What is Grey Belt
Grey Belt Explained: How the 2024 NPPF Changes Impact Green Belt Development.
In 2024 the government made a series of changes to the NPPF that saw the introduction of a new definition or subset designation that applies to land that holds green belt status. Grey belt is what they called it and to say that it’s created quite the grey area for interpretation is, in my opinion, an understatement.
It’s fair to say that as land developers, we welcome any policy that increases the likelihood of land being made available or makes building houses easier. It’s how we earn a living after all. I can see why some people may think this is not the right way to go about increasing the land supply however this is the policy in place and this is what we have to work with. So what exactly does this new definition do?
The general idea is to adopt a more pragmatic approach to the value of green belt status in certain circumstances. For example, I know of a site in Hertfordshire designated as green belt yet is surrounded on 3 sides by commercial and industrial developments as well as a new housing estate close by. Planning consent was sought prior to the grey belts existence and permission was refused automatically due to green belt status and this decision was upheld at appeal.
Had planning consent been sought more recently, there is a good chance it would have been approved thanks to the grey belt argument that actually the green belt status doesn’t really hold up in this particular instance so planning consent should be approved.
One of the main purposes of green belt status is to reduce urban sprawl into the countryside and was introduced into formal policy in 1947 through the Town and Country Planning Act at which time local councils were able to designate their own green belt land. This was, at the time of writing, nearly 80 years ago. So for 80 years land availability surrounding larger urban areas has been heavily restricted.
In the example above, you could argue that as 3 sides of the site have already seen the sprawl take place, this land should be considered brownfield, or an infill site to round out the curtilage, thus rendering green belt status redundant. This is exactly what grey belt status is designed to do, fill in all the gaps where land is available and suitable for development yet hasn’t been thus far due to protection by green belt status.
Some of the examples of this cited when the government was campaigning during the election cycle included sites such as abandoned or disused petrol stations, unused scrub lands, wastelands or land considered poor quality although I’m still not certain what poor quality land looks like..
Professional biases aside and whatever you think of the current or any previous administration for that matter, in my opinion this seems to be a fairly sensible approach to increasing land supply without inflicting too much damage to the countryside. We are after all a small island where land availability is scarce and demand for housing is perpetually increasing.