes to Green Belt purposes a), b), or d) are particularly useful.
The relatively brief guidance reflects that the tests can be explained in a straightforward manner – the complexity and depth arises from the need for detailed, highly site-specific assessments. In addition to the Green Belt assessments to which the guidance relates, to make a case for site release or to support a planning application on a Green Belt site, other assessments of economic need, sustainable transportation, green space and viability will be required. These would be in addition to the assessments that would be required to support other planning policy matters to be addressed and, potentially, legislative matters, such as Environmental Impact Assessment.
Land being considered grey belt is a gateway to the application of the tilted planning balance, rather than a guarantee that planning permission will be granted.
Guidance is very likely to evolve to reflect clarifications regarding its application and perhaps to provide some best practice.
Footnotes
[1] The Green Belt purposes are set out at NPPF paragraph 143 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67aafe8f3b41f783cca46251/NPPF_December_2024.pdf
[2] The relevant policies are habitats sites (and those sites listed in NPPF paragraph 194) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Local Green Space, a National Landscape, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 75); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.
[3] The Green Belt purposes are set out at NPPF paragraph 143 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67aafe8f3b41f783cca46251/NPPF_December_2024.pdf
Image credit: Adapted from Cup of Couple on Pexels
