Less than 10% of green belt to be built on under grey belt rules, housing minister says

The government’s revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published last week, sets out a new definition of grey belt.

The new classification is defined as green belt land which does not strongly contribute to three purposes: to check sprawl of built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; and to preserve the setting and character of historic towns.

Mr Pennycook told peers: “We knew that if we were going to significantly increase housebuilding rates, that we needed to release more land, and do so more strategically.

“[But] we recognise the public value provided by the green belt, and therefore any development on land released from it should be subject to enhanced tests.”

He was speaking at the committee’s final evidence session as part of its inquiry into the grey belt and its potential impact on housebuilding.

Asked for the government’s estimate of the scale of development that will be enabled through release of the grey belt, the minister pointed to independent studies by planning consultancies Lichfields and LandTech that said 15% and 9% of England’s total green belt could be released respectively.

However, Mr Pennycook continued: “On top of that, do those parcels of land meet the requirements of the NPPF in terms of sustainability, and does it meet our golden rules?”

“Modest is still impactful, even if we’re not talking about a significant quantum of the green belt as a whole,” he added.

Two months ago, sector bodies warned that a lack of clarity on the definition of grey belt could lead to legal challenges and slow development.

Asked yesterday if the grey belt definition is specific enough to prevent protracted legal disputes, Mr Pennycook said the revised definition “does introduce greater clarity, by streamlining the purposes that grey belt is to be assessed and setting a clear bar on quality”.

He added: “I’m not saying for one moment that some people might not attempt to litigate this issue… but we do think it is a far clearer and tighter definition.”

William Burgon, director for planning at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, pointed out that the finalised definition of grey belt takes fewer green belt purposes into account.

Encroachment on the countryside and urban regeneration are “very hard to apply to individual sites and they’re probably more open to subjective debate and therefore protracted dispute were we to leave them in, so for those reasons those have come out and we think that does strengthen it”, he said.

Mr Burgon added: “We wouldn’t want to see land released in areas of special scientific interest where understandably environmental protections exist.”

However, he said: “If you’re a flood-risk area, or a local green space designation, a judgement can be made by the authority. So those things are no longer binary, in or out.”

Last week it was also revealed that ministers will publish further guidance on green belt reviews in January 2025, to ensure a “more consistent approach to the identification of grey belt land”.

This will assist in ensuring inappropriate or high-performing land is not identified for release or development, and will set out how the performance of green belt should be assessed.

This guidance will also focus on ensuring that parcels of land identified for development do not fundamentally undermine the purpose of the green belt.