Manifesto pledge

When in opposition, the Labour party first mentioned the idea of a grey belt in their Housing Plan announced in April this year and subsequently carried it over into their manifesto.

Committed to preserving the green belt, the party sought to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives by:

• Avoiding ‘haphazard’ release of the green belt ‘for speculative housebuilding’
• Maintaining the ‘purpose and general extent’ of the green belt
• Taking ‘a more strategic approach to green belt land designation and release to build more homes in the right places’
• Prioritising the release of lower quality ‘grey belt’ land and introducing ‘golden rules’ to ensure development benefits communities and nature

So, what is the grey belt concept?

The first thing to note is that the use of the word ‘belt’ may be something of a misnomer. Unlike the green belt, which has been designed to encircle settlements to prevent urban sprawl, encroachment on the countryside and to keep settlements separate, the grey belt does not actually wrap around anything. Instead, the government refers to it as ‘targeted release’ from green belt, more akin to infill development or proportionate urban extensions.

Prior to the election, when campaigning, the Labour party referred to:

• poor quality land, car parks and wastelands
• poor quality scrubland, mothballed on the outskirts of town
• a car park or similar land which does not affect the beauty of the countryside
• a disused petrol station

The grey belt definition

The newly introduced grey belt definition contained within the NPPF states:

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.

The three of the five purposes of green belt mentioned within the definition are:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

Given the above definition, sites within the green belt comprising previously developed land and any other parcels and/or areas that make a limited contribution to the aim of the green belt, but excluding areas or assets of particular importance (i.e. land with an existing environmental designation) could constitute ‘grey belt’.

Paragraph 155 of the NPPF also refers to forms of development which are not inappropriate in the green belt. They are:

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
b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed
c. The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework
d. Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 below

As previously indicated, within the government’s consultation on the NPPF, grey belt land must have at least one of the following features:

• Land containing substantial built development or which is fully enclosed by built form
• Land which makes no or very little contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another
• Land which is dominated by urban land uses, including physical developments
• Land which contributes little to preserving the setting and special character of historic towns

What are the ‘Golden Rules’?

There are three ‘Golden Rules’ that have been introduced by the government. They are essentially contributions that should be made where residential development is proposed within the green belt. They concern affordable housing, infrastructure improvements and improvements to publicly accessible green space.

In respect to affordable housing, proposals must reflect the relevant development plan policies produced in accordance with paragraphs 67-68 of the Framework. However, if such policies do not exist or have not yet been adopted, an affordable housing contribution will be sought which is 15% above the highest existing affordable housing requirement which would otherwise apply to the development, with a cap of 50%.

For many applicants or developers, infrastructure improvements at a local and/or national level are not necessarily new considerations, nor is providing new or improved areas of public open green space as part of residential developments.

Nonetheless, if the three Golden Rules are all complied with then this ‘should be given significant weight in favour of the grant of permission’.

How will the grey belt be set?

The answer to this lies across two different strands: local plan making and decision-taking.

Plan making

Under the new NPPF, local planning authorities (LPAs) will remain responsible for defining and maintaining the extent of green belt within their jurisdictions as part of the Local Plan. However, the recent revisions go further than before – stating specifically that the ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying green belt alterations include, but are not limited to, ‘instances where an authority cannot meet its identified need for housing, commercial or other development through other means’ (unless the arising alterations would ‘fundamentally undermine’ the function of the green belt).

LPAs will be directed to consider previously developed land (or brownfield sites) first before moving onto grey belt sites and then finally green belt sites which can be made more sustainable (i.e. land near a train station).

As such, LPAs will need to be mindful of their housing land supply and delivery targets when determining whether they will need to allocate grey belt development land, and have full evidence of the quality of their existing green belt.

Decision-taking

Under the amended NPPF, LPAs are reminded that they should still regard building in the green belt as inappropriate – with any development only approved in very special circumstances (VSC) where the potential harm to the green belt is ‘clearly outweighed’ by other considerations.

There is opportunity for the grey belt to appear suitable for development in decision-taking, as the NPPF makes clear that green belt development should not be regarded as inappropriate where:

• Development would utilise grey belt land in sustainable locations
• In the case of ‘major development’, the so-called ‘Golden Rules’ are satisfied:
  • at least 15% affordable housing (above relevant policy requirement, up to 50% cap), with appropriate proportion of social rent, subject to viability
  • it provides necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure
  • it provides new or improved green spaces accessible to the public
• LPAs cannot demonstrate a five-year housing supply or where the Housing Delivery Test indicates less than 75% delivery over the previous three years
• There is a demonstrable need for land to be released for development of local, regional or national importance

Conclusion

While the definition of the grey belt has now been clarified, it is mainly based on guiding principles. As such, there is significant scope for subjective interpretation, and we expect the industry to feel its way through the initial period, promoting candidate sites, or submitting speculative applications, with the traditional very special circumstances argument as a backup. 

However, what the amendments make clear is that the green belt should not be a barrier to development per se – so long as the land in question is edge of settlement, or in an otherwise sustainable location; provides suitable affordable housing and local infrastructure (in accordance with the new ‘Golden Rules’); is not subject to an existing environmental designation; and does not serve – or significantly undermine – purposes (a), (b) and (d) of the green belt. 

Further information

Contact Lloyd King or Tom Sharman